U.S. Intel Is ‘Absolutely Incorrect’ is the headline from Newsweek.
Let's see what Baghd, er, the good Ambassador has to say.
What about the National Intelligence Estimate and what it says about safe havens for Al Qaeda in North Waziristan?
It’s absolutely incorrect. There are no safe havens. Now, what is the definition of a safe haven? It is a place where they can stay and plan and operate from, and there is a kind of tacit approval by the government of Pakistan. This is preposterous. We will agree there may be odd people in hideouts. But there are no safe havens. And whenever we get information we take them out. Five or six times we’ve gone into Waziristan and Bajaur this year. We went after the training camps.
Okay. No safe havens, just hideouts and training camps.
Training camps?
There are supposed to be these mud-hut compounds where the Taliban and Al Qaeda do their training.
This is an absolute fallacy. There is no compound like Fort Knox or Fort Benning. What a training camp in our area entails is a room about this size [pointing to his spacious office] where people can sleep at night. And then there is some space outside where they can train. And from the air it may just look like an innocent hut. ... It’s not a compound, that’s totally false.
So, really there are no training camps, just mud huts and open fields.
Surprisingly, the Ambassador has a more nuanced view of Barack Obama's remarks than many here in the US:
I mean, he qualifies it nicely in his speech. He says if Musharraf doesn’t act on information which is 100 percent accurate, then we will. Well, if it is 100 percent accurate and we get it, then we will take them out. [For the record, Obama said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."]
But then the Ambassador does a 1 1/2 double reverse:
This seems to be a favorite topic—hitting Pakistan. It will weaken the position of the government in Pakistan if the Americans go in and hit bad guys, because even now the public in Pakistan feels the government is doing too much for the United States.
So, the people in Pakistan are pissed at the government for taking action against the terrorists. Yeah, that's it. Nothing at all to do with shenanigans like arresting the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court. And, he assures us that Pakistan will take all necessary action against al-Qaeda, while claiming that his regime faces a revolt from taking action against al-Qaeda.
About that agreement that created Waziristan as a de facto state:
In the tribal area the agreement was signed with 35 elders, but there are spoilers in every movement. You have to understand the tribal culture. Even today, there are tribal leaders who are literally begging the government not to destroy this agreement.
So is the agreement still intact?
I think so.
A reminder of how that agreement's terms:
The Government agrees to stop air and ground attacks against militants in Waziristan.
Militants are to cease cross-border movement into and out of Afghanistan.
Foreigners (understood to mean foreign jihadists) in North Waziristan will have to leave Pakistan but "those who cannot leave will be allowed to live peacefully, respecting the law of the land and the agreement"
Area check-points and border patrols will be manned by a tribal force. Pakistan Army forces will withdraw from control points.
No parallel administration will be established in the area.
The law of the Government shall remain in force.
The Government agrees to follow local customs and traditions in resolving issues.
Tribal leaders will ensure that no one attacks law enforcement personnel or damages state property.
Tribesmen will not carry heavy weapons. Small arms are allowed.
Militants will not enter agencies adjacent to this agency (the agency of North Waziristan).
Both sides will return any captured weapons, vehicles, and communication devices.
The Government will release captured militants and will not arrest them again.
The Government will pay compensation for property damage and deaths of innocent civilians in the area.
Yes, Pakistan agreed to release any al-Qaeda members it had arrested, give them back their weapons, promised not to arrest them again, allowed the militants to stay in Waziristan, and turned over the border control function to the pro-Taliban tribes. But, the tribes are gonna crack down on the Taliban--they said so!!
I can see why tribal elders would beg to preserve this agreement.
And Pakistan's Ambassador to the US is telling us that those terms are still in effect.
And, a reminder of what he means by 'tribal elders.'
The ceremony was scheduled soon after negotiations started in the two Waziristans between Pakistani authorities on one side and the Pakistani Taliban and Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (Fazlur Rehman) on the other. Jamiat-i-Ulama-i-Islam (JUI-F) is the political party of Pakistani opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman, and is the only party still working in the two Waziristans. JUI-F keeps in close contact with the mujahideen who call themselves the Pakistani Taliban.
And what the agreement in effect meant:
The JUI-F, therefore, is forging a strategy with the Pakistani Taliban under which the Taliban will retain de facto control of the Waziristans while the political-cum-religious leadership, including the JUI-F, will appear to be running the show - and, at the same time, be shielding the Taliban from US-led forces. The Miranshah gathering was a manifestation of this new strategy.
More doubletalk from the Ambassador:
Though I will say there is solid reporting that in the wake of the Waziristan agreement there has been a re-establishment of Taliban and Al Qaeda-sympathizing elements in that area.
Yes, but whenever we get intelligence we take them out. What irritates us is that we are doing so much, much more than [the Americans are] doing. The threat to us is far greater.
Which is it, Ambassador? Are you taking out militants when you get the chance, or are you honoring the terms of the agreement you say is still in effect?
The Pakistani government is not our friend. It is not our ally. The Pakistani government helped form the Taliban, and has a vested interest in undermining Afghanistan's independence and countering Iranian influence there.
Oh, by the way, Obama wouldn't invade Pakistan.
Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, that "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He said rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge," and U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.
Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.
But, that's a very remote possibility. Just ask the good Ambassador.
Comments are closed on this story.