ISI-History and Discussions

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by vsudhir »

Frankly, been at a loss as to what in the now-edited post might've been atypically insightful. Below I post some of the lines of thought that were brought together.

1. Britain, a tiny island ruled India - the richest and most advanced of the ancient civilizations, and reduced it to beggary. India's and Indians' faults in allowing this sorry episode to occur cannot be excused or overlooked. The Brits though, had every reason to believe their proxy in the region - TSP - could just as well and just as smoothly dominate free India post 1947. India in any case was a wounded civilization and it wasn't then clear it could rise again.

2. The Brits learnt well that a potential power whose energies were not diverted into unwinnable feuds would soon learn to weild and project power. So a feud/feuds had to be fanned if extant, excerbated if dormant and created if nonexistant. The example carries over to how the Brits handled the defeated Ottomans and carved up the caliphate. The seeds of that SNAFU proved propitious down the line post WWII. The Arab-Jewish feud provided lasting fuel decade after decade for the West in general and the Brits in particular to egg on two regional rival sides against each other (so beautifully worded in the post above as 'exhaust power potential fighting against itself'). Of course, one side (typically, the bigger one) winning the feud would do the great-gamers no good. So The balance was sought to mainted decade after decade through changing times, climes and governments by supporting the weaker side just enough to counter balance the other.

3. Is PRC a power rising uncomfortably rapidly and at peace? Perhaps. But what exists to dissipate PRC energies inwards preferably or within Asia? Tibet? India? The recognition that the balance of power in Asia is wellon its way to being lost may have prompted, perhaps, a belated desire to support India for 'feuding/feudal balance' to be restored? Possibly. Too bad India refused to bite the plain bait - preferring not to be counted upon to balance PRC, officially. Did the game change then? Possibly, again.

4. Of course, really large, continental sized powers need extra divertions to be kept preoccuppied. So one TSP against an India can't possibly be sufficient. Faultlines inside India can and will be exploited where extant, created where not. Rumor mongering? Consipratorial? Maybe, maybe not. But the weight of great gaming history, the will to power, the amorality of and the incentive of powerplay all point to one inference only. India's faultlines too are nothing to brush away. The issue of 'dailts'/indigenous peoples/tribals etc, the influence of the church in NE insurgencies, the aiding and abetting of Maoist insurgencies (Yup, the Purulia arms drop among countless others was carried out by UK spooks), the influence peddling vis-a-vis media and work-permits/greencards, univ education abroad etcare cogs in the wheel. Every other violent insurgency, organised criminality, and outright fugitives from our justice system ahve been given asylum in UK - from Isaac Muiviah to musician Nadeem. Brazenly and openly. And yet, the Brits manage to claim a desire for friendship with India with a straight face. For now.

5. The US, UK's inheritor of the global empire didn't quite inherit the great game tendencies to the same extent. After the SU's demise, it was but a matter of time before the inevitable would be attempted, regardless of official spin. Niall Ferguson's lessons in Empire were warmly received by the neocon project. Where it stands now remains unclear. But the creation of Kosovo as an independent state, trouble sown in Burma, Iran, Nepal, Ceylon - all point to the same old strategy in play.

5. The law of unintended consequences and the weight of accumulated bad karma cannot be underestimated. The gamble that saw the west back the wahabi horse has metastasized into the radical islam genie and come back to haunt the world and their home countries also. The truth getting out and the elites in these countries recognising the same are serious risks for the USUQ tagteam. Similarly, if a PRC and India were indeed to normalize relations, if a TSP were to collapse despite the best efforts of its sponsors, what reason or chance does UQ have to continue to smile and claim friendship with these civilzations?

JMTs etc.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

Thank you for posting it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

Looking at the drivers motivating the ISI looks like it djinn and coke.

Djinn for Islamist world view and coke for the financing of their schemes.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4826
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by KLNMurthy »

vsudhir wrote:Frankly, been at a loss as to what in the now-edited post might've been atypically insightful. Below I post some of the lines of thought that were brought together.

1. Britain, a tiny island ruled India - the richest and most advanced of the ancient civilizations, and reduced it to beggary. India's and Indians' faults in allowing this sorry episode to occur cannot be excused or overlooked. The Brits though, had every reason to believe their proxy in the region - TSP - could just as well and just as smoothly dominate free India post 1947. India in any case was a wounded civilization and it wasn't then clear it could rise again.

2. The Brits learnt well that a potential power whose energies were not diverted into unwinnable feuds would soon learn to weild and project power. So a feud/feuds had to be fanned if extant, excerbated if dormant and created if nonexistant. The example carries over to how the Brits handled the defeated Ottomans and carved up the caliphate. The seeds of that SNAFU proved propitious down the line post WWII. The Arab-Jewish feud provided lasting fuel decade after decade for the West in general and the Brits in particular to egg on two regional rival sides against each other (so beautifully worded in the post above as 'exhaust power potential fighting against itself'). Of course, one side (typically, the bigger one) winning the feud would do the great-gamers no good. So The balance was sought to mainted decade after decade through changing times, climes and governments by supporting the weaker side just enough to counter balance the other.

3. Is PRC a power rising uncomfortably rapidly and at peace? Perhaps. But what exists to dissipate PRC energies inwards preferably or within Asia? Tibet? India? The recognition that the balance of power in Asia is wellon its way to being lost may have prompted, perhaps, a belated desire to support India for 'feuding/feudal balance' to be restored? Possibly. Too bad India refused to bite the plain bait - preferring not to be counted upon to balance PRC, officially. Did the game change then? Possibly, again.

4. Of course, really large, continental sized powers need extra divertions to be kept preoccuppied. So one TSP against an India can't possibly be sufficient. Faultlines inside India can and will be exploited where extant, created where not. Rumor mongering? Consipratorial? Maybe, maybe not. But the weight of great gaming history, the will to power, the amorality of and the incentive of powerplay all point to one inference only. India's faultlines too are nothing to brush away. The issue of 'dailts'/indigenous peoples/tribals etc, the influence of the church in NE insurgencies, the aiding and abetting of Maoist insurgencies (Yup, the Purulia arms drop among countless others was carried out by UK spooks), the influence peddling vis-a-vis media and work-permits/greencards, univ education abroad etcare cogs in the wheel. Every other violent insurgency, organised criminality, and outright fugitives from our justice system ahve been given asylum in UK - from Isaac Muiviah to musician Nadeem. Brazenly and openly. And yet, the Brits manage to claim a desire for friendship with India with a straight face. For now.

