Why Is Pakistan So Welcoming To Islamic Extremists?

Links: A. Pakistan Wikipedia
           B. Pakistan Bans Terror Groups In Word Only
           C. Al-Qaeda Active And Influential In Pakistan
           D. Pakistani Support For Extremists Persists

(Quick personal comment: I am so grateful to all of you who come to this blog to read my commentaries.  I do my very best to include as much substance and fact as I do opinion, but by the end of the post, I will express my perspective on whatever issue I am discussing.  I welcome opposing viewpoints; most of the opinions I have today are variations of what they once were.  We have to learn to evolve our opinions in the face of presented facts that were previously unknown to us.  It is a sign of maturity and goodwill.  Also, if you do enjoy my posts, please recommend the blog to other persons who you believe might also find it interesting.  An unavoidable reality is that growth is essential in this medium, especially given the number of like-minded commentaries.)

I always find myself battling the need to keep my posts at a reasonable length.  I don't like to split a commentary into "Part I" and "Part II", because the uninterrupted flow of the conversation is essential.  But occasionally I give myself no choice.  Writing about Pakistan is a huge challenge.  As a nation, Pakistan has existed less than sixty years.  But it feels like an old soul, with many grievances to be addressed.  Please forgive me for this unworthy and inadequate review of Pakistani history, but a respectable effort would require a Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV....you get the picture.  What we know as Pakistan today was originally part of India.  When Great Britain decided to grant independence to India, it was decided that the Predominantly Muslim North Western and Eastern Provinces would be partitioned to create the nation of Pakistan.  Oddly enough, the British partition of India created two pieces of Muslim Pakistan separated by a giant India with a huge Hindu majority.  Twenty-four years following the partition, Eastern Pakistan suffered a bloody Civil War, with the opposition openly supported by India. Without the possibility of reinforcements and supplies, the Pakistani forces eventually surrendered, and the nation of Bangladesh is the result.  Given that relations between Pakistan and India were already less-than-friendly, India's interference in what Pakistan considered to be an internal rebellion, caused even more difficulties for the two nations.  Eventually, Islamabad and New Delhi might very well have healed the right, if it weren't for the Province of Punjab.  The far-north, mountainous area is almost equally divided in population between Muslims and Hindus (depending on whose census you believe), and Pakistan has always believed that it should have been included in the original partition.  India is just as adamant that it belongs to India.  This beautiful but almost inaccessible land has been a bone of contention ever since, and has come close to igniting a war between two nuclear powers.

I'm not writing this post to sink myself into the quick-sand of Pakistani-Indian history, so I will move on from the issue of relations with India.  Suffice to say that the two nations have never been friends, although a few times in the last decade, serious diplomatic efforts resulting in face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers, have given rise to optimism.  Frankly speaking I find it hard to believe, and a bit disgusting that both of these nations have nuclear weapons.  In order to reach that level of technology, a huge amount of resources must have been expended, by two countries who still have trouble feeding their people.  That makes no sense to me. The huge defense expenditures allocated by both governments, compared to funds set aside for housing, education and social welfare programs, is astonishing and should be a national embarrassment.  And the real tragedy is that both countries are armed to the teeth because of the threat posed by their neighbor.  The fact the Pakistan has nuclear weapons is more disturbing because of the unstable nature of Pakistani politics.  People get assassinated in Pakistan (also in India) and governments fall.  I am forced to look at Pakistan through red, white and blue glasses.  I can't allow myself to be distracted by the sorry state of affairs with India, and the complete lack of opportunity and hope for the young people of Pakistan.  For one reason and another, this nation has become the world's largest safe house for Al-Qaeda and probably a bunch of other nasty groups as well.  The pillars that constitute the government of Pakistan have been infiltrated for decades by the bad guys, and I'm not referring to the bribes the average Pakistani has to pay to get a license to wipe his ass and water his yard.  The Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is rotten to the core with Al-Qaeda sympathizers, as are all branches of the military.  The civilian government is not nearly as corrupted by extremists, but it certainly has its share of thieves.  In fact, the presence of the corruption is what allowed the extremists in to begin with.  The people of Pakistan are only being reasonable.  They voted for the party of capitalism and it failed them.  They elected a bunch of socialists, who also robbed them blind.  So who can blame them for looking towards the traditional, religious answer, especially when it delivers food?

