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.