5. The US, UK's inheritor of the global empire didn't quite inherit the great game tendencies to the same extent. After the SU's demise, it was but a matter of time before the inevitable would be attempted, regardless of official spin. Niall Ferguson's lessons in Empire were warmly received by the neocon project. Where it stands now remains unclear. But the creation of Kosovo as an independent state, trouble sown in Burma, Iran, Nepal, Ceylon - all point to the same old strategy in play.

5. The law of unintended consequences and the weight of accumulated bad karma cannot be underestimated. The gamble that saw the west back the wahabi horse has metastasized into the radical islam genie and come back to haunt the world and their home countries also. The truth getting out and the elites in these countries recognising the same are serious risks for the USUQ tagteam. Similarly, if a PRC and India were indeed to normalize relations, if a TSP were to collapse despite the best efforts of its sponsors, what reason or chance does UQ have to continue to smile and claim friendship with these civilzations?

JMTs etc.
Do we have a game of our own? Or are we forever resigned to being the target of someone else's games and spend all our energy in defending against them?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

We might have game of our own but Indian security is like a n-dimensional body in a dark space and ocassionally we see the projection in 2-d space when there is flash of revelation. We have to guess its shape from that! So bear with us.

First lest understand the open game and then we can try to see the Indian moves in light of that knowledge.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

July 20, 2008
The World

When Spies Don’t Play Well With Their Allies
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — As they complete their training at “The Farm,” the Central Intelligence Agency’s base in the Virginia tidewater, young agency recruits are taught a lesson they are expected never to forget during assignments overseas: there is no such thing as a friendly intelligence service.

Foreign spy services, even those of America’s closest allies, will try to manipulate you. So you had better learn how to manipulate them back.

But most C.I.A. veterans agree that no relationship between the spy agency and a foreign intelligence service is quite as byzantine, or as maddening, as that between the C.I.A. and Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or I.S.I.

It is like a bad marriage in which both spouses have long stopped trusting each other, but would never think of breaking up because they have become so mutually dependent.

Without the I.S.I.’s help, American spies in Pakistan would be incapable of carrying out their primary mission in the country: hunting Islamic militants, including top members of Al Qaeda. Without the millions of covert American dollars sent annually to Pakistan, the I.S.I. would have trouble competing with the spy service of its archrival, India.

But the relationship is complicated by a web of competing interests. First off, the top American goal in the region is to shore up Afghanistan’s government and security services to better fight the I.S.I.’s traditional proxies, the Taliban, there.

Inside Pakistan, America’s primary interest is to dismantle a Taliban and Qaeda safe haven in the mountainous tribal lands. Throughout the 1990s, Pakistan, and especially the I.S.I., used the Taliban and militants from those areas to exert power in Afghanistan and block India from gaining influence there. The I.S.I. has also supported other militant groups that launched operations against Indian troops in Kashmir, something that complicates Washington’s efforts to stabilize the region.

Of course, there are few examples in history of spy services really trusting one another. After all, people who earn their salaries by lying and assuming false identities probably don’t make the most reliable business partners. Moreover, spies know that the best way to steal secrets is to penetrate the ranks of another spy service.

But circumstances have for years forced successful, if ephemeral, partnerships among spies. The Office of Strategic Services, the C.I.A.’s predecessor, worked with the K.G.B.’s predecessors to hunt Nazis during World War II, even as the United States and the Soviet Union were quickly becoming adversaries.

These days, the relationship between Moscow and Washington is turning frosty again, over a number of issues. But, quietly, American and Russian spies continue to collaborate to combat drug trafficking and organized crime, and to secure nuclear arsenals.

The relationship between the C.I.A. and the I.S.I. was far less complicated when the United and Pakistan were intently focused on one common goal: kicking the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. For years in the 1980s, the C.I.A. used the I.S.I. as the conduit to funnel arms and money to Afghan rebels fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

But even in those good old days, the two spy services were far from trusting of each other — in particular over Pakistan’s quest for nuclear weapons. In his book “Ghost Wars,” the journalist Steve Coll recounts how the I.S.I. chief in the early 1980s, Gen. Akhtar Abdur Rahman, banned all social contact between his I.S.I. officers and C.I.A. operatives in Pakistan. He was also convinced that the C.I.A. had set up an elaborate bugging network, so he had his officers speak in code on the telephone.

When the general and his aides were invited by the C.I.A. to visit agency training sites in the United States, the Pakistanis were forced to wear blindfolds on the flights into the facilities.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, C.I.A. officers have arrived in Islamabad knowing they will probably depend on the I.S.I. at least as much as they have depended on any liaison spy service in the past. Unlike spying in the capitals of Europe, where agency operatives can blend in to develop a network of informants, only a tiny fraction of C.I.A. officers can walk the streets of Peshawar unnoticed.

And an even smaller fraction could move freely through the tribal areas to scoop up useful information about militant networks there.

Even the powerful I.S.I., which is dominated by Punjabis, Pakistan’s largest ethnic group, has difficulties collecting information in the tribal lands, the home of fiercely independent Pashtun tribes. For this reason, the I.S.I. has long been forced to rely on Pashtun tribal leaders — and in some cases Pashtun militants — as key informants.

Given the natural disadvantages, C.I.A. officers try to get any edge they can through technology, the one advantage they have over the local spies.

For example, the Pakistani government has long restricted where the C.I.A. can fly Predator surveillance drones inside Pakistan, limiting flight paths to approved “boxes” on a grid map.

The C.I.A.’s answer to that restriction? It deliberately flies Predators beyond the approved areas, just to test Pakistani radars. According to one former agency officer, the Pakistanis usually notice.

As American and allied casualty rates in Afghanistan have grown in the last two years, the I.S.I. has become a subject of fierce debate within the C.I.A. Many in the spy agency — particularly those stationed in Afghanistan — accuse their agency colleagues at the Islamabad station of actually being too cozy with their I.S.I. counterparts.

There have been bitter fights between the C.I.A. station chiefs in Kabul and Islamabad, particularly about the significance of the militant threat in the tribal areas. At times, the view from Kabul has been not only that the I.S.I. is actively aiding the militants, but that C.I.A. officers in Pakistan refuse to confront the I.S.I. over the issue.

Veterans of the C.I.A. station in Islamabad point to the capture of a number of senior Qaeda leaders in Pakistan in recent years as proof that the Pakistani intelligence service has often shown a serious commitment to roll up terror networks. It was the I.S.I., they say, that did much of the legwork leading to the capture of operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

And, they point out, the I.S.I. has just as much reason to distrust the Americans as the C.I.A. has to distrust the I.S.I. The C.I.A. largely pulled up stakes in the region after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, rather than staying to resist the chaos and bloody civil war that led ultimately to the Taliban ascendance in the 1990s.

After the withdrawal, the American tools to understand the complexity of relationships in Central and South Asia became rusty. The I.S.I. operates in a neighborhood of constantly shifting alliances, where double dealing is an accepted rule of the game, and the phenomenon is one that many in Washington still have problems accepting.

Until late last year, when he was elevated to the command of the entire army, the Pakistani spymaster who had been running the I.S.I. was Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. American officials describe this smart and urbane general as at once engaging and inscrutable, an avid golfer with occasionally odd affectations. During meetings, he will often spend several minutes carefully hand-rolling a cigarette. Then, after taking one puff, he stubs it out.

The grumbling at the C.I.A. about dealing with Pakistan’s I.S.I. comes with a certain grudging reverence for the spy service’s Machiavellian qualities. Some former spies even talk about the Pakistani agency with a mix of awe and professional jealousy.

One senior C.I.A. official, recently retired, said that of all the foreign spymasters the C.I.A. had dealt with, General Kayani was the most formidable and may have earned the most respect at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The soft-spoken general, he said, is a master manipulator.

“We admire those traits,” he said.

NYT
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by JE Menon »

:)
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by hnair »

:D WTF? somebody is being scrubbed and prepped up for a SAJA award..... Langley loves to bestow the "Order of the Inscrutable Scrotum" to the most pliable, dont they?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

Are the Bengluru blasts a singal form ISI types back off the pressure on Western borders of TSP? Soon after the Kabul Embassy bombing the US started ratcheting the ressure on TSP with Gilani getting visits etc. So are the Bengluru blasts a signal to India not to complain too much? Last nite the TV was shwoing a TSP cabinet mtg resolving to not let foreign troops operate on TSP soil. So maybe US was using the Kabul Embassy bombing origns evidence to pressure the TSP to allow hot pursuit in the FATA land? And these are a message to India there is more to come if this pressure increases?
satya
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by satya »

Ramana

There were reports in print media quoting senior Pentagon officials tht any decision regarding increase in US troop strength wont be taken till new President takes office in 2009 . This was an olive branch from GOTUS to Establishment in TSP with gift of TSP's F-16s being upgraded with US aid . Somewhere the relentless propaganda by TSP establishment tht next terror attack on/ against US interests on 9-11 lines will originate from Frontier areas and only ISI- TSPA nexus holds the castle has gained acceptance in Bush adminstration and they fear tht it will do far more damage to their interests ( inclusive Mccain's being next president ) so GOTUS under Bush wants a status quo in Frontier areas with no attack on US soil.

On ISI , as per open media sources the image one gets of ISI is tht of a messenger and policy executor rather than a policy maker/ strategist . Million dollar question is who are the brains behind such remarkable strategy of choking both Khyber Pass & Karachi port thereby controlling both entry & exit points to TSP ? All these jihadi organizations are mere foot soldiers with ISI being the messenger and the supervisor providing feedback but where's the real policy being made? Even the ideologies of Jihadi Organizations were found to be taught or told to be followed rather than being debated and then accepted ( unlike other insurgencies )

JMTs
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

satya, Go back to leila and see the message of why the name was chosen.
------------
There are no rogue elements in ISI. That story is put out to give plausible deniability to TSP and US. The key is ISI is military intle agency modeled after MI6 and MI5. And has CIA training. Such agencies dont have rogue elements and carry out the tasks assigned.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by enqyoob »

Gola has several times come out with categorical statements that no part of the ISI has ever been "out of control" - that the organization is always and has always been under the direct control of the Pakistan government - meaning Gola-self.

I have never understood why Gola made these declarations, because they were as good as saying: "I AM THE CHIEF TERRORIST!" Best guess is that ISI top brass told Gola to make these statements as they were tired of being painted as terrorists when they were just, as u folks say, "policy executors". But the curious thing is that Gola could get away with saying this. This shows that the GOTUS admin is very much tied into the ISI, which was of course clear on 9/11/2001 because they didn't arrest and shoot the ISI chief who was sitting in the State Dept watching the plane hit the Pentagon.

So what does the Gola gang have on the GOTUS that is so powerful that the GOTUS does not act against the ISI and Pak junta? I have never understood this, or the amazing self-discipline in the WHOTUS if this is true. I would have pressed the Big Red Button and ordered vaporization of most of TSP looong ago.

This question brings us around to "So WHO controls the ISI?" It seems apparent that Gola AND the ISI are pawns in someone else's hands.

This is where I stop the train of reasoning and run away. It's too scary.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by CRamS »

arun wrote:
July 20, 2008
The World

When Spies Don’t Play Well With Their Allies
By MARK MAZZETTI

NYT
Good piece of journalism by Mark MAZZETTI. This article says it all, and it explains why TSPA/ISI are in US cahoots, and until this daliance is obliterated, any talk of US-India strategic partnership is a cruel joke.

A few days ago, India's NSC advisor Narayanan mentioned that India "emphasized" with its international interlocuters that ISI mst be destroyed. I can only imagine the laughter and mockery this must have evoked both at the CIA headquarters in Langley, VA, and terror central in Islamabad. :-).
Raju

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Raju »

ramana wrote:Are the Bengluru blasts a singal form ISI types back off the pressure on Western borders of TSP?
though there is a slight possibility of this but it is tremendously unlikely.
there are newsreports aplenty that US is massing troops on the border for an invasion or attack on Pakistan's borders. Now typically if we take note of Pakistan's ramblings in the past (we can be attacked by any country, but we shall strike back at India) then it makes sense to engineer incidents in bangalore.

But common sense (do Pakistanis have it ?) would suggest that any attack on India esp if it is of a feeble nature like one in bangalore would simply instigate the Indians to strike back that much harder and fully support any American initiative. So basically Pakistan is asking GoI to give it a stronger thappad than what was previously intended.