If anyone has any question regarding the depth of extremist influence in the Pakistani military and security service, just remind yourself that Osama Bin-Laden's compound in Abbottabad was located across the street from the Pakistani Military Academy.  That juxtaposition was not accidental, it was meant to discourage any raids like the one that occurred.  Zawahiri is in Pakistan as well.  he is probably closing in on ninety yrs. old, and not many sick, whiny, spoiled Egyptian intellectuals will choose a cave in Afghanistan over a house.  Why do the people of Pakistan provide safe haven to terrorists?  The answer is not as complicated as some people want it to be.  Because of the economic situation in Pakistan ($3,100 per capita income) and the lack of employment opportunities (officially unemployment is 5.1 percent, but in reality its closer to 30 percent), the younger generation, which continues to grow, has little hope or opportunity for the future.  When I was in Pakistan, I was always taken aback by the number of young men walking the streets during the day, every day.  From habit, I said to myself, "shouldn't they be at college or at work?"  These young men are the perfect targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, who will blame the west, and Israel, and India, and their complacent government, for all the ills of Pakistani society.  And when Al-Qaeda hosts a blame party, they do it right.  whoever is on the receiving end isn't just the trouble maker, they are the enemy, THE DEVIL, and they will never allow you to better your condition or improve the lives of your relatives.  The crusade to blame the west and Israel (even more so than India, who is only a seasonal bad guy) has been so successful, that the terrorists and their support network can find sympathizers on every street, on every block, and in every city.  There is an entire segment of Pakistani society that is vehemently opposed to the message of Islamic extremism; they have my support and admiration but I fear that they are fighting a losing battle.

Pakistan continues to give the appearance of a politically moderate Muslim nation.  In the United Nations, it votes with the anti-Israel bloc, but on other issues, Pakistan is known to support the United States, especially regarding Russia.  On the other hand, Pakistan has developed a warm relationship with China, a development which originated with the ignorant decision on the part of the United States to accept payment from Pakistan for some F16s, and then decide not to deliver them.  Its my understanding that diplomatic efforts were made to address and rectify that particular insult, thank goodness.  The Pakistani government has given the U.S. military a surprisingly free hand to deal with the Taliban, especially on the border.  The U.S. military continues to train and equip the Pakistani Army and Air Force (what they don't get from China), and the United States can rely on some internal support, especially from the military High Command.  But the issue isn't limited to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban moving back-and-forth across the border, or with the activities of extremist groups in Waziristan.  The United States must address the alarming fact that Al-Qaeda militants likely have safe-houses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.  If this tumor living within Pakistani society becomes a cancer, and extremists take control of the Pakistani government, then we have a real problem.  A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, both controlled by Islamic extremists.  I don't believe we have reached that point just yet.  I would like to believe that secular Pakistan will win the day, but the battle is for the hearts and minds of the young, not the middle-aged and old.  Those who love a secular and peaceful Pakistan must find a way to end corruption and provide opportunities for this generation and the one coming up right behind.  Otherwise they won't hesitate to listen to another message.

U.S. Will Train New Syrian Army For Defense, No Offense

Links: A. U.S. To Train Syrians To Defend Territory


           B.  Lots Of Terrorist Training Camps In Iraq And Syria


           C. Al-Qaeda Reborn On The Indian Subcontinent


As I've said before, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is read the Long War Journal.  Previously I couldn't leave the house without a quick look at the Drudgereport.  Now I have doubled my morning reading selection.  To put it bluntly, the Long War Journal (LWJ) is in a class by itself.  I am so impressed with the real-time nature of the reporting, not to mention the amazing breadth of coverage.  Let me step away from brown-nosing the LWJ just long enough to get angry all over again.  According to the Stars and Stripes (see ref A), the surrogate New Syrian Army that was going to represent the good guys in the ground war against the Islamic Front (IS), will only be trained to defend territory.  They will not be trained or ordered to take any territory.  The first problem that jumped out at me is that we are still talking in "future" terms.  The New Syrian Army "WILL" only be trained to defend.  Are we to believe that the training of our surrogate saviors hasn't even started?  Aren't we already over a month into the air campaign?  The second, and much more disturbing bit of news from Stars and Stripes, is that when we finally get started with the training, it will consist exclusively of defensive warfare.  And what if, by the time our New Syrian Army is ready for battle, the IS has already occupied ninety percent of Syria.  I assume they will be content to just IGNORE the "defense only" New Syrian Army, who won't be able to attack unless someone attacks them?  If this development weren't so desperate and dangerous, it would be hilarious.  How can the military brass just accept these kind of "political" intrusions into military strategy?  Is there anyone at the Pentagon who is old enough to remember Vietnam?  DEFEND ONLY doesn't work in warfare, especially against an enemy like this.  Why would the Obama Administration adopt this approach?  Are they concerned about killing IS operatives?  After the last week of bombing at Kobani it would seem as if they don't mind killing the bad guys one bit.  So why are we going to spend billions of dollars training an Army for the sole purpose of "defense"?

