One line. Tell me in a ratio of x:y, the no. of Pakistanis and Indians who even know that a Gen Pasha exists vs the number of Pakistanis and Indians who even know the name of RAW chief without having to Google.
That is the visibility quotient of ISI.
Off the top of my head I can see some discrepancies with your argument.
Firstly you had said "Because ISI itself wants to be in the news. No other intelligence agency in the world is as media savvy as is the ISI." Forgive me but I do not understand the direct correlation that you have drawn between being visible and being 'media savvy'. Ill explain; the most well known Intel agencies in the world would be the CIA, the KGB, the MI6, the Mossad, etc. Now there are no extra points for guessing that these are also some of the most competent agencies in the world. Now would you say that these agencies too are 'media savvy'? (Correct me if im wrong but what I got from the phrase 'media savvy' was incompetent fools hungry for attention).
Secondly your visibility quotient fails to account for many other variables apart from being just 'media savvy' (this is also related to the point i just made above by the way). Pakistan is in the midst of a "global crisis", militarily and politically. As is the case with any respectable military in the world the ISI is the first and most used arm of the military services of Pakistan and hence is right in the spot light of the world media. This factor alone adds exponentially to the value of your visibility quotient. Next is the fact that the US and Pakistan are in a power struggle of sorts. And as is the case in Pakistan the shots are being called by the military. This again puts the ISI right in the spot light. Furthermore read my previous posts for more reasons accounting for the attention being given to the ISI these days.
Now for the point which you made about RAW. The visibility quotient also fails to account the actual importance and note worthiness (to use a more subtle term than incompetence) of the said agency. Forget the names of the chiefs would you be able to tell me the names of the Indonesian, the Polish, the Swedish or the Mexican agencies?
Finally to the point which I made earlier. Show me when, where and how the ISI has exhibited 'media savvyness', so to speak.
The ISI handing over people to the US is unrelated to its involvement in internal politics of Pakistan.
It is no secret that ISI has, over time and suiting the interests of its and PA's Generals, both propped up Pakistani politicians and also brought down Pakistani politicians. They chose to do what suited their motives at a point in time.
No denying that.
That's why I said that ISI is more of a tool in the hands of PA generals to control Pakistani politicians and nowadays, after the Saleem Shahzad case, even the media and the journalists.
That is what is wrong with your statement. ISI is too expansive to be termed as merely a tool for the generals to control the Pakistani politicians. That indeed is one of its rolls. But it is neither the only nor the foremost roll assigned to the ISI. Its duties in the military arena are still far more expansive than what we see in the politics of Pakistan. There is too much out there supporting that. Denying it would be folly.
Btw many a times the ISI has saved our backsides too by involving themselves in Pakistani politics.