Does it make sense ?
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

X Post.

The Pakistani’s are to be complimented for sticking the bill for creating and sustaining the Taliban on the US and NATO. With the frustration levels climbing in Afghanistan, I expect yet a another generous aid package coming Pakistan’s way talk of "International Courage" notwithstanding.

Alternatively the US and NATO are to be castigated for their credulous stupidity :P .

From Canada's Globe & Mail :
THE AFGHAN MISSION: 'LET'S HAVE SOME INTERNATIONAL COURAGE ON THIS FRONT'

UN envoy backs Karzai against Pakistan

Canadian the first Western diplomat to publicly support Afghan leader's accusation that Islamabad spies are behind recent attacks

GRAEME SMITH
July 28, 2008

KABUL -- Pakistan's intelligence agents are likely responsible for recent attacks in Afghanistan, and the international community should support the Afghan government's complaints about such activity, a senior United Nations envoy says.

Chris Alexander, a former Canadian ambassador now serving as a UN deputy special representative in Afghanistan, says he believes the Afghan authorities, who say their neighbour's spy service is sending terrorists across the border.

President Hamid Karzai has accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency of plotting many spectacular attacks in his country in recent months, including an attempt on his life and an embassy bombing that killed at least 41 people in Kabul.

"We have to ask ourselves, was Karzai right on this point?" Mr. Alexander said in an interview. "I think the answer is yes." .............
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

Under fire from defence forces, Pak reverses ISI decision

July 28, 2008 13:24 IST

Coming under 'immense pressure' from the defence establishments, the Pakistan government has withdrawn its decision to place the Inter Services Intelligence under civilian control, leading newspapers reported on Monday.

Pressing Pakistan to isolate and surround the ISI is one of the best things that the international community can do right now. We have to keep the pressure on for this.
Whatever problems some claim prevent the isolation of Pak, clearly isolating ISI is very doable.

Since Karzai is our most outspoken friend, we need to get him to loudly and repeatedly holler that ISI must be brought under civilian control. I'm sure there are plenty of voices in Pak who'd like to see ISI under civilian control, such as MQM's Altaf Hussein, or Baluchi and Sindhi leaders. Now that Pak Army has switched to hiding behind the election of a civilian govt, then likewise we need to adapt by calling for civilian oversight of ISI.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by CRamS »

Sanjay M wrote:
Under fire from defence forces, Pak reverses ISI decision

July 28, 2008 13:24 IST

Coming under 'immense pressure' from the defence establishments, the Pakistan government has withdrawn its decision to place the Inter Services Intelligence under civilian control, leading newspapers reported on Monday.

Pressing Pakistan to isolate and surround the ISI is one of the best things that the international community can do right now. We have to keep the pressure on for this.
Whatever problems some claim prevent the isolation of Pak, clearly isolating ISI is very doable.

Since Karzai is our most outspoken friend, we need to get him to loudly and repeatedly holler that ISI must be brought under civilian control. I'm sure there are plenty of voices in Pak who'd like to see ISI under civilian control, such as MQM's Altaf Hussein, or Baluchi and Sindhi leaders. Now that Pak Army has switched to hiding behind the election of a civilian govt, then likewise we need to adapt by calling for civilian oversight of ISI.
ISI must be destroyed, not just brought under civilian control.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by kshirin »

For diabolical role of ISI Steve Coll Ghost wars is good.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

CRamS wrote:ISI must be destroyed, not just brought under civilian control.
And if wishes were horses, then we beggars would all ride.
The prelude to destroying the ISI vampire network comes from bringing it under the withering light of day, through civilian control.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Philip »

One must conceed with grave disquiet that the ISI has been spectacularly successful in "swinging both ways".For decades,from the days of the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan,Gen.Zia and the ISI worked out a brilliant masterplan to achieve strategic depth by taking over as much of Afghanistan as they could and squeeze out as much moolah and arms from the west,especially the US and the global Islamic community.

These days,it still calls the shots in Pak.The change that has however taken place is that those Pakistanis who want a return to genuine democracy in Pak are severly handicapped in achieving their goal because the ISI,backed to the hilt by Gen.Musharraf,is preventing at all costs genuine power transfer to the elected civilian political classes.They are also through Gen.Bandicoot preventing the judiciary from also delivering justice to the people,perpetuating the rule of the country by a disgraced president and the military/ISI elite.

Add to this the utter chicanery of the US in repeatedly assisting the Paki military with more upgraded F-16s and another few billion dollars in the pipeline and you wonder whether the US is at all interested in restoring democracy to that country and the enormous added burden that this largesse,this reward for being the world's epicentre of terror that Pak is,puts on India.We are repeatedly being subjected to paki sponsored terror and the US cares a s**t about it ,rewarding the evil perpetrators and masterminds of this terror by gift after gift of money and arms.Right now,George Bush has just praised Pak for its support to the US during the visit of the Pak PM!Has our dear PM MMS spoken out in outrage about Pak's perfidy at all to Bush & Co.? Why should we buy any US arms when all it does is repeatedly help improve Pak's offensive capability against India? Do we have 5th coloumnnists in our govt. who are more loyal to the US and its leaders than India and the Indian people?

The stark truth is that as much as the ISI is in control of Pak,so also is the CIA and the intelligence/military establishment in control of the US.A hawk loves another hawk,no matter how despotic the regime is.It is incomprehensible that the CIA continues to support and protect the ISI as it is doing,full knowing of Pak's protection of Islamist terror groups and Al Q unless they have a common sinister strategic plan for the region that dispenses with democracy and diplomacy as the manner in which political problems are to be solved.Both sides are playing to the gallery to confuse the observer.The ultimate aim is to perpetuate a US military presence in South Asia,under combined ISI-CIA control.India would do well to trust nobody other than its own people in facing upto the challenges that the partners of evil,the ISI and CIA are executing in the region.While our dear PM fiddles,India burns.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by surinder »

Sanjay M wrote:Since Karzai is our most outspoken friend, we need to get him to loudly and repeatedly holler that ISI must be brought under civilian control.
Especially since he is more courageous than our own leaders.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by CRamS »

surinder wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:Since Karzai is our most outspoken friend, we need to get him to loudly and repeatedly holler that ISI must be brought under civilian control.
Especially since he is more courageous than our own leaders.
In Karzai's case, he doesn't have any pretenses of being a US puppet, so, as one sibling, he complains to pappa (USA) about another sibling (TSP). In India's case it depends. Some leaders like BJP for example, know their limitations, but out of H&D won't complain to pappa. In MMS's case, he doesn't see TSP as a problem at all, in facts he sees his fellow brothers and sisters as more of a problem and he believes that making his sisters and brothers behave is the correct way to keep TSP happy.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

X Post.

