 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
« Harlan County takes sides |
Blog Home Page
| Ex-Treasury Department Economist Says Bear Bailout was for JP Morgan »
May 22, 2008 Report: Taliban to disarm in NWFP PakistanRecent reporting from Pakistan has discussed an impending peace accord between the Pakistan government and Taliban forces near the Swat Valley of the North West Frontier Province. A report from the Associated Press of Pakistan states that the agreement has been reached. (And now reported by Reuters.) According to the article, the agreement includes promises by the local Taliban to quit suicide bombings in the region, turn over heavy weapons, stop carrying small weapons in public, and assist the government in bringing humanitarian aid and stability to the region. Reportedly, the Pakistan army will begin a drawdown of the large force that it sent in to repel the Taliban/al Qaeda invasion of the Swat Valley last year. They will exchange prisoners. The terms of the agreement strongly resemble what many in the west considered a disastrous peace accord over Waziristan back in 2006. Many commentators at the time considered the accord to be nothing but a chance for the Taliban to regroup in order to continue operations in Afghanistan, despite the inclusion of accord provisions against doing just that. As feared, that is exactly what happened back in 2006. However, this accord has been reached under vastly different circumstances. In 2006, the Pakistan army was viewed as having been defeated or at least fought to a draw. In 2007-2008, that same army drove the militants out of Swat bringing unheard of military force to the region. Other reporting shows that even the mood of the Pakistani soldiers reflects a new confidence at their success. In addition, the situation on the world stage has changed since 2006. The impending defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, finally being noticed by even the French media (but tellingly yet to be so recognized by The New York Times) has done much to discredit the ideology of al Qaeda. Its' influence over the global Islamic jihad movement has been greatly diminished as everyone from Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, to notable Saudi clerics to noted jihadi spiritual leaders are now blasting Usama bin Laden for the defeat he has brought to their cause. The situation in Afghanistan has changed dramatically as well. NATO is reporting progress both in terms of reducing Taliban held ground and popular support. NATO stepped up operations since 2006 and is now in the midst of a smaller surge than the one which brought such success in Iraq. The addition of 3,000 Marines and stepped up commitment by our European, Canadian and Australian allies have created room for NATO to punch into long held Taliban territories. Canadian and Australian media are reporting the offensive and success. They are now taking territories never controlled by NATO or the new Afghanistan government. In addition, the Islamist block of the Pakistani parliament as represented by the MMA remained essentially silent as the Pakistani troops routed the al Qaeda allied Taliban in Swat. Their silence indicated a new political dynamic within the legislative block, one that is unfavorable to al Qaeda. While there are certain elements of the reported peace accord that are unsettling, it might be wise to consider how vastly different the conditions are since 2006. All hostilities end with some type of peace agreement. Although it is tempting to be reflexively against this agreement considering its' deleterious predecessor, times have changed. The new accord does not signal the defeat of the Taliban or al Qaeda in Pakistan. What it does, if successful, is remove yet more operating space and political/ideological support for al Qaeda in the region. It may bring former al Qaeda supporters closer to the government and away from al Qaeda. It may very well be one more stepping stone to the defeat of terrorism based in the region. Ray Robison is co-author of Both in One Trench. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
If this plays out as positively as written, I can hear Jackie Gleason now.
How Sweet It Is!!!!
al Qaeda Idealogy neutralized? In the swat valley? WOW!!!!!
Posted by: Jimmi Hayden | May 22, 2008 11:20 AM
I would seriously suggest that Mr. Robison spend some time studying the reporting from the folks at the Long War Journal, or the Captain's Journal, or The Middle East Journal, or the Small Wars Journal, or any of the other reportage from people that are actually on the ground, and who have been on the ground since the beginning. Mr. Robison lays out a string of rosy changes that have taken place that would tend to belie the same result as in the agreement in Waziristan. He conveniently neglects to note that the agreement is simply one more in a string of agreements signed by the new PPP government that has, like Obama, declared their intent to cease the hostilities between the Pakistani Taliban and the Pakistani government forces. If Mr. Robison would take a serious look at the prisoners that have been released by the government, he would see a string of high ranking Taliban from both Pakistan AND Afganistan, men that have said that they have no intention of giving up their war against America. Additionally, the Pakistan government, when asked about the potential for Al Qaeda and the Taliban to use the territories for cross border terror raids into Afganistan, declared that not to be their problem. They said that it was up to America and NATO to take care of Afganistan and that was non of Pakistan's business. Additionally, we are already seeing increased pressure on the supply routes into Afganistan, particularly through the Khyber Pass from the Taliban. Mr. Robison would do well to take off his blinder or rose colored glasses or whatever he is wearing so that he can see what is actually happening. Either that, or report more accurately the actual news, instead of cheerleading.
