Reuters Image
A report by London School of Economics has garnered a stream of news attention since its release yesterday, as well as some choice headlines, (The Sunday Times piece had my personal favorite headline, “Pakistan Puppet Masters Guide the Taliban Killers.” Seriously.) The report, written by Matt Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University, ultimately claims that Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, has a direct link with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
However, unlike past assertions that “rogue elements” within the ISI were supporting the Taliban, Waldman instead argues that “this is a significant underestimation of the current role of the ISI in the Afghan insurgency.” According to Taliban commanders he interviewed, the ISI’s powerful role with the organization is “as clear as the sun in the sky.” He wrote,
The Taliban-ISI relationship is founded on mutual benefit. The Taliban need external sanctuary, as well as military and logistical support to sustain their insurgency; the ISI believes that it needs a significant allied force in Afghanistan to maintain regional strength and ‘strategic depth’ in their rivalry with India.
I won’t go into an exhaustive post about the report, because frankly, it does point to assertions and suspicions that have been discussed and widely acknowledged for years – namely, that the ISI has supported insurgent fighters to fight proxy wars against India (Lashkar-e-Taiba for one), and the agency wants to maintain “strategic depth” in Afghanistan because of rising Indian influence in the country. For both the ISI and the Pakistani military, India is and always has been Enemy Number One. And while the military has gone against the “Pakistani Taliban,” militants that have been targeting the state and Pakistani citizens, a similar operation against the “Afghan Taliban,” (the Haqqani Network, Hekmatyar) has not exactly materialized, despite U.S. pressures.
But does this mean that the ISI-Taliban link is part of an “officially sanctioned policy”? Even Waldman isn’t 100% sure.
- While Waldman cites numerous academics and analysts (including Steve Coll, Ahmed Rashid, Bruce Reidel, and Seth Jones) to back his claims, his conclusions are essentially grounded in interviews in or near Kabul and Kandahar, from February-May 2010, with nine insurgent field commanders, ten former senior Taliban officials, twenty-two Afghan elders, tribal leaders, politicians and analysts; and thirteen foreign diplomats, experts and security officials. Interestingly, Waldman did not interview any former or current officials on the Pakistani side. As a result, the report is admittedly one-sided, with claims corroborated by numerous insurgents but not by any ISI agents or even anonymous sources “close to the ISI.”
- In the report, Waldman prefaces his own claims numerous times, even noting, “Given that the ISI and its operations are by their nature secret, the findings described below are based on interviews and cannot by conclusively verified.” Throughout the paper, the Harvard fellow consistently hedges his findings, using terms like, “apparently” and “appears” and stated on page 11, “It should be borne in mind that insurgents may seek to shift the blame for some of their most egregious activities, such as the execution of elders or attacks on schools; they may misapprehend and overstate ISI power; or they may in fact be in a state of denial.”
- In an interview with Al Jazeera English, when probed by the anchor on what direct evidence he had to make such comments on an official ISI policy, Waldman answered, “Well of course Pakistan’s intelligence is not going to leave any evidence around…[but] the pressure and dependence [of these insurgents] on the ISI explains why they confided” in him for this report.
Here’s an interesting question – are insurgent commanders and militants qualified to make grand conjectures about an intelligence agency’s “officially sanctioned” policy? Are they legitimate sources for a report of this kind, that is ultimately making very serious allegations against not just the ISI, but also President Zardari? If such claims and statements were corroborated by sources within the ISI or close to the agency, such a report could be very credible. But as Huma Imtiaz noted for the AfPak Channel, “reports like Waldman’s must be read with a grain of salt” even if it tackles many of the suspicions we all continue to have.
CHUP! - Changing Up Pakistan 
definitely one-sided. he should have interviewed some ISI members and confronted him with his evidence. instead of allowing them a rebuttal, he made a weak attempt to temper some of his allegations.
that said, at least he went out and got some independent evidence. the rest of the folks, (reidel, fair, coll, etc.) are just armchair analysts who get all their facts by reading other people’s papers. waldman’s work is at least some original research.