The CIA / ISI lovefest comming to an end :?:

New York Times :
July 30, 2008

C.I.A. Outlines Pakistan Links With Militants

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — A top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled secretly to Islamabad this month to confront Pakistan’s most senior officials with new information about ties between the country’s powerful spy service and militants operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas, according to American military and intelligence officials.

The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the officials said.

The decision to confront Pakistan with what the officials described as a new C.I.A. assessment of the spy service’s activities seemed to be the bluntest American warning to Pakistan since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks about the ties between the spy service and Islamic militants.

The C.I.A. assessment specifically points to links between members of the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the militant network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, which American officials believe maintains close ties to senior figures of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The C.I.A. has depended heavily on the ISI for information about militants in Pakistan, despite longstanding concerns about divided loyalties within the Pakistani spy service, which had close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks.

That ISI officers have maintained important ties to anti-American militants has been the subject of previous reports in The New York Times. But the C.I.A. and the Bush administration have generally sought to avoid criticism of Pakistan, which they regard as a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism.

The visit to Pakistan by the C.I.A. official, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, was described by several American military and intelligence officials in interviews in recent days. Some of those who were interviewed made clear that they welcomed the decision by the C.I.A. to take a harder line toward the ISI’s dealings with militant groups. ..............
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

Was just going to post the Globe and Mail OpEd. You got there first.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

Dissolution threat forced Pak govt to spare ISI

Musharraf threatened to dissolve the govt if the order against ISI was not reversed.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

Spy agency confusion in Pakistan
By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Karachi

Pakistan's government says it will clarify why it reversed a move to put the most powerful intelligence agency, the ISI, under civilian control.
An ex-army officer and defence analyst, Ikram Sehgal, told the Dawn News TV channel that the government retracted its decision when the army "showed its teeth".
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Sanjay M »

financialtimes.co.uk

Tarnished intelligence agency sidesteps move to increase scrutiny
"If the government was smart, they would have taken this case to the parliament for discussion and debate first. With the backing of the parliament, an attempt to take control of the ISI would have been far more difficult [for the ISI] to resist."
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

X Post.

Hat Tip ...... Sanjay M.

Intercepted communication shows ISI complicit in attack on our embassy in Kabul :
Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack,
the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Concerns about the role played by Pakistani intelligence not only has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a longtime ally, but also has fanned tensions between Pakistan and its archrival, India. Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.

This week, Pakistani troops clashed with Indian forces in the contested region of Kashmir, threatening to fray an uneasy cease-fire that has held since November 2003.

The New York Times reported this week that a top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled to Pakistan this month to confront senior Pakistani officials with information about support provided by members of the ISI to militant groups. It had not been known that American intelligence agencies concluded that elements of Pakistani intelligence provided direct support for the attack in Kabul.

American officials said that the communications were intercepted before the July 7 bombing, and that the C.I.A. emissary, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, had been ordered to Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, even before the attack. The intercepts were not detailed enough to warn of any specific attack.

The government officials were guarded in describing the new evidence and would not say specifically what kind of assistance the ISI officers provided to the militants. They said that the ISI officers had not been renegades, indicating that their actions might have been authorized by superiors.

“It confirmed some suspicions that I think were widely held,” one State Department official with knowledge of Afghanistan issues said of the intercepted communications. “It was sort of this ‘aha’ moment. There was a sense that there was finally direct proof.”

The information linking the ISI to the bombing of the Indian Embassy was described in interviews by several American officials with knowledge of the intelligence. Some of the officials expressed anger that elements of Pakistan’s government seemed to be directly aiding violence in Afghanistan that had included attacks on American troops.

Some American officials have begun to suggest that Pakistan is no longer a fully reliable American partner and to advocate some unilateral American action against militants based in the tribal areas.

The ISI has long maintained ties to militant groups in the tribal areas, in part to court allies it can use to contain Afghanistan’s power. In recent years, Pakistan’s government has also been concerned about India’s growing influence inside Afghanistan, including New Delhi’s close ties to the government of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.

American officials say they believe that the embassy attack was probably carried out by members of a network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose alliance with Al Qaeda and its affiliates has allowed the terrorist network to rebuild in the tribal areas.

American and Pakistani officials have now acknowledged that President Bush on Monday confronted Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, about the divided loyalties of the ISI.

Pakistan’s defense minister, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, told a Pakistani television network on Wednesday that Mr. Bush asked senior Pakistani officials this week, “ ‘Who is in control of ISI?’ ” and asked about leaked information that tipped militants to surveillance efforts by Western intelligence services.

Pakistan’s new civilian government is wrestling with these very issues, and there is concern in Washington that the civilian leaders will be unable to end a longstanding relationship between members of the ISI and militants associated with Al Qaeda.

Spokesmen for the White House and the C.I.A. declined to comment for this article. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, did not return a call seeking comment.

Further underscoring the tension between Pakistan and its Western allies, Britain’s senior military officer said in Washington on Thursday that an American and British program to help train Pakistan’s Frontier Corps in the tribal areas had been delayed while Pakistan’s military and civilian officials sorted out details about the program’s goals.

Britain and the United States had each offered to send about two dozen military trainers to Pakistan later this summer to train Pakistani Army officers who in turn would instruct the Frontier Corps paramilitary forces.

But the British officer, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said the program had been temporarily delayed. “We don’t yet have a firm start date,” he told a small group of reporters. “We’re ready to go.”

The bombing of the Indian Embassy helped to set off a new deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan.

This week, Indian and Pakistani soldiers fired at each other across the Kashmir frontier for more than 12 hours overnight Monday, in what the Indian Army called the most serious violation of a five-year-old cease-fire agreement. The nightlong battle came after one Indian soldier and four Pakistanis were killed along the border between sections of Kashmir that are controlled by India and by Pakistan.

Indian officials say they are equally worried about what is happening on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border because they say the insurgents who are facing off with India in Kashmir and those who target Afghanistan are related and can keep both borders burning at the same time.

