Why this anti-ISI propaganda?

[cactuslily58]

Actually it depends which side of the table you are sitting on. What appears to be propaganda to some looks to be a realisation of ground realities to others.

The posn is exacerbated by the refusal of ISI to conform to what the PM of the nation says or wants. The fact that it has formed a parallel center of power does not help.

More than India, 9/11 changed the fortunes of Pakistan ( read Musharraf), only it was not handled well. Some people have characterised ISI as a band of loyal people who think of the nation first always & every time..does the PM of the nation not think in a similar manner ?

The ISI is pretty much like a spoilt child who has got used to having its own way always... helped by the machinations of vested interests in the Army.

 

[blain2]

Actually it depends which side of the table you are sitting on. What appears to be propaganda to some looks to be a realisation of ground realities to others.

The posn is exacerbated by the refusal of ISI to conform to what the PM of the nation says or wants. The fact that it has formed a parallel center of power does not help.

More than India, 9/11 changed the fortunes of Pakistan ( read Musharraf), only it was not handled well. Some people have characterised ISI as a band of loyal people who think of the nation first always & every time..does the PM of the nation not think in a similar manner ?

The ISI is pretty much like a spoilt child who has got used to having its own way always... helped by the machinations of vested interests in the Army.

Cactus,

The problem with moving ISI around as you state is that it should be done with consultation, deliberations and a well thought out strategy. The ISI is under the PM. The DG-ISI is appointed and in the past a few have been booted by the PMs of Pakistan on multiple occasions.

So the problem here is not what the PM wanted. It was an attempt by unelected officials to make ISI subservient to themselves. Believe me if the same had happened in India with regards to RAW, you would have been appalled.

The problem is the manner in which this was tried. Had the same move been discussed with the Army which provides the manpower, the senate (a majority of the Pakistani senators trashed the idea) and the NSC, then it would have been fine.

Also, ISI is nothing like a spoiled child. Its an intelligence agency like any other. It does its job well, however its the politicians who got it looking inwards. It needs to be weaned off this role however it has to be done gradually.

 

[EagleEyes]

Well sir, does this means that who so ever is not inside ISI is crooked, does not love mother land?

Thats a very bad and ignorant question/understanding.

 

[cactuslily58]

Cactus,

The problem with moving ISI around as you state is that it should be done with consultation, deliberations and a well thought out strategy. The ISI is under the PM. The DG-ISI is appointed and in the past a few have been booted by the PMs of Pakistan on multiple occasions.

So the problem here is not what the PM wanted. It was an attempt by unelected officials to make ISI subservient to themselves. Believe me if the same had happened in India with regards to RAW, you would have been appalled.

The problem is the manner in which this was tried. Had the same move been discussed with the Army which provides the manpower, the senate (a majority of the Pakistani senators trashed the idea) and the NSC, then it would have been fine.

Also, ISI is nothing like a spoiled child. Its an intelligence agency like any other. It does its job well, however its the politicians who got it looking inwards. It needs to be weaned off this role however it has to be done gradually.

Blain,

Point taken.

If it is under the PM why the reluctance to follow his instrs ? Why were the orders of the PM reversed ?

The internal dynamics are not known entirely, what is visible is the snakes & ladders that is invariably played out whenever anything is to do with ISI. Surely, things cannot be so spasmodic as they appear ?

The necessity of an efficient Int agency for running the nation is not contested. What irks the world is the reluctance of a Govt agency to follow instrs of the Govt & the flip flop that follows after any instrs are issued.

 

[nitesh]

Thats a very bad and ignorant question/understanding.

Sir, my point is the way the post was structured, that ISI is run by the guys who loves the mother land and will do anything to protect it and not listen to anybody, so even if PM says something they will not listen then what does it mean?

 

[Flintlock]

According to me the ISI needs to be under civilian leadership. Having a "state withing a state" cannot be described as an advantage for any country.
A powerful vigilante group answerable to nobody does nothing but undermine the system.

 

[niaz]

There are two points here.

Firslty ISI is under civilian control. ISI reports to the Prime Minister who is a civilian. BB appointed Gen Kallu, a retired officer as head of ISI and Gen Ziauddin was a hand picked lackey of Nawaz Sharif. The order was only the move away from the PM not about their agenda. ISI deals with the external espionage, how can it be under the Interior ministry?

Secondly, is ISI a state within a state? No more than RAW or Mossad or CIA.
Real reason of all this furore is that US believes that ISI is helping Taliban in Afghanistan. This may or may not be true. This however does not imply that ISI is working against the government or carrying out a secret agenda of their own. No doubt they have been involved in political activities within Pakistan but with the consent and on the orders of the incumbent rulers. How bringing ISI to the Interior ministry is going to change that ?

IMO Zardari wanted to have the intelligence on the thinking within the military. This could have been achieved if ISI was controlled by his personal henchman Rehman Malik and it would also have given the impression to the US that ISI was being disempowered. It has got nothing to