Excellent post, there’s some good reason to remain skeptical about Waldman’s report. However, this struck me:
“Are they legitimate sources for a report of this kind, that is ultimately making very serious allegations against not just the ISI, but also President Zardari?”
Isn’t this a bit of a straw man? I don’t think the implication is that President Zardari supports the Taliban, it’s that the military government supports the Taliban, ie General Kayani.
If Zardari were really in charge, would we be having this conversation about “strategic depth” and Indian influence in Afghanistan?
Thanks Josh-
This is actually the Zardari part I was referring to in the piece:
“According to a Talib who has regular contact with members of the Quetta Shura, in late March or early April this year President Zadari [sic] and a senior ISI official visited some 50 high-ranking Talibs who were held in a prison in a secret location in Pakistan. Some 30-35 had been arrested in recent months, and 10-15 were longer-term prisoners. Reportedly, he told them they were arrested because he was under a lot of pressure from the Americans and that, ‘you are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations.'”
As you noted, the Taliban connection with the military/ISI is more accepted than with the civilian government, which is why Waldman’s claim in this part of the report seems a little hard to believe.
Personally I find his research more extensive than many acedemics, they would be looking at background reading and maybe a week in country with half a dozen interviews, then start tapping out the journal article. I’ve always wondered if I could bring myself to do the same…
It is of course hard to find whether or not its ISI. They aren’t showing their id’s, who knows who has turned out to your meeting? Interestingly enough the other part of his research looked at I beleive sources of funding in the gulf, but didn’t of course finger any government or government staff there.
Saying all that it is very easy to find views as to Pakistans actions. The predition of going after at most ‘90%’ of the insurgents in pakistan has knocked around for ages as its the commonly accepted level that Pakistan has to maintain to extract maximum concessions from donors and maintain the nuclus for any future proxie force.
Finally though its a very common western view. Check out the accepted wisdom in journels, defence mags, Janes etc and the ISI alongside other Pakistani elements are regularily identified as at least tactical enemies, and of course this evidence is accepted in government circles as well as they draw on the same sources of info.
“Here’s an interesting question – are insurgent commanders and militants qualified to make grand conjectures about an intelligence agency’s “officially sanctioned” policy?”
–> Taliban are not an organized army. The level of secrecy might not be that tight as an Indian or a Pakistani army.
The above assumptions might be correct than otherwise as ISI has supported militants elements in the past and as you pointed out, the objectives of ISI and Afghan Taliban are intertwined. This could easily be true. The only way that this could be verified as false is for the Pak army to openly criticize Afghan Taliban and reject safe havens in North Waziristan. Pakistan owes Afghans to at the least deny safe havens to Afghan Taliban on Pakistani territory. Unless this happens I,nor any security analyst in the International scene is going to believe that Pakistani army has ended its links with Afghan Taliban.
But the Pakistan army went through all the Quetta Shura arrests before in an effort to show that they “were serious”: https://changinguppakistan.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/pakistan-arrests-7-of-15-quetta-shura-members-csm-reports/
But it all seemed a strategic way of Pakistan gaining a foothold in Afghanistan. So even if Pakistan openly criticizes the Afghan Taliban, do you really think that will be a true signal of an end to alleged relations with this organization?
[…] by Matt Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University, ultimately claims […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan afghan taliban, allied force, enemy number one, harvard university, indian influence, […]
So I read the report and have a few thoughts:
– It is certainly one-sided. No interviews of Pakistani officials were conducted. And the references section has no Pakistani sources. He has not even provided a reason for such exclusions.
– On pg. 7-8 of the report, he talks about ISI’s pressure on the Taliban leadership and how essentially some interviewees have indicated that they are fighting “under duress as a result of pressure from the ISI.” I just don’t see how that’s possible! Did I miss something? More than just interviews are needed to make that statement have any weight.
