The Beginning

     The beginning of the ISI's involvement in Afghanistan dates back to the late 1980's when the ISI helped the Taliban beat back the Soviet invaders. The ISI has been meddling in the affairs of Afghanistan since the 1970's for Afghanistan is seen as a replacement for East Pakistan; Pakistan has wanted to assert its influence over Afghanistan for many reasons.
     One of the main reasons that Pakistan is so eager to go into Afghanistan is that so they will have access to the resource rich area of Central Asia. According to Imtiaz Gul "the ISI has in fact been credited with creating and supporting the Taliban movement to realize the goal of securing strategic depth through a friends government in Afghanistan." In 1993, when Benazir Bhutto took power for a 2nd time, she appointed Naseerullah Babar as the home minister. Babar's main concern was opening up a highway from Pakistan to Central Asia and therefore needed the cooperation of the Taliban. Since they realized that eliminating the Taliban was impossible, they opted to join their side instead and help the rebuild Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge so that they had a friend when the country was up and running again. So, the ISI was the main agent between the Taliban and the Pakistani government  but as time progressed the ISI took matters into their own hands and held meetings without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. From there they continued to supply the Taliban with weapons and planned on using them as a tool to attack enemies, primarily India. Yet, nothing ever truly goes to plan and the Taliban did their own thing and eventually 9/11 occurred and the Taliban offered Afghanistan as a safe haven to Osama and al-Qaeda.

Buruma Knows Best?

Ian Buruma has written an interesting book to say the least. The main problem presented to us in this novel is the battle raging between the native Dutch and Muslim immigrants. The Dutch feel that they’ve been tolerant of immigration for far too long and it is about time that they took action to save their country from this foreign menace. Maybe the Dutch should have realized that allowing such a great influx of immigrants into their country would cause some sort of shift in national identity so why were the Dutch so open-minded about immigration in the first place? That’s mostly due to the Dutch feeling guilty about World War II and Anne Frank and how they vowed to never turn their back on a minority ever again. Well, that’s all very nice and heroic but when most Dutch feel threatened that their national

identity is deteriorating then maybe actions should have been taken to prevent such large numbers of immigrants or at least make sure that these immigrants were able to integrate into society at least.

And that’s where the main conflict occurs. Once again we find ourselves back upon the subject of globalization and how it has led to the deterioration of national identities. The Moroccans feel isolated in the strange Netherlands and therefore flock to their faith in order to preserve some semblance of their Moroccan identity. This leads to a divide, where it is Dutch versus Islamic identity and there seems to be no middle ground. It’s a battle of two extremes. On one side you have the Dutch extremists like Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh whose sole purpose in life is to instigate and offend others and, by doing so, they believe they can bring about some kind of change in society. On the other side, you have extremists such as Mohammed Bouyeri, who believe that the only answer is to kill the infidels. A problem arises when both sides are unwilling to listen to the problems the other side brings forth; when there is no communication, there can be no understanding and this lack of understanding leads people to turn towards other solutions. 

Along with Theo and Pim,  you have the hate filled tirades of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She attacks Islam and declares that it is a primitive and barbaric religion by basing her ideas on her own personal experiences. Yes, you had a terrible and oppressive childhood and no, you cannot decree an entire religion and it’s billion followers to be evil imbeciles. She preaches that we should go back to “Enlightenment ideas” and “strip away culture” therefore leaving only the human individual. I can’t help but see the similarities with this idea of a man solely with his thoughts and stripping the culture to leave only a man and God. So, if one strips away culture, you’re either left with an Enlightened person or with a Islamic extremist. We can’t exactly go back to the way Voltaire critiqued the Catholic Church since 1.) in Islam, there is not central power such as the Catholic Church, so a criticism of Islam is instead viewed as a direct attack on a person’s identity and 2.) any inflammatory remarks are instantly dissipated via the Internet and you’ll have a fatwa on your head within the hour. 

In the end, I feel as if Buruma doesn’t offer a substantial solution and rather leaves us with the thought that extremism is bad and that this kind of illogical behavior can happen anywhere. And so, with that knowledge imparted, we must learn that extremist behavior, on either side of the spectrum, leads to the closure of the negotiation channels and we’re left with nothing but our fists and hatred towards the other side. Moral of the story: moderation is key. 

