Pakistan's Strange Relationship With Terrorism

Pakistan's strange relationship with terrorism Terrorist Safe Havens in Pakistan Terrorism, Pakistan, Transnational Security Threats, Afghanistan, South Asia Bruce Riedel joined the Philadephia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin to discuss terrorism related to Pakistan and what the United States should do in the region. Trudy Rubin, host: Bruce, you say in your article that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today, no issue is more critical to get right for the next President. What do you mean by that? Bruce Riedel: I actually wrote those lines for the first time ten years ago in a memo for then-President Clinton. I think Pakistan is the most dangerous country because all of the nightmares of the twenty-first century that should concern Americans come together in Pakistan in a unique way. This is a country with nuclear weapons. This is a county with a history of proliferating nuclear technology. This is a country that has fought four wars with its neighbor, and at least one of those wars went very close to becoming a nuclear war. This is a country that has been the host of numerous international terrorist organizations and is today the safe haven and stronghold of the al Qaeda terrorist organization. This is a country also awash in drugs, narcotics, and this is a country where the clash between reactionary Islamic extremism and democracy is being fought out literally in front of us. All of those issues come together in this one place like nowhere else in the world. That is why it is so important to Americans. Rubin: Some people argue, including Senator John McCain, that Iraq is still the central front in the war on terrorism and that al Qaeda itself has said that is the case. Is there some truth in this? Riedel: Al Qaeda has said that the war in Iraq is one of the most important battlefields in their struggle. But I think that as Americans we ought to focus on where the enemy is. Osama bin Laden and his number two, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, are the heart of al Qaeda. They are the ones who planned the attack of 9/11, and who are planning new attacks on American interests around the world. And there is not one iota of evidence that they have ever been in Iraq. And there is abundant evidence that they are operating outside of Pakistan, in the badlands on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Rubin: Outside of Pakistan or just inside the border?

1

Riedel: Probably inside Pakistan somewhere, maybe going back and forth. The most important thing about their safe haven there is that it is growing. It is getting bigger. A lot of experts have focused on the FATA, the so-called federally administered tribal areas, which is the most lawless part of Pakistan’s borderlands. But, in fact, al Qaeda and its allies, the Taliban and other groups, operate along the entire western border, from Balukistan through FATA, through the northwest frontier province, into Kashmir; a 1500-mile long borderland in which they can operate with complete impunity

New York: All the roads of world terrorism lead to Pakistan that has got velvet glove treatment with zero results, says India-born British novelist Salman Rushdie. "The headquarters of the Al Qaeda, the headquarters of the Taliban, the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammad is in the world centre of terrorism - Pakistan," Rushdie told a packed auditorium of the Asia Society while participating in a discussion, 'Understanding the Mumbai Attacks', in mid-town Manhattan on Wednesday evening. Anti-terror bills passed after acrimony in LS "All the roads of world terrorism lead to Pakistan," he said. Noted authors Mira Kamdar and Suketu Mehta were the other two panelists at the discussion organised jointly by the Asia Society, the South Asian Journalist Association and the Indo-American Arts Council. All three draw their links to Mumbai. Images of the Mumbai war While Rushdie was born there, Mehta grew up in the city. Kamdar lost her cousin and cousin's husband in the November 26-29 terror attack in which more than 170 people were killed. Mumbai attackers came from Pak: FBI The three acclaimed authors lashed out at Pakistan and its leadership for not taking any action against terrorists and denying that those responsible for the Mumbai strike were Pakistani despite credible proof. "British Prime Minister Gordon Brown two days ago said that British intelligence, following up leads of various terrorists' activities, informed him that 75 percent of what they studied led back to Pakistan," Rushdie said.

2

He also took on the US government for handing over billions of dollars in aid without ensuring that Islamabad was really fighting terrorism. "We have treated Pakistan with velvet gloves and what we have got in result is zero." He said that only two months ago the Zardari government authorised the purchase of an armoured vehicle for a Lashkar-e-Taiba leader. "So he is driving around Pakistan in an armoured vehicle purchased by the army of Pakistan." Pakistan is not an enemy of India: Zardari Visibly agitated at Pakistan's involvement in the terrorist attack, Mehta said Pakistan's spy agency ISI should be declared a terrorist outfit. "ISI should be declared a terrorist outfit. They are behind the attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul. They are behind the attacks in Bombay (as Mumbai was called earlier). They should be banned first and foremost for the sake of Pakistan itself," Mehta said. Column: Why is Pakistan Indo-centric? "Pakistan needs to understand and I think there should be a concerted effort on the part of the world community to help Pakistan understand that these groups are a liability now, they are not an asset but a liability for Pakistan," Kamdar said, adding she does not even consider Pakistan a country. Wednesday, January 07, 2009 Intercepts of terrorist communications tie Pakistan to killings Independent: Pakistan has bowed to weeks of international pressure and admitted that the sole surviving militant responsible for the terror attacks in Mumbai is one of its citizens. In what could prove to be a crucial move in easing tensions between the south Asian neighbours, a government minister last night confirmed that Ajmal Kasab was from Pakistan. The concession came as details emerged of the contents of the dossier that India presented to Pakistan this week. The evidence included detailed transcripts of conversations between the militants and their handlers, allegedly based in Pakistan. The transcripts clearly suggest that the handlers, said by India to be senior members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) militant group, controlled almost every move of the militants and directed their actions, both in response to the hostages they had seized and to the Indian commandos trying to end the carnage. An intercept of a conversation published in The Hindu newspaper offers an insight into how much the remote handlers were directing events at the Oberoi Trident hotel, offering instructions on maximising the terror. "Everything is being recorded by the media. Inflict the maximum damage. Keep fighting. Don't be taken alive," said one handler at 3.53am on 27 November. Another interjects: 3

"Kill all the hostages, except the two Muslims," before adding: "Keep your phone switched on so that we can hear the gunfire." The 69-page dossier is the most comprehensive insight yet into the planning behind the November attacks that left about 170 people dead. It includes details of how the militants obtained Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) numbers that allowed the handlers to call the 10 gunmen while seeking to hide their location. There were also photographs of items recovered in the investigations launched after the attacks, including GPS units, mobile phones, guns, explosives and data from satellite phones the militants had left behind. The dossier contained considerable information from the interrogation of Kasab, 21, from Pakistan's Punjab province, who has been held by the police in Mumbai since the attacks. "We are confirming that Kasab is a Pakistani citizen but I cannot say a word more [on this]," said the Pakistani Information Minister, Sherry Rehman. The confirmation by the authorities in Islamabad came just two days after the Pakistan high commissioner in Delhi was presented with the dossier of evidence, which was also shared with the governments of 14 countries who lost citizens in the attacks and other allies. Yet the decision has almost certainly been taken for political reasons rather than being based on any new evidence presented to Pakistan. Ever since India revealed Kasab's identity in the aftermath of the attacks, officials from the ISI intelligence agency have been carrying out their own investigation and are believed to have questioned the surviving militant's parents. Rather, it appears the government decided to act in the face of mounting international pressure. It is probably no coincidence that the US Vice Presidentelect Joe Biden is due to arrive in Pakistan later this week, carrying with him the weight and influence of the incoming US administration. "I think they had no choice because their credibility was getting worse day by day by being in a state of denial," said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general turned political analyst. "As pressure built up from India, the US and the UK, they had to accept the fact. It's a shame really that they waited so long. If they had done so immediately, it would have helped Pakistan's image." ... Transcripts of the conversations are included and this excerpt gives some of the flavor, "Pakistan caller 1: Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims. Keep your phone switched on so that we can hear the gunfire." No wonder Sec. Rice was so confident that people in Pakistan were involved. Something else that should be noted--if India followed the Democrats' policy on the intercepts of enemy communications they would never have been able to get these conversations recorded. It is just more evidence of how misguided the terrorist rights approach of the Democrats is.

4

Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions. The shaky Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes for warm relations with Obama, but members of Obama's new national security team have already telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration, and to back up those demands with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of U.S.Pakistani ties for the past three decades. The separate strikes on two compounds, coming three hours apart and involving five missiles fired from Afghanistan-based Predator drone aircraft, were the first high-profile hostile military actions taken under Obama's four-day-old presidency. A Pakistani security official said in Islamabad that the strikes appeared to have killed at least 10 insurgents, including five foreign nationals and possibly even "a high-value target" such as a senior al-Qaeda or Taliban official. It remained unclear yesterday whether Obama personally authorized the strike or was involved in its final planning, but military officials have previously said the White House is routinely briefed about such attacks in advance. At his daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the strikes, saying, "I'm not going to get into these matters." Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting on Pakistan and Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, after the strike. The Pakistani government, which has loudly protested some earlier strikes, was quiet yesterday. In September, U.S. and Pakistani officials reached a tacit agreement to allow such attacks to continue without Pakistani involvement, according to senior officials in both countries. But some Pakistanis have said they expect a possibly bumpy diplomatic stretch ahead. "Pakistan hopes that Obama will be more patient while dealing with Pakistan," Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said in an interview Wednesday with Pakistan's Geo television network. "We will review all options if Obama does not adopt a positive policy towards us." He urged Obama to "hear us out." 5

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August, all conducted by the CIA, in a ramped-up effort by the outgoing Bush administration. Obama's August 2007 statement — that he favored taking direct action in Pakistan against potential threats to U.S. security if Pakistani security forces do not act — made him less popular in Pakistan than in any other Muslim nation polled before the election. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated during her Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration will not relent in holding Pakistan to account for any shortfalls in the continuing battle against extremists. Linking Pakistan with neighboring Afghanistan "on the front line of our global counterterrorism efforts," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we will use all the elements of our powers — diplomacy, development and defense — to work with those . . . who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists." She also said those in Pakistan who do not join the effort will pay a price, adding a distinctly new element to the long-standing U.S. effort to lure Pakistan closer to the West. In blunt terms in her written answers to the committee's questions, Clinton pledged that Washington will "condition" future U.S. military aid on Pakistan's efforts to close down terrorist training camps and evict foreign fighters. She also demanded that Pakistan "prevent" the continued use of its historically lawless northern territories as a sanctuary by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And she promised that Washington would provide all the support Pakistan needs if it specifically goes after targets such as Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be using Pakistani mountains as a hideout. At the same time, Clinton pledged to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, long dwarfed by the more than $6 billion funneled to Pakistani military forces under President George W. Bush through the Pentagon's counterterrorism office in Islamabad. "The conditioning of military aid is substantially different," as is the planned boost of economic aid, said Daniel Markey, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow who handled South Asian matters on the State Department's policy planning staff from 2003 to 2007. Bush's focus on military aid to a Pakistani government that was led by an army general until August eventually drew complaints in both countries that much of the funding was spent without accountability or, instead of being used to root out terrorists, was diverted to forces intended for a potential conflict with India.

6

A study in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that economic, humanitarian and development assistance under Bush amounted to no more than a quarter of all aid, less than in most countries. The criticism helped provoke a group of senators who now have powerful new roles — Joseph R. Biden Jr., Clinton and Obama — to co-sponsor legislation last July requiring that more aid be targeted at political pluralism, the rule of law, human and civil rights, and schools, public health and agriculture. It also would have allowed U.S. weapons sales and other military aid only if the secretary of state certified that Pakistani military forces were making "concerted efforts" to undermine al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In her confirmation statement, Clinton reiterated her support for such a legislative restructuring of the aid program, while reaffirming that she opposed any "blank check." Some Pakistanis have been encouraged by indications that Obama intends to increase aid to the impoverished country, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who directs the South Asia Center of the Washington-based Atlantic Council of the United States. Nawaz said Pakistanis may be willing to overlook an occasional missile lobbed at foreign terrorists if Obama makes a sincere attempt to improve conditions in Pakistan. "He can't just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people," Nawaz said. "Relying on military strikes will not do the trick." Attaching conditions to the aid is wise, Nawaz said, because "people are more cognizant of the need for accountability — for 'tough love.' " (Rondeaux reported from Islamabad. Special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.)

7