– This report puts forth some serious accusations against the Zardari government. Though he is right to say that the civilian government has backed jihadi groups in the past, I think it is safe to say that today’s counterinsurgency operations conducted by the Pakistani army are different. To make that statement, some hard evidence is needed, which again, Waldman does not have. Also, just because the government supported the groups in the past does not mean they are doing that NOW. And if they are, it is probably at a much lower level than before.
– If the report is actually true and the ISI is completely supporting the Taliban, then more reasons need to be given for ISI’s rationale. Simply saying that it’s to make sure that India does not become too influential in Afghanistan is a cop out to me.
However, all things aside, I think this report is important because it has attempted to answer key questions: What ARE the links between the Taliban and the ISI? And how dedicated is the ISI in conducting an effective counterinsurgency campaign? These are important questions to answer as the United States and Pakistan try to close their trust deficit.
One last thing though…
In the “references” section, Christine Fair’s piece is not in “The Washington Post Quarterly.” It is in “The Washington Quarterly” and here is the link: http://www.twq.com/09april/index.cfm?id=343.
I know because I edited it. I’m a little upset about that.
@sahar : “Also, just because the government supported the groups in the past does not mean they are doing that NOW. And if they are, it is probably at a much lower level than before.”
Why not? All the reasons for supporting the groups are still there. It seems to me to be completely logical from ISI’s point of view to go after those who are creating trouble in Pakistan than those who will help them create trouble in India & give them “strategic depth” (whatever that means).
Besides, the Pakistan civilian govt has supported such insurgent groups earlier too. So, the premise should be that they would do it again, unless actual verifiable evidence is provided, than they would not.
Where is the verifiable evidence that they are NOT supporting them?
What where is the evidence that they ARE? Is Waldman’s report sufficient proof? I don’t think so.
Just because the Pakistani government and the ISI supported the groups in the past does not mean that they are supporting them now. Without more information, none of us really know what’s going on in the ground.
Also, “It seems to me to be completely logical from ISI’s point of view to go after those who are creating trouble in Pakistan than those who will help them create trouble in India.” If they are going after the groups, how can they be supporting them at the same time?
@sahar: it seems we are going in circles. I did not say they are supporting them. I am saying, based on their past, the premise should be that they are unless proven otherwise.
You seem to be giving them the benefit of doubt which atleast IMHO, they do not deserve.
If they are going after the groups, how can they be supporting them at the same time?” They are going after groups selectively and not exhaustively. If this was some exercise to root out insurgent elements in all, there would have been no selective targeting. There is a reason the US and the rest of the world is after pakistan to “do more”.
Considering the Pakistan army’s offensive in Bajaur, Swat, and South Waziristan, I don’t think my giving them the benefit of doubt is unwarranted.
Also see: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/16-afghan+taliban+denies+link+to+pakistan+isi+report-hs-04.
Seems like a “his word against ours” situation. Oh well.
I agree with you on the selection problem though. Targeting is not as exhaustive as it should be but that could be due to many reasons, such as lack of/limited resources, not enough intelligence, etc. However, Pakistan has come a long way and credit should be given where credit is due.
yes as Aditya Sehgal said:where is the verifiable evidence that they are not supporting them? I would love to know this too!
Do you really think ISI is going to invite Waldman for coffee and tell tales about their relation with Taliban? Of course not. Remember, this is the same Pak adminstration which denied that Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani for months before finally accepting the fact. Pak government is an expert in doublespeak – remember all the rhetoric over the drone attacks while secretly allowing the Americans to operate drones from within Pakistan? Not very forthright are we?
ISI may or may not be actively involved at this point but as Kalsoom rightly mentioned since India remains the no.1 enemy and the notion of strategic depth will not lose its significance so we can expect ISI to continue supporting taliban outfits. When i mention ISI it may not necessarily suggest an official support to Talibans officially approved by army high command. Perhaps the rogue elements inside agencies operating on their own with the approval nod from the bosses could be the case but that’s as good as any official support.