India and Afghanistan share close political, cultural and economic ties, and India maintains an active intelligence network in Afghanistan, all of which has drawn suspicion from Pakistani officials.

When asked Thursday about whether the ISI and Pakistani military remained loyal to the country’s civilian government, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sidestepped the question. “That’s probably something the government of Pakistan ought to speak to,” Admiral Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon.

Jalaluddin Haqqani, the militia commander, battled Soviet troops during the 1980s and has had a long and complicated relationship with the C.I.A. He was among a group of fighters who received arms and millions of dollars from the C.I.A. during that period, but his allegiance with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda during the following decade led the United States to sever the relationship.

Mr. Haqqani and his sons now run a network that Western intelligence services say they believe is responsible for a campaign of violence throughout Afghanistan, including the Indian Embassy bombing and an attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul earlier this year.

David Rohde contributed reporting from New York, and Somini Sengupta from New Delhi.

New York Times
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by Ananth »

ISI: Rogue, responsible, or both?
Although the presence of rogues is something that every intelligence organisation in the world has to cope with, this phenomenon can be controlled with strong oversight of operations, and monitoring and accountability of operatives and officials. But if this is not there and there is general slackening of discipline, then things can go out of control very easily.

In the case of Pakistan what has complicated matters is the proclivity of the Pakistani State to keep the jihad option alive for achievement of foreign and even domestic political objectives. This has created a situation where it is no longer possible to distinguish the rogue from the regular as far as the operations of the ISI or the policy of the Pakistani State is concerned.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by svinayak »

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxQ ... xUGhAfCbLg
Riedel sees the ISI's alleged involvement in the bombing as part of a broader power play by the Pakistani military -- and possibly President Pervez Musharraf -- to undermine Pakistan's civilian government.

"The particular point of danger is the concern that the army may be reviving tension with India, which is a longstanding tactic of those in the army that want to protect their equities," said Riedel.

"Create tensions with India and then the army seems more and more critical to the survival of the country," he said.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

How to Bell the ISI Cat

Post by Sanjay M »

Regarding how to Bell the ISI Cat, I'm thinking that Nawaz Sharif could be persuaded to save the day -- as a byproduct of his natural inclination for saving himself.

Nawaz has traditionally been associated with Islamic conservatism and the legacy of Zia. On the other hand, Musharraf/Army overthrew him and none of his conservative allies raised a voice in his favour.

Musharraf's role as prime US lackey in War on Terror did allow Nawaz to court back his conservative Islamic support by railing against Mush as a foreign lackey and threat to Pak's vital interests. Nawaz's anti-Mush campaign then extended to spearheading populist demands for restoration of ousted Supreme Court judges -- a partial overlap with liberal interests.

But now former lackey Mush has switched back to armyman role in defending ISI from Uncle. Mush has made the quiet threat to Zardari/Gilani that pushing too hard against ISI will only lead him to dissolve the govt.

If Mush can make this switch from US-lackey to army stalwart, then the anti-Musharraf Nawaz too can make a switch from conservative populist to liberal populist (ie. change from currently supporting ouster of Mush to save Pak from anti-Islamic Uncle, to instead supporting ouster of Musharraf along with leash on ISI in order to save democracy from shadowy military rule)

By making such a switch, Nawaz could consolidate more popular support in his favour. His current populist stance for reinstatement of Supreme Court Justices is a natural springboard for a stance on protecting democracy by leashing ISI. After all, there shouldn't be much love lost between Nawaz and ISI/Army given that the latter overthrew him.

If the US approaches Nawaz to get his support on leashing ISI by linking this to support for restoration of the Supreme Court Justices, then it should be possible to gather enough popular political support to corner the military. This will help Uncle's goals in War on Terror, it will help the Pak public keep their democracy, and it will of course help reduce terrorism in India. The generals lose, but everybody else wins -- and that's the price the generals pay for picking too many fights and alienating everybody else simultaneously (hardly a sound military strategy by them.)

The key then to bringing this about, is then a change in Washington's mindset -- to become willing to sacrifice Musharraf in order to gain a victory in leashing ISI. They must come to realize that Musharraf is not their indispensible man -- especially when he's now switched back to defending ISI from civilian oversight.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by SSridhar »

Zardari has not given up on taming the ISI
Another source close to Zardari and PM Yousuf Raza Gilani also confirmed that a new notification would be issued “to explain the spirit behind this move and it is expected that the Internal Security Wing of the ISI will be placed under the Interior Ministry”.
That was what exactly I posted in the 'Blasts' thread. Zardari, like a chess player, is defending & fortifying from many angles and building layers of offence and defence. ISI has built a huge dossier of all politicians and a midnight knock is feared by them all. The 'Internal Political Wing' of the ISI was ensuring the Army/ISI coterie's objectives internally.

While I am still doubtful if even this move would succeed (since the coterie would like to have the politicians under its thumb rather than the other way around), the fact is that nobody wants to rein in the external terrorist activities of the ISI. As Ejaz Haider said, these are legitimate tactics against a bigger & powerful enemy.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

How important is the Haqqani Afghan network to ISI? Will they let US clean it up as pro-quid quo or shelter it? And is Haqqani network a pawn being sacrificed by ISI to appease US? Do they have other assets in the Afghan Taliban?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

From Deccan Chronicle, 5 August, 2008
ISI muscle central to Pakistan power play
By Inder Malhotra

NEVER BEFORE — except, of course, in 1971 when it lost its more populous eastern half – has Pakistan been in so tight a corner as now. Suddenly, it is facing unprecedented and mounting American pressure to end what the Americans are publicly denouncing as the Pakistani spy agency ISI’s blatant links with Taliban militants enjoying sanctuary and support in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The US has squarely blamed the ISI for involvement in the July 7 suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s visit to Washington has done nothing to dent American concerns or to meet even partially American demands.

It was while Mr Gilani was on his way to Washington that, obviously in anticipation of the US demand for "reining in" the ISI, the Pakistan government issued a late-night notification placing the all-powerful spy outfit under the "administrative, financial and operational control" of the interior ministry. Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistan People’s Party leader, who really runs the civilian government, crowed that this had been done to save the Army and the ISI from "unfair foreign criticism". Within 12 hours, however, the government had to beat a hasty retreat and cancel the order, pretending that the notification had been "misinterpreted". What had actually happened was that "Rawalpindi", where the Army GHQ is located, and the "presidency", a euphemism for General (retired) Pervez Musharaf, had "intervened".

With conspicuous unanimity the Pakistani media has poured scorn over this "pathetic turn-about" and underscored what the reality of power configuration in Pakistan is. One newspaper went to the extent of saying that next time the ISI would be transferred to the "Department of Haj". But none of this deterred Mr Gilani from boasting in the US capital that both, the Army Chief and the ISI, were "under the Prime Minister".

From Washington, the Pakistani Prime Minister headed for Colombo for the 15th Saarc Summit. There he was at the receiving end of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s forthright complaint about ISI’s role in the dastardly attack on the Indian embassy in the Afghan capital and in several places within India. (Later, the Afghan President, Mr Hamid Karzai, was even more blunt in his conversation with the Pakistani Prime Minister.) Mr Gilani’s initial response to Dr Singh, that he would hold an "independent inquiry" and get to the "root of the matter", seemed reasonable enough. But before the Summit dispersed, he summarily rejected all charges of ISI complicity in terrorist attacks on Afghanistan or India. Other Pakistani sources described Indian and Afghan charges as "total rubbish."

This brings us face to face with the fundamental reality in Pakistan. Since at least 1958, that country has been ruled by a permanent establishment dominated overwhelmingly by the Army. When the man in control of the gun hasn’t sat on the throne himself, he has stood behind the throne, temporarily occupied by whosoever. There were great expectations that the February 2008 general election would put an end to this. Sadly, all high hopes have been dashed to the ground. The PPP-led government has turned out to be both, ineffectual and fragile. Its durability is in serious doubt because the differences between Mr Zardari and his Party and the coalition partner, Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) are acute. In addition, President Musharraf, though unwanted by the people, clings to the office of the President.

Even if Mr Nawaz Sharif and Mr Zardari manage to arrive at a modus vivendi of sorts, it cannot overcome the enormity of their differences. Mr Sharif wants immediate reinstatement of all judges sacked by President Musharraf, including that of the Chief Justice whose dismissal had shaken his hold on the country. This does not suit Mr Zardari and many of his cohorts. They fear that the restored CJ would invalidate the ordinance under which charges against them were withdrawn by President Musharraf whose immediate ouster is also high on Mr Sharif’s agenda. Mr Zardari is no hurry to drive away the former dictator. This is because of wheels within wheels, to understand which it is necessary to return briefly to the aborted move to hand over the ISI to the interior ministry. Mr Rehman Malik, who controls this ministry, is not an elected minister but an appointed "advisor". He was at one time director of the Federal Investigation Bureau. During Benazir Bhutto’s days as Prime Minister he became chief of her security and her confidant. When she went in self-exile so did he. No wonder Mr Zardari trusts him more than anyone else.

Add to this another calculation of Mr Zardari’s. He knows that partnership with Mr Sharif would end sooner or later. He also fears that the PPP might split at some stage. What does he do then? His only option is to join hands with the dispossessed former supporters of President Musharraf who call themselves Pakistan Muslim League (Q). So President Musharraf could have some utility still.

In this complex and far from comforting context, Khaled Ahmed, one of the highly respected Pakistani analysts, has candidly summed up the overall Pakistani situation, especially in relation to the outside world. According to him, Pakistan is being buffeted by three "clashing yet converging" strands of thought: First, the realisation that there is some substance in the outside world’s complaint that Pakistan has become the epicenter of jihadi terrorism and "ground zero" for getting even with Osama bin Ladin. Secondly, the strong current of opinion within the civil society that the very definition of terrorism is wrong — that the US is the enemy of Islam and thus of Pakistan. The third school of thought, says Ahmed, is "India-driven" and "backed by the Pakistan Army". According to it, India is the "only existential threat to Pakistan", that India is collaborating with the other major adversary, Mr Karzai’s Afghanistan, with the US backing both. This understandably strengthens the second doctrine that Pakistan needs to fight India, strongest power in the region, as well as the United States, the greatest global power.

Policymakers in this country need to ponder this scenario. Especially at a time when Pakistan’s Army and the ISI have casually started violating the ceasefire that had lasted four-and-a-half years and resumed patronage of the merchants of terror in this country, thus disrupting the peace process.
The MEA secy is issuing cold blunt statements and the NSA is busy fxing MPs for the ruling coalition. What else they can do?
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

X Post.

Media release by Canada’s Liberal party :
Government must address Pakistan-Taliban connection – Rae

August 5, 2008

OTTAWA – The Conservative government must clarify how it is responding to reports that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is actively working with the Taliban, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae said today.

“Has the government called in Pakistan’s ambassador about this? Are Canadian military intelligence officers working with other friendly intelligence services, or are Canadians only reading about this in the newspapers?” Mr. Rae asked. “This is very serious, and Canadian lives are at stake.” …………..

“Serious questions have been raised about the degree of control that Pakistan’s civilian government has over the ISI,” said Mr. Rae. “The evidence is now convincing that the ISI is undermining international efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan. The role of Pakistan’s ISI must be addressed, particularly as it affects the men and women in the Canadian Forces.”

Liberal
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by arun »

X Post.

Meanwhile away from Washington and on the ground in Afghanistan :
Pakistani intelligence complicit in Afghan violence: US general

5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The top US commander in Afghanistan Thursday publicly accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate of "some complicity" over time with militant groups fomenting violence in Afghanistan.

Lieutenant General David McKiernan's comment in an interview with CNN was the most unambiguous statement yet on the matter by a senior US military officer, reflecting growing US frustration over the insurgent violence in Afghanistan.

"Do I believe that the Pakistani government must do more? I absolutely do. Do I believe there has been some complicity on the part of organizations such as the ISI over time in Pakistan, I believe there has been," McKiernan said. …………….

AFP
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ISI-History and Discussions-1

Post by ramana »

Op-Ed. Pioneer, 11 August, 2008
ISI, state within a state

Abhijit Bhattacharyya

The ISI is the most openly covert arm of the Pakistani military sustained by the generals. Irrespective of who is the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan, the ISI is likely to remain as powerful as ever. At least for the foreseeable future.

National Security Adviser MK Narayanan publicly suggested in July that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence needed to be "destroyed" while US President George W Bush wondered as to "who controls the ISI!" Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the ISI of being at the root of the violence in his country. Two Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif, have lost their jobs after tinkering with the ISI's established norms and conventions.