A Preface

     Imtiaz Gul's new book, The Most Dangerous Place, is a goldmine of information surrounding the relationship between the US, Pakistan, and the ISI. In the preface alone, the book reveals a tremendous amount about the situation in Pakistan.
     When General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen visited Islamabad in December 2009, they showered praise on Pakistan for their "cooperation" in military efforts on the Afghan front. Admiral Mullen even went as far as to say that the "United States had no evidence of the Pakistani intelligence agency's continued involvement with the Taliban or Al Qaeda."He realized that there was a lack of trust between the two sides but he claimed this was due to the US only recently befriending the ISI and Pakistan. Mullen and Petraeus were in Islamabad to lobby for Obama's new plan for Afghanistan, which required the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the time, the two had left, the US had promised an additional 30,000 troops at an annual cost of $30 billion.
     Richard Halbrooke made a statement where he summarized the preconceptions that are held about Pakistan:

1. Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership are hiding in Pakistan
2. Terror groups attacking India, Afghanistan, and coalition troops in Afghanistan are using Pakistani territory as their base
3. Sections of the Pakistani military establishment continue to maintain contacts with, and support, some of these groups
4. Pakistan's nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of one of these groups
5. The military establishment continues to dominate the civilian government, thereby blocking its own reform

     There is a certain degree of truth to these assumptions but whether these preconceptions are right or wrong is besides the point, they still help drive people's fear. Yes, the Taliban is hiding in Pakistan and yes, the ISI is assisting these groups. But the Pakistani government fears that this is being used as an excuse for the US to come in and take away Pakistan's sovereignty. It's no revelation that terror group operate in the Wild West of Pakistan, but the ISI and the military are unwilling to confront these groups and continue to hinder progress. Pakistan's military is in control of nuclear weapons and the fears that the ISI might somehow hand off nuclear weapons are plausible but highly unlikely. The last statement couldn't be truer; the military control of the civilian government has been a problem since Zia-ul-Haq's reign and is one that needs to be solved in order for Pakistan to make some progress. The issue of the ISI is only one of the many problems that swirl around Pakistan; there is much work to be done.

From Pakistan With Love

     In mid-December, the identity of a top CIA spy in Pakistan was revealed after the American spy was publicly identified in a complaint sent to Pakistani police over US drone strikes. The spy was quickly ushered out of the country and fingers are now being pointed at the ISI for revealing the spy's identity. This just goes to show the dangerous game the ISI and CIA are playing; they both rely on each other to get the job done, but the relationship between the two is testy to say the least.
     Many believe that the revelation of the spy's identity was the ISI response for the lawsuit filed against the Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the director of the ISI, by the families of the American victims in the Mumbai hotel bombings. The spy's identity was released to aid in the lawsuit of the Kareem Khan, a man who brought the case against the CIA for the death of his son and brother in a drone strike. He is just one of the many casualties of the drone offensive.
     Of course, the ISI has come out and denied the accusation. That's standard procedure. The point is that if the ISI and CIA cannot work together then America cannot expect for their drone strikes to be as accurate as they'd like. Furthermore, this goes to show the amount of power the ISI wield, not only over Pakistan, but over America as well. These backstabbing actions are not out of the ordinary for the ISI, for they only watch out for their own interests and America should be wary of their dealings with the ISI. As they say, keep your enemies close and your friends closer.