The tragedy for us is simple. Worldwide, security agencies operate in the interest of their respective countries. Outfits like Mossad, RAW, British MI may be household names but their activities remain discreet and image generally positive within their respective countries. ISI is an exception in almost every aspect. A state within a state with unlimited resources at their disposal, you expect them to deliver goodies. However here is an organisation which has quite effectively ruined Pakistan’s reputation outside through years and years of misadventures and blunders in the name of security. Fair enough you are ISI and we don’t expect outside world to respect you but get some frikking respect from us Pakistani public as well. It is to their great credit that ISI is actively involved on both foreign and domestic front. The amount of planning, preparation and hard work they invest for our security is equally matched by their involvement in the internal politics of Pakistan ranging from kidnapping people, toppling governments to rigging elections every now and thn. Hence with great pleasure and pride I declare ISI to be the only organization on this planet for not only effectively screwing up our image forever but also striking fear in the hearts of Pakistani public through their relentless criminal activities all in the name of safety and protection. Talk about safety, with almost 3000 civilians killed in suicide bombings since 2007 one can witness the output of grand strategies by our great strategists over the course of last two decades. What makes it all more pathetic is how they are still living in the state of self denial still not refusing to accept responsibility for their misdeeds.
Guys, Matt Waldman may have been biased in his assessment but what difference does it make. Today it’s Waldman, tomorrow he will be replaced by another accuser, another NYT journal, another fox documentary another BBC finding and so on. This will never stop and God knows how we are going to defend ourselves forever against these witch hunt investigations. Let me console myself by remembering the great words of great warrior Zaid Hamid
Aik din Delhi ke laal qilay per sabz parcham lehraye ga (one day our green flag will fly high on Delhi’s red fort)
I guess that very day we shall all understand the purpose of ISI’s existence till thn Mr Hamid go f*** yourself.
Is ISI both a domestic and foreign intelligence service?
yeah working with the might is right philosophy..
someday they will take over pakistan cricket board as well citing another RAW conspiracy for pakistani cricket’s decline;)
some of Waldman’s allegations are pretty ridiculous. like ISI punjabis leading actual Taliban operations? would the ISI really risk the capture of their trained military operatives by the americans? that seems way way over the top.
not to be a conspiracy theorist, but things are so shady in that part of the world, that we don’t actually know WHO Waldman interviewed. the afghan intelligence works hard to discredit the ISI. couldn’t they have “set-up” some of the sources to give the information they want to get out? after all, would hardcore taliban elements actually agree to be interviewed by an american academic?
The picture is from Army’s propaganda video, not Reuters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7824865/Pakistan-spy-agency-controls-the-Taliban-and-plans-attacks.html
I 400% protest that any Pakistani support to taliban or Lashkar-e-Tayyiba is officially sanctioned policy.
1. Quasab is not Pakistani
2. Well, he might be Pakistani but he is a “Non state actor” who acted on his own
3. Well, he might have been trained by the Lakshar-e-Tayyiba but Lashkar is a banned organization
4. Well, Pro Lashkar rallies are being held in Lahore, but they are being held by Jamaat-Ud-Dawah
5. Well, Jamaat-Ud-Dawah might have been a parent organization of Lakshar-e-Tayyiba, but it not banned bcause is a charity organization
6. Well, Jamaat and Lashkar might have been offshoots of Sipah-e-Sahaba but as you know SSP is banned!!
7. Well, Punjab law minister might have attended a rally in SSP chief’s car. But that was in his personal capacity. It was indiscretion. No offical sanction.
8. Well he might have given a speech supporting them, but it was electoral politics.
9. Hamid Gul might have been in the same rally in Lahore, And he might have made several speeches openly supporting Taliban/Lashkar and other extremist groups – but as you know Gul is retired ISI he is not *officially* in ISI
10. Well, Khalid Khawaja might have also supported them, but as you know – he is retired too. In any case he worked only for the Airforce and not the army.
11. Well, he might have been seen last seen hanging out with Colonel Sultan Amir Tarar (Col Imam)? but Col Imam is a nobody
12. Well, Col Imam might have been Pakistani Consul General at Herat, but I am 400% sure He was not supporting the taliban then. He got radicalized after retirement
13. In any case whoever are supporting the extremists were doing it when they are retired and it doesnt have offical sanction!!!
14. Well, except that one time Musharraf gave a monetary reward in a public function to Ilyas Kashmiri for beheading an Indian army Major – Well that is war not terrorism
15. Well Ilyas Kashmiri might be one of the prime accused in the 26/11 Mumbai attack, but Indians are fond of lying — like claiming Quasab is Pakistani. Well he turned out to be Pakistani, but that doesnt prove Indians dont lie.
16. Anyway, what I am saying is, we might have sheltered only anti India elements. That is fair game. There are no global Jihadi extremists in Pakistan
17. Well, except for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef. Those are abberrations. In any case we didnt shelter them.
18. Except for this one time when Omar Sheikh Saeed — the guy who wired money to Mohammed Atta and killed Daniel Pearl was staying in Ijaz Shah’s house for 2 weeks.
19. Well we all know Ijaz Shah retired…. in 2008. After 2008 we have not been supporting any international Jihadi or taliban. They are not in Pakistan.
20. Well except for this one time when Mullah Birader got caught in Pakistan. But hey, we caught him!!
21. Well there was this other time when Jalaluddin Haqqani helped us bomb Indian consulate in Afghanistan. But that was to counter India.
I will accept that we support the taliban only if General Kayani wears a suicide vest, displays two forms of identification, yells “Jiiihaaaad against Infidels!!!” and is dressed in full military uniform with his insignia showing. He should also submit his receipt from his last salary and get a letter from the government that as of now he is currently employed. The submission is invalid unless done in triplicate.
All I am saying is, we might have supported various Jihadi groups yesterday, we are clean today. There is no official support — it is all either by retired people or serving people & politicians in their personal capacity. Pakistan army is not like other country’s armed forces which can court martial even retired personnel for anti national activities. In any case, not shutting up, arresting or banning any of the terror organizations, their former supporters, current handlers and retired ISI and army people does not constitute any proof for official involvement.
Tariq, do you purposely like not living in denial or is it just a, ahem, suicidal instinct?
Either ways, hats off to blowing some holes in the rhetoric of “prove it” from the people writing to only deny the Waldman report, not learn that there might be some issues within.
best of luck.
tariq, that was brilliant
That was absolutely brilliant! Please do post this same post again and again. I wouldn’t mind reading it.
Well, I still have not gotten the outrage about the Waldman report out of my system yet. The Waldman report is pure speculation and does not contain an iota of truth or logical deduction. It is because of three very simple reasons:
1. Pakistan does NOT have any history of blaming shady activities on individuals while denying official sanction. If our officials or citizens were involved, we will come forward and truthfully accept it!!*
2. ISI & Army might be indulging in shady activities but they CANNOT force Presidents or Prime ministers to do their bidding!!**
3. Civilians have NOTHING to do with any terrorism or even if it being done, it is by ISI & Army!!***
———————–
*Well, except for this one time when Zardari went on Larry King show and denied Quasab was Pakistani. Well also this one time when Musharraf said that Mujahideen were attacking Kargil and it was not the Pakistan army. Well maybe also this one time when AQ Khan acted on his own without anyone in ISI or army GHQ knowing about his proliferation activities. But all other times, we have accepted official responsibility!! Any counter examples are exceptions!!
**Well remember that one time Benazir visited North Korea and then after that US took a satellite picture of our C130 unloading crates there? Well she visited North Korea because of its booming economy and scope for trade ties and other civilian and cultural activities. Army & ISI had nothing to do with it.
***Well except for Sheikh Rashid, who boasted on TV that he ran a terror camp training. It is one bad apple.
@Tahir : just brilliant 🙂
Tariq Saab
Hats off to the Army and your assessment of their sudden clean acts but with all due respect i am not buying any of that
‘All I am saying is, we might have supported various Jihadi groups yesterday, we are clean today. There is no official support — it is all either by retired people or serving people & politicians in their personal capacity’
And tell me if the govt army or our security apparatus have no information of these rogue elements operating on their own and have not been able to identify and control their activities?
And how would you expect western media to rationally differentiate between official and unofficial support?
Jamat ud dawa is a charity organization but under that umbrella they have got a licence to kill
Hafiz Saeed till date claims lashkar e tayyaba has no involvement in any terrorist activities
My point is..Pakistani army or agencies are probably not involved in a direct taliban support but have they got no information of retired officials or politicians operating in their personal capacity?
I will never believe that
Pakistan needs taliban support to maintain strategic depth. I am still waiting for the north waziristan operation so far we have refused to touch haqqani network
Hi,
Problem is not ISO or taliban. Problem is that of the mixing of the religion and national. Today many sympathises with taliban because they work for the cause of the islam and where as the state is acting as per the instruction of the west.
Till such time these contradiction exist there will be rogue element within the organization who will support the extremist in their discretionary capacity as every level enjoy the same in an heirarchy.
Yes, these type of western elites enlightened the world once that iraq had WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
So whatever english press writes, the same must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Here is an article from NYTimes “Militant Group Expands Attacks in Afghanistan” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/world/asia/16lashkar.html
Guess which “Militant group” it is? “The group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is believed to have planned or executed three major attacks….”
Aha – so does LeT have “official sanction”?*
Ofcourse not! LeT has no official sanction! It is banned!! Except for the fact that the government could not produce any notification of the ban on Lashkar in the in-camera trial of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi. Oops! Might be just bad record keeping. Not that the Lashkar cares – after all it is the Lashkar which is “banned” not Jamaat ud Dawah (which the Lashkar changed into and started doing “charity work”).
JuD does charity work. So it is not banned. In any case, not being banned does not equate to “offically supporting” them does it?
Well except for the fact the Punjab supplementary budget has 82.7 million rupees for support JuD activities! Did that catch your attention? Let me repeat – Punjab budget allocates 82.7 million rupees for JuD.
BUT funding them out of official budget does not mean their aims are “officially endorsed”.
So what do we have now. A group which carries out attacks in Afghanistan, which is banned (except that nobody is able to find any kind of notification of the the ban), which changed names to become another group which was not banned because they started doing “charity” and was banned by the UN nevertheless –and the UN ban was not implemented in Pakistan because “India did not carry out UN resolutions in Kashmir” (Honorable Court’s words) and furthermore the group was funded ~83 million by Punjab government.
Now if anyone insinuates that supporting terror in Afghanistan is Pakistan’s “official policy” — I will start to nitpick on whether the study was done in a fair and balanced manner and trash the methodology. Because we, Pakistanis, set the bar high on the evidence we seek to believe in things. And oh, by the way, Jews did 9/11.
*ofcourse discerning readers will protest that the issue is whether official support to the *taliban* exists and *LeT is not taliban* – fair enough. Like a true coffee connoisseur I applaud at your ability to make fine distinctions.
Tariq, dude, have you got a blog? Can I have the link?
Excellent post Kalsoom! while we cannot ignore the delusional strategic depth which has been instrumental in formulating the Afghanistan policy. The linkages made by Waldman report are incoherent and un-sufficient. It is rather presumptuous to suggest that there is operational understanding between the Taliban and Pakistan government because we have suffered colossal damages due the numerous Taliban atrocities in Pakistan
The strategic partnership between U.S and Pakistan has evolved a long way, the mantra of “Do more “have stopped. The operations have demonstrated that both the civilian and military leadership is committed to fight terrorism. The Waldman report is a maligned conspiracy to defame Pakistan’s role in the war against terror.
@josh mull. It is important that at this time of uncertainty we ignore such things which might add to the uncertainty that is in Pakistan. We must fight the Taliban and defeat them and support the ongoing operations.
I agree with Rabia
@ Tariq
Thanks for connecting the dots brilliantly. Nothwithstanding criticisms of the Waldman report , we are still sleep walking. What a can of worms. At least the activities of the shadowy figures are getting out in the open – one important step towards resolution along a very long and treacherous road.