Pakistan, Taliban: Thick as Thieves

Flickr/ <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/1330419260/">US Army</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s amazing that newsworthy information can hang around in the public sphere, sometimes for years, before the media stumble on it and act like they just discovered electricity. This weekend, reporters went nuts over Harvard researcher Matt Waldman’s report (PDF) that the Taliban is being supported by Pakistani intelligence. “The relationship, in fact, goes far beyond contact and coexistence, with some assistance provided by elements within, or linked to, Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) or military,” Waldman writes.

Sounds sexy. But why is this exciting editors and reporters now, though? It’s not a new story—it’s been pretty well reported since before 9/11. The only novel revelation in Waldman’s study—if true—is that Pakistan’s president met personally with Taliban prisoners to express his support and that the nation’s military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), actually has a seat on the Taliban’s governing council in the border city of Quetta. But it is a report that raises a lot of questions for the US about its continued involvement in the war for Afghanistan.

Waldman’s study could be a lot of Taliban hot air. Beyond his own interviews with Talib commanders, he cites as evidence The New Yorker‘s Steve Coll and Pakistan-based jihadi expert Ahmed Rashid—no slouches, to be sure, but still not the fullest picture one might hope to get. Some regional experts are beating up Waldman pretty badly over this “onesided” report, and he doesn’t come off brilliantly when met with skepticism by this TV interviewer. Yet much of what he says is pretty widely accepted in academic, military, and diplomatic circles. Just in the past year, major media have reported that the ISI assists jihadis in selecting bombing targets and even helped Mullah Omar Muhammad (remember him?) flee US drone attacks to set up camp in the madrassas of Pakistan’s urbane Karachi.

Why would Pakistani military intelligence—largely well-bred, Western-educated, professional elites—cast their lot with South Asia’s knuckleheaded takfiris? The commonest answer is external balancing: The idea that Pakistan has an interest in not seeing too strong an Afghan state emerge to challenge Pak influence. There’s also the internal balancing argument: The Taliban’s very popular with a large swath of Pakistanis, and America isn’t.

But most of all, the ISI wants to control the Taliban. It’s a fertile source for proselytizers and warriors in Pakistan’s ongoing Kashmir dispute with India. And clandestine agencies often buy into the idea that cooperation with a group gives you maximum knowledge and control over the group’s activities. As one Pakistani officer told the New York Times, “In intelligence, you have to be in contact with your enemy or you are running blind.”

Beyond the whys, though, the important question is: If there’s a solid Pakistan-Taliban link, what should can the US do about it? Waldman concludes: “The powerful role of the ISI, and parts of the Pakistani military, suggests that progress against the Afghan insurgency, or towards political engagement, requires their support.”

That’s not good news for Americans. Our ability to cooperate and coordinate with the ISI has never been great—the relationship was probably best during the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, when it consisted of us giving money to the ISI to give to the right jihadis in Afghanistan (many of whom would later form the backbone of the Taliban). And any strongarm diplomatic effort is likely only to weaken US-Pakistan relations, as well as drive a bigger wedge between Pakistan’s civilian and military officials.

Which doesn’t leave many US options. For his part, Waldman advocates an indirect appriach to pacifying the ISI and, by extension, the Taliban: “The only sure way to secure such cooperation is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India.”

Great! Yes, let’s address India-Pakistan. While we’re at it, let’s find bin Laden, solve Israel-Palestine, quell nuclear ambitions in Tehran and Pyongyang, and salvage the world’s biggest economy, too!

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate