[R-G] Why Choose Now to Complain about Pakistan's ISI?

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

The timing must be in large part due to the fact that the Congress
Party of India has just succeeded in outmaneuvering the CPI(M) and
moving the Indo-US nuclear pact forward. -- Yoshie

<http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/08/01/why-choose-now-to-complain-about-pakistans-isi/>
August 1st, 2008
Why choose now to complain about Pakistan's ISI?
Posted by: Myra MacDonald

Why now? Until this week, the ISI was an acronym for Pakistan's
powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, that was little
known outside of South Asia. Now it's all over the American media as
the organisation accused of secretly helping Islamist militants in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the country it works for is a crucial
ally in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The New York Times led the charge by reporting that the CIA had
confronted Pakistan [LINK:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/world/asia/30pstan.html>] over what
it called deepening ties between members of the ISI and militant
groups responsible for a surge in violence in Afghanistan. It followed
it up with a story [LINK:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/asia/01pstan.html>] quoting
U.S. government officials blaming the ISI for an attack last month on
the Indian embassy in Kabul. The Washington Post [LINK:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080100133.html>]
and TIME [LINK:
<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1828207,00.html>],
amongst others, ran similar stories.

File photo of Indian parliamentWhenever you see a deluge of stories in
the media quoting government or intelligence officials, it's always
worth asking why those unnamed officials have chosen this particular
moment to speak out. The accusations against the ISI — denied by
Pakistan [LINK:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL27630820080801>] — are
not new.

India has complained for years about the role of the ISI in supporting
the insurgency in Kashmir. It threatened to go to war in 2001/2002
over a December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that it blamed on
militants backed by the ISI,  a charge denied by Pakistan. The debate
within India at the time was very similar to the one you can find
today in the U.S. media — how much do the ruling authorities in
Pakistan control the ISI, and to what extent is it a monolithic
disciplined organisation, and to what extent does it have renegade
members who might follow their own agenda?

More importantly, perhaps, in the current context, is how the
Americans viewed the ISI.  The U.S. diplomats I knew in India had no
illusions about the ISI, although publicly they refused to take sides
as they tried – successfully as it turned out — to persuade Islamabad
and Delhi to stand down from a conflict that threatened to undermine
America's post 9/11 efforts to tame Afghanistan.

During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, the CIA
worked closely with the ISI to arm, train and fund the mujahideen.
Between them they drove the Russians out of Afghanistan and helped
bring down the Soviet Union. There can be no closer relationship
between two countries' spy agencies than that.  The CIA knows, and has
long known, the ISI — perhaps better than any other country's
intelligence services.

So I come back to my original question. Why turn on them now?

There are, of course, obvious answers. Pakistan's new government,
elected in February, just made a botched attempt to bring the ISI
under civilian control.  Its subsequent retraction served only to
highlight the power of the ISI [LINK:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSISL27007420080728>].
The Americans and their allies are suffering heavy losses in
Afghanistan, while going into a presidential election where the war in
Iraq, and the U.S. failure to hunt down al Qaeda and the Taliban, have
become a major issue.

But I can't help but wonder whether those unnamed officials now so
keen to talk to the media are spinning a line.  There have long been
arguments within the CIA about how to handle the ISI, with agents
based in Kabul generally arguing in favour of confrontation and those
in Islamabad backing cooperation.

So is what we are seeing in the U.S. media a reflection of a battle
within the CIA over rival views on how to handle Pakistan and the ISI?
Maybe.

Or is it a reflection of actual events, including the increase in
violence in Afghanistan, the renewed focus on Iraq/al Qaeda created by
the U.S. presidential election, the speculation about whether the
United States will send its troops into Pakistan to hunt down leaders
of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and heightened tensions between India and
Pakistan over the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul? Maybe.

I am not asking these questions in the kind of rhetorical way that
suggests that I already know the answer. I'm asking because I don't
know.

April photo of a support holding a poster of Saddam Hussain/Saba al
BazeeBut I am just a little bit suspicious when I see the media all
heading in the same direction. It feels uncannily similar to the way
the media quoted unnamed officials about WMD to justify the invasion
of Iraq. Many countries had been suspicious of Saddam Hussein since
the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But having ignored that for years,
there was suddenly a groundswell of opinion to remove him. Are we now
seeing a similar groundswell against Pakistan?

Once again, I don't know the answer, but suggest only that there is a
need to ask why people have chosen this moment to talk.  Otherwise we
prove the old cliche true, that "we learn from history that we don't
learn from history."

(A word on comments. I write this blog because I want to hear what
people have to say. Many people have posted excellent comments that
have moved the debate forward. But please don't swear and don't abuse
others. And stick to the subject. We're in the 21st century here so
let's not go back to 1947.)