Ref B should also come as no surprise.  The IS has occupied huge swaths of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq.  I'm a bit surprised that with at least five coalition Air Forces in the area (maybe only four; I keep adding the Brits out of habit), anything is able to move in the desert without getting blown to bits.  Even with a daily dose of Stars and Stripes and LWJ, I'm still totally confused about the organization of the air campaign.  What I do know is that the U.S. and France are willing and able to deploy over both Syria and Iraq.  Now here is where things get cloudy.  The Qatari and Emirati Air Forces, flying the shiniest and newest F16s, seem to pick and chose when they get involved.  They are willing to bomb some folks, but not bomb others.  Something smells rotten here (which is no surprise, since deodorant is definitely optional in this part of the world).  Since when does a military coalition partner turn in  a list of "folks we will bomb", and "folks we won't"?  Being the brilliantly suspicious asshole that I am, something tells me that both the Qataris and Emiratis are sympathetic to certain terrorist groups active in Syria.  Qatar's thinly-veiled support for Islamic Extremist groups is not a news flash (I'm sure glad we didn't deliver those five Guantanamo residents we traded for Bergdahl to a place like Qatar), but the Emiratis are usually much more discrete.  Either way, it may explain why the bad guys are able to open numerous training camps right under the eyes of our spy satellites.

Ref C is the least interesting of Thursday's "multiple Links" night.  It probably comes as no surprise to my well-read readers that Al-Qaeda (AQ) has found ripe fruit to pick amongst the one hundred thirty-three million mostly poor, Muslims of India.  Regardless of which party is in power in India, religious tension always seems to be boiling just below the surface.  I thought that the Congress Party, under the direction of Sonia Ghandi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would make a sincere effort to address some of the many legitimate grievances of the Muslim community, but it didn't happen.  Excuse the cliché, but India truly is like an Onion.  Once you peel it, you have another layer, and then another, and another....India is a nation built upon one set of hierarchies after another.  Addressing the grievances of the Muslim community will probably result in the continuation of bigotry in another part of Indian society.  Be that at is may, Osama bin-Laden recognized the opportunity to recruit and cause trouble here, and AQ has been a stealth presence in Muslim India for years.  The attention focused on AQ on the Indian subcontinent comes as AQ releases its newest online magazine, the English-language "Resurgence".  I've seen photos of the cover of the magazine and the insides, and it has an appealing, colorful modern look to it.  Then you read the articles.  Most of the magazine focuses on the Indian subcontinent, with writers offering explanation for the AQ plan to hijack Pakistani naval vessels.  The hijacked vessels were supposed to attack the U.S. Navy warships, but the plan never got off of the ground.  I don't understand why AQ has always persisted in offering explanations for its actions.  AQ despises the United States and the way Americans live their lives.  AQ also resents the influence and the presence of the United States around the world, financially, militarily and diplomatically.  I think that covers it.  "Resurgence" does include a very interesting article (with a nice graphic) on what targets would cause the most damage to American interests.  They conclude that disrupting the flow of oil would be the most effective way to hurt the U.S.  Obviously they have some real deep thinkers over there at AQ University.  Back on the subcontinent, the potential is great for an escalation of AQ-sponsored violence.  In fact, its inevitable. India has an effective, well-run internal law enforcement agency (the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and I would not envy any Indian AQ members who get picked up by the CBI.  If AQ orchestrates a large-scale attack, the Indian police will lock-up first and ask questions later.  India has a relatively new government and it will be very interesting to observe how the New Democratic Alliance (NDA) (basically the BJP and a handful of like-minded parties) approaches this issue, and how they respond to the inevitable AQ attack. 

Did the Obama Administration manipulate intelligence to influence the 2012 election?

Link: Was Al-Qaeda 'on the Run'?