A lot of stuff is well-known to the world and the modus operandi of the ISI too is pretty obvious - it does things clandestinely, surreptitiously and through agents of all variety. What needs to be analysed is: Why is the ISI doing what it is doing? And, how did it become adept at taking on everyone whom it thinks worth confronting?

The ISI draws its personnel from the Army, Navy and Air Force. Its mandate is to provide strategic intelligence - including external intelligence, as well as work on threat perceptions and covert operations - to the Prime Minister, the military and the Joint Services Headquarters. It is also engaged in counter-intelligence activities vis-à-vis 'adversary' countries like India.

{So its both MI6 (military manned) for strategic intelligence and MI5(still military manned) for counter-intelligence with respect to some countries. Comparing it to IB and RAw and CIA is incorrect.}

When Gen Zia-ul-Haq was in power, the ISI's mandate was expanded to keep an eye on political developments within Pakistan as it began to actively participate in politics and supported preferred groups. The ISI currently functions with a 65:35 ratio of military and civilian staff; almost 90 per cent are serving officers from the forces.

{So it has IB kind of role inside TSP}

Seen against this backdrop, Mr Bush's query, as to who controls the ISI, though relevant and interesting, also betrays his innocence of a complex sector of Pakistan. To understand this sector, one needs to about the chiefs of the Pakistani Army who have ruled that country for 33 of its 61 years. Of 12 Pakistani Generals, four have been coup masters - which makes a third of the Pakistani Army's top brass capable of destroying civilian rule. Thus the basic philosophy of Pakistan's rulers is premised on the theory and practice of might is right.

{The author does not show understanding of the role of the military in an Islamic State. It is the basis of the Sultan's/Prseident's power. It asserts itself when it feels that the Sultan is not being Islamic enough and not keeping faith. Go read about the Sultanate period in Indian history}

It began with the founding of the Muslim League in 1906, which gained ideological momentum in 1940, attained the apogee of lethality in 1946 and forced the creation of Pakistan in 1947, only to get trapped in the net of recklessly ambitious officer corps and an inept and squabbling political class.

{See my above comment. Again shows not enough appreciation of a Modern Islamic state. TSP is the first new Islamic state created in the modenr era. It has the trappings of modernity but all its structures at the core are Islamist in prinicple. Contemporary analysts are fooled by its modern trappings as Islamic states are new and not enough is known about them and what was known is forgotten.}

Not surprisingly, therefore, one comes across the Rawalpindi conspiracy of 1951 when senior officers were caught planning to overthrow Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and install a military-style nationalist Government. Major General Akbar Khan, Brigadier Abdul Latif Khan, Air Commodore MK Janjua, Major General Nazir Ahmed, Brigadier Sadiq Khan, Lt Colonel Ziauddin, Lt Colonel Niaz Mohammed Arbab, Captain Khizar Hayat, Major Hassan Khan, Major Ishaq Mohammad and Captain Zafarullah Poshni were arrested for hatching the conspiracy.


{How many of these officers were in the INA?}

The seeds of civil-military confrontation were thus sown early. This was strengthened by the arrival, and rule, of Gen Ayub Khan for 18 years - first as the Army Chief from 1951 to 1958 and later as dictator from 1958 to 1969. He bequeathed the mantle of dictatorship to Gen Yahya Khan, who managed the break-up of his country and the defeat of his Army in 1971.


While Gen Yahya Khan remained the Army Chief and later dictator from 1966 to 1971, the next two military rulers, Gen Zia-ul-Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf remained Army chief for 12 years and nine years respectively, thereby making a mockery of the promotion prospects of the officer corps.

{I submit Ayub Khan was of different mettle than the Rawalpindi case folks. Just as Zia was different than Ayub and Yahya Khan.}

Hence, a large number of officers' career ended prematurely, thereby allowing them to retire after serving as one of the nine corps commanders at best or as director-general of ISI, which was the second best possibility to fulfil their ambition of shaping the destiny of Pakistan. Inevitably the Army chief decided who got to head the ISI and ensured it reported directly to him. The claimed subservience of the ISI to the Prime Minister sounds good in theory but is not applicable in reality.

The spectacular rise of the ISI began with Gen Zia's regime, which inculcated the conviction that only soldiers were capable of ruling Pakistan and gave credence to the view that while all countries have armies, in Pakistan the Army has a country. During the Zia years, the ISI served as the conduit for American arms and funds meant for the Afghan mujahideen.

With the US as the backseat driver, the ISI managed the Afghan jihad against Soviet troops. The war came as a windfall for the corrupt ISI, courtesy the CIA arms supplies and the Afghan drug trade. It also provided covert funds for Pakistan's nuclear and conventional weapons programme and Islamic insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir. The tradition was revived during Gen Musharraf's reign as America focussed its attention on the region after 9/11.

{So US asking who runs ISI is a very naive question and worrisome to boot!}

But whereas the ISI could escape scrutiny after organising the murder of Soviet soldiers, Afghans and Indians in the 1980s, it cannot do so today. This is because the ISI's activities are resulting in the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan and jeopardising US strategic interest. So, the US is irked and Mr Bush is provoked.

The ISI is the most openly covert arm of the Pakistani military sustained by the generals. Irrespective of who is the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan, the ISI is likely to remain as powerful as ever. It may, in theory, report to the Prime Minister, but it will continue to be accountable to the Army chief.

No serving Lt General can violate the chain of command by not reporting to the General. Moreover, while Prime Ministers and Presidents will come and go, the Pakistani military will continue to be seen as the most able and stable institution to run that country in the foreseeable future because of its location and tradition.

-- The writer is an alumnus of the National Defence College and a member of International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.
There are some good insights but no earth shattering disclosures here. The important fact not mentioned is ISI was setup by the Australian Maj Gen Cawthorne and he was prior to that the Director of Military Intelligence for British Indian Army and more importantly he was a prominent member of the Olaf Caroe's Viceroy Study Group and latter became the Aussie High Commissoner and Australian SIS head. So he was intimately nurturing the agency he created even after he returned to his native country. And Olaf Caroe was the expert/intellectual father of the modern Great Game which led to CENTO and SEATO. So the early origns are British and Australian. Australia was in one of the seven power circles that Olaf Caroe sketched in his Roundtable paper quoted in Brobst's book. This power circle includes India and Aussies were hedging against a possible antagonist India.
Post Reply