The Dealings of the ISI

     The Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is the intelligence gathering arm of Pakistan; similar in function to the CIA. In his article, Peter Galbraith talks about the ISI-Taliban nexus. Now, this connection is nothing new for the ISI and Taliban have been bed buddies since the days of the USSR in Afghanistan, where they created the Taliban along with the help of the US.
     Essentially, the United States is greeted with smiles by civilian government led by Zardari while the ISI stabs the US in the back by undermining their efforts in Afghanistan. Why is the ISI interfering in Afghanistan's affairs you ask? Well, Pakistan feels a need to meddle in the affairs of their neighbors. Always have, always will.
     The ISI is a rogue outfit, one which Zardari has no control over. In actuality, Zardari is afraid of the ISI. In cables released by Wikileaks, Zardari told Biden that the ISI "will take me out." When the president of the country is terrified of the intelligence agency that supposedly working for him, you know that there is something sour about the country.
     Now, the larger problem is that the ISI not only helps the Taliban but they also actively hinder the US efforts. Even though the US has technology that is far more advanced than anything the Taliban could dream of, we can't use it properly. Sure we can pinpoint targets and focus in on objects as minuscule as a penny but this does no good if we don't target the Taliban. Without proper and accurate intelligence, civilians are heaped in the collateral damage. This causes the people to become enraged at "Western powers" and increases support for the Taliban.
     So to sum it all up, the ISI is an organization that operates by itself and answers to no higher power. It is a power within a country and one that none but Pakistan can stop because technically all their actions are legal. The ISI has the president they are supposed to be working for scared for his life and the US, who expects their help, is actually being misled by them. Quite a problem when you step back and take a measure of the depth of this issue.

America, America

            Fareed Zarkaria says it best in his article the Rise of the Rest when he states that “for 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology.” America has been peddling globalization to the world since World War II. Now that countries are finally coming in the home stretch, America all of sudden feels threatened by these new powers. Indeed there is a rise of the rest going on throughout the world and America, who has been leading the world since the 19th century, feels threatened. The United States wants to have the cake and eat it as well; that’s something that just can’t happen in today’s world.

            Just in the past 10 years, Zakaria shows us how America has fallen from the pedestal; no longer number one in anything except being obese. I disagree that America has fallen, the rest have just caught up with us. We are the ones who pushed globalization onto the rest of the world and now we are the same ones complaining about the consequences. The irony is almost laughable.

            Now more than ever, American’s feel threatened by the outside world. Maybe it has to do with 9/11 or supposed increased terrorists activity but these fears should be allayed by the fact that this is the most peaceful time in mankind’s existence. The reason we are so scared is by the 24/7 media input we receive. Zakaria makes a good point here; all this fear is self-inflicted and like the great FDR said, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

            However, there was a point where good old Fareed seemed to contradict himself. He states that America is a country built on the “hunger and energy of immigrants” which is all well and true; America was built on the back of immigrants. A few paragraphs above this statement, Fareed discusses the ultra-nationalism he felt on his visit to China and the Middle East. If there is such a great amount of nationalism flowing through these up and coming countries, wouldn’t they prefer not to offer there talents to America and rather stay in their motherland? Sure, they might come to America to study since we are still number one in university education at least, but these foreign students would must likely return to their homeland. We cannot rely on immigrants to help us out. Other than that, Fareed made some good points that I found myself agreeing with and nodding my head. He offers a warning that the world is globalizing and America needs to do so as well. I couldn’t agree more. 

            On the other hand, we have the convincing Mr. Tony Judt. He argues that we effectively haven’t learned anything from the past. It’s true that America is quite a different place than what it was in 1989; yet we haven’t learned from our ancestor’s mistakes. For starters, we are practically the only country that still considers war as a viable option. When you look at the 19th century this makes sense; we emerged out of both World Wars relatively unscathed and had made huge gains. We are the “only advanced democracy where public figures glorify and exalt the military, a sentiment familiar in Europe before 1945 but quite unknown today.”

            War is a dangerous thing. It allows us to demonize the enemy and make them lesser human beings, we deny them their basic rights. Torture is a prime example of this demonization. Tony tells us about the freedom and frequency with which America tortures prisoners. Most consider it ok to do so and Alan Dershowitz talks about “the simple cost-benefit analysis for employing such non-lethal torture.” Apparently, the ends justify the means in this case. I’d like to show Dershowitz the cost-benefit analysis of my fist punching his face. The logic is infallible!

            In all seriousness, America should have learned the lessons of war yet it’s understandable how we’ve overlooked them. As Americans, we pride ourselves on “destroying evil empires” and tearing down walls and what not. But the reality is that if we’re not careful, we may slip into a dystopia straight out of a George Orwell novel. There is a fine line between dictatorship and democracy and an even thinner line between oligarchy and democracy.

            America is on a decline, the rest is on a rise. However you want to phrase it, the fact of the matter is that the playing field is being leveled across the world, much to America’s dismay. No longer are we the sole superpower of the world, but we can still be leaders of this new order that is rising, that is, if we play our cards right.