I have spent my fair share of time in Washington DC.  Personally, I think the DC Metropolitan Area is lovely throughout the year.  Spring brings a tremendous display of flowers, summers are usually not oppressively hot, and winter snowfall on the White House paints a beautiful picture.  The District is home to a fascinating variety of people, many speaking different languages.  But the majority of folks I ran into during my time in the nation's capital worked either in politics or for Uncle Sam.  That is why I have always considered Washington DC to be a city of duel functions: it is the seat of political power, with Congress, the Supreme Court and the President all within a snowball's toss of each other, and the brain center for the functions of government.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development is here, as is Health and Human Services.  Foggy Bottom is home to the headquarters for the Department of State, and the Department of Justice is not far from Ford's Theater, the tragic location of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination.  By living in this community and daily interacting with its residents, I quickly lost any illusions I had about politics being an honorable profession.  I am proud to say that during my years working in the Intelligence Community, I seldom saw or experienced a decision that was motivated by politics (as opposed to the best interests of the nation).  I believe that folks in the Intelligence Community take into account that the American people are trusting us with the secrets of the United States, and this reality alone goes a long way to keeping politics out of our work.  Today I read an article in the reliable Weekly Standard that literally took my breath away.  Because I have a basic understanding of the Constitution, I don't use the word "Impeachment" very often.  "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are difficult accusations to prove, especially in this environment.  For the first time in my lifetime, though, if the allegations implied in this article are accurate, I believe it is time for me to use that word.

In May 2011, brave men and women of the U.S. military killed Osama Bin Laden.  He was hiding out in a nondescript compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  I will not repeat the details of the link which you have just read, but to say that during the 40 minutes that U.S.

personnel were on site, a great deal of intelligence-related material was collected, including hard drives, thumb drives, documents, maps, diagrams, letters, DVDs and audiotapes.  I remember hearing through the grapevine that the intel haul on that day was LEGENDARY.  According to the Weekly Standard, only 10 percent of the collected intelligence was accessed and decoded/translated before it was decided to shut things down "for a while".  At least until after the 2012 election.  Interestingly enough, the small amount of intelligence that was reviewed gave the distinct impression that Al-Qaeda was in shambles.  Our efforts to destabilize the organization had made it almost impossible for them to communicate with one another and had also negatively impacted their funding and recruitment.  This information was released to an understandably excited press, and the headlines read "Al-Qaeda on the Run".  The Obama Administration took full advantage of the story that was painted by the release of this select few pieces of intelligence.  The American people were told repeatedly during the 2012 election cycle, that the Obama Administration was responsible for the crippling of Al-Qaeda.  As I recall, no one asked any really difficult questions.  A number of Al-Qaeda big wigs besides Bin Laden had also been recently dispatched, and I, just like most folks, believed the storyline.  George Bush went to war to destroy Al-Qaeda and failed in that effort.  But President Obama, following a separate policy that did not involve invading another country, had been successful.

Now we learn that once the election was over and the rest of the haul was decoded, translated and deciphered, that the reality was quite different.  According to the Weekly Standard, documents obtained during the May 2011 Abbottabad raid detail an Al-Qaeda still active and plotting.  The documents revealed that Al-Qaeda was in contact with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a particularly heinous terrorist group operating in India, and that Bin Laden may have actually been involved in the planning of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai.  We also learned that a potentially dangerous relationship between Iran and Al-Qaeda was a real possibility, and that Bin Laden had established a "vast array of increasingly deadly affiliates", including ISIS/ISIL.  In fact, once DIA (military intelligence) had been given access to the full amount of seized Abbottabad intelligence, they came to the opposite conclusion than was being repeatedly declared on the 2012 campaign trail.  In their view, Al-Qaeda had grown even stronger.

If the CIA selectively exploited the intelligence gathered during the Abbottabad raid for the purpose of created a false storyline, then this development calls for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.  No Administration, Republican, Democrat or Whig, should manipulate the tools of national security for political purposes.  If this has occurred and is not addressed appropriately, then we should not be surprised when the Department of Commerce (or any other branch of government) is directed to act for partisan political purposes.  In fact, a close look at some of the other current scandals stinking up the Potomac right now hint at the use of other government agencies for partisan political reasons.  It is for this reason that I give consideration to the use of the word "Impeachment".  Of course, even if these allegations are correct, it doesn't mean any particular member of the current Administration is involved.  It could have been a decision made solely within the halls of the CIA.  But if an Independent Council is appointed, and evidence is uncovered that points to the highest office in the land, then I do believe we are looking at a case of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".