Posted by: Caleb | May 22, 2008 06:30 PM
For Caleb: Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16317/is_a_pakistan_truce_good_for_the_united_states.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F263%2Fasia
Is a Pakistan Truce Good for the United States?
Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia
Daniel Markey, a former State Department specialist on South Asia for the Policy Planning Council, has just returned from a trip to Pakistan. He says the United States should be concerned about the negotiations going on between the Pakistan army and tribal leaders because in the past, truces between the two have led to increased infiltration of terrorists into Afghanistan. This time, however, may be different. The Pakistani army seems to have moved in force to the frontier regions; further, it is negotiating with tribal leaders to give them responsibility for bringing the militants under control, instead of negotiating with the Taliban.
...........
"So it's similar to that but this time there may be some significant differences and this is something the Pakistani army is taking pains to try to point out.
One of the differences is that this time the Pakistani army has really moved into the area in force and enforced an economic blockade against Mehsud tribes before starting negotiations. It has inflicted various punishments on some of the tribal villages to demonstrate that the army, in fact, has the upper hand. That's one difference. The other difference that I was told about on my trip is that this time the Pakistani government claims to be negotiating, not with the Taliban directly, but with tribal leaders. This is a potentially significant difference because the army--or the Pakistani government--claims that by negotiating with tribal leaders, not militants, they can hold these tribal leaders accountable for enforcing the agreement and make them, the tribal leaders, crack down on the militants who are among them."
.........
"Eventually Pakistan will have to make deals with these tribal groups. There's no other option. This is part of their country. They need to come to political terms and the real issue is not that they make deals but that these deals be more enforceable and that these deals actually get at the problems that trouble the United States and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] in terms of cross-border infiltration or the harboring of terrorists. That's what needs to happen. The deals in and of themselves are not a problem."
Exactly - RR
Posted by: Ray Robison | May 22, 2008 10:20 PM
The Pakistani army may have moved into the tribal areas in force but that is no big deal. They did it before and then withdrew because of the hit and run attacks and suicide bombings. Tthe successes of the Pak army has been in inflictig collective punishment on the innocent residents, not against taliban. So, if the Pak army is in such a strong position, why does the agreement require their withdrawl? Why is there nothing about stopping cross-border attacks? Infact, attacks have increased by 50% compared to last year. If they were defeated, would they be doing that? If pak is in control, why is it releasing taliban and qaeda fighters? Is that a demand of the tribal elders? The pakis are trying to get the tribal elders to turn against taliban and releasing terrorists who would be a threat to these very elders if they turned. Why would the tribals want these men released? What has the Paki govt. received? A promise to allow girls to go to school (2 girls schools were torched on the day of the agreement), a halt to suicide bombings (bakery blast kills 13 on same day), the Pakistani taliban will be involved with law enforcement and sharia will be imposed - no Pakistani authority. What mechanism is there to verify that the Taliban will disarm? You need a serious reality check. Youre as delusional as George Bush.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2008 03:13 PM
The Pakistani army may have moved into FATA before, then withdrew because of the heavy losses. Tthe successes of the Pak army has been in inflictig collective punishment on the innocent locals, not taliban. If the Pak army is in such a strong position, why does the agreement require their withdrawl? Why is there nothing about stopping cross-border attacks? Attacks have increased by 50% compared to last year. If they were defeated, would they be doing that? why is pak releasing taliban/qaeda fighters? Is that a demand of the tribal elders? The pakis are trying to get the tribal elders to turn against taliban and releasing terrorists who would be a threat to these very elders if they turned. Why would the tribals want these men released? What has the Paki govt. received? A promise to allow girls to go to school (2 girls schools were torched on the day of the agreement), a halt to suicide bombings (bakery blast kills 13 on same day), the Pakistani taliban will be involved with law enforcement and sharia will be imposed - no Pakistani authority. What mechanism is there to verify that the Taliban will disarm? You need a serious reality check. Youre as delusional as George Bush.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2008 03:18 PM