Top Taliban Commander Captured

[Winehole23]

the media how they get access to sensitive information b4 a mission is carried out

Like what?

[EVAY]

Basically, the MK Bhadrakumar gloss is that Pakistan appears to be outmaneuvering the USA strategically in Afghanistan.

I understand that Pakistan's movements are undoubtedly in their own perceived self-interests, and that they believe that they are currently outmaneuvering the US strategically with respect to the Taliban. That acknowledgement is consistent with my question regarding what Pakistan's intent really is; what are they trying to communicate to the Taliban?

I would add, though, that the strategic value of opening talks with the Taliban would be impossible without the US' military technology vs. the same.

[EVAY]

Pakistan's resistance to the presence of drone technology was understandable from the point of view of a country that was still trying to convince the world that it could fight its own wars, and that no one ("are you listening, India?") would ever be allowed in their territory for any reason.

And you are right in that we would never tolerate the same. Of course not.

They cared far less about the Taliban and what it was doing in Afghanistan than they did about India, the Casmir province, and its own internal issues. All of that makes perfect sense.

When the Taliban began blowing up Pakistani villages however in the same way they were in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis decided that maybe India's threat wasn't quiteas immediate,at least, as the Taliban's, and so the US technology became useful. Had the Pakistani army been able to defeat the Taliban insurgency on their own, this would never have come to pass. However, they found themselves in need of help, and so were receptive to something that heretofore was unacceptable.

All of this, as you say, is eminently reasonable as self-interest.

My question, was, what is the Pakistani self-interest in refusing to let this guy go? I honesty don't know the answer to that. Do you?

[Winehole23]

That acknowledgement is consistent with my question regarding what Pakistan's intent really is; what are they trying to communicate to the Taliban?

It's a good question, one I surely don't know the answer to. Could you tell me, or venture a guess? I'm not even sure what I'd give out as a guess.

How many Talibans are there?

Which one do you mean?

Who knows, maybe some of this stuff will become clearer after the Loya Jirga. But probably it just gets more complicated.

I would add, though, that the strategic value of opening talks with the Taliban would be impossible without the US' military technology vs. the same.

For sure.

[jack sommerset]

I take it back, jack. I know that what you really meant is that you wish our police and our justice system were more like Pakistan's.

Nope.

[Winehole23]

My question, was, what is the Pakistani self-interest in refusing to let this guy go? I honesty don't know the answer to that. Do you?

No, but I can see how handing him over to the US could be problematic for them politically.

PFA take: maybe it serves Pakistan better to neutralize or coopt Baradar, than to give him to us.

[Winehole23]

Our notorious mistreatment of terror detainees probably factored into the decision to keep him out of US hands

[EVAY]

No, but I can see how handing him over to the US could be problematic for them politically.

PFA take: maybe it serves Pakistan better to neutralize or coopt Baradar, than to give him to us.

Well, I was wondering about that, too. I wonder if they think that they can coopt him.

If they can't coopt him, maybe they can do themselves some good by reference to your last post, i.e., 'at least we didn't turn him over to the Americans. They obviously must figure it does them more good this way.

If they areable to coopt him, my assumption would be that the purpose would be to use him as a front so Pakistan could position themselves as the 'honest broker' in the process between the US, the Taliban and Karzai.
If that happens, Pakistan would be able to go back to worrying about what they would rather worry about, i.e., India and Casmir.

[Winehole23]

Well, I was wondering about that, too. I wonder if they think that they can coopt him.

Why can't they? Allegiance can be very relative in that part of the world, or so I've heard.

If they are able to coopt him, my assumption would be that the purpose would be to use him as a front so Pakistan could position themselves as the 'honest broker' in the process between the US, the Taliban and Karzai.

Why not? Being the weaker power they can do it more credibly than us, and they're better placed geographically, culturally and socially (relative to Afghanistan) to lend assistance.

If that happens, Pakistan would be able to go back to worrying about what they would rather worry about, i.e., India and Casmir.

That's the big one. The enemy/foe distinction creeps in there a little. Your enemy is an honorable man one can do business with; the foe is ruthlessly targeted for elimination from play.

What India and Pakistan are to one another is highly changeable in tone from what little I have seen, but I am also impressed with the amount of restraint in overt military measures against the enemy. The conflict mostly simmers along, somehow -- miraculously, it seems to me, after the attack in Mumbai last year -- without war breaking out.

[Winehole23]

The Indian government didn't lose it's mind after Mumbai like ours did after 9/11.

In this case, nuclear deterrence on both sides would seem to make the confrontation with the *terrorist state* essentially different from ours.

[Winehole23]

At the same time we seek to suppress the possibility of Iranian nuclear deterrence, we are giving India a leg up against Pakistan. As least, that is how I read the recent US-India nuclear accords.

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[EVAY]

The Indian government didn't lose it's mind after Mumbai like ours did after 9/11.

In this case, nuclear deterrence on both sides would seem to make the confrontation with the *terrorist state* essentially different from ours.

This.

[Winehole23]

But U.S. officials now believe that even as Pakistan's security forces worked with their American counterparts to detain Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and other insurgents, the country's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI, quietly freed at least two senior Afghan Taliban figures it had captured on its own.



U.S. military and intelligence officials said the releases, detected by American spy agencies but not publicly disclosed, are evidence that parts of Pakistan's security establishment continue to support the Afghan Taliban. This assistance underscores how complicated the CIA-ISI relationship remains at a time when the United States and Pakistan are battling insurgencies that straddle the Afghanistan border and are increasingly anxious about how the war in that country will end.



The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity and declined to identify the Taliban figures who were released, citing the secrecy surrounding U.S. monitoring of the ISI. But officials said the freed captives were high-ranking Taliban members and would have been recognizable as insurgents the United States would want in custody.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[LnGrrrR]

Two points.

Abdulmutallab has provided critically important information since getting a lawyer and being Mirandized.

From the original article/OP, showing that he was Mirandized.

Second, I don't see why everyone gets mad at the media for discovering and releasing information. Shouldn't you be mad at the people trying to safeguard the data in the first place? If the media can get ahold of it, there's a good chance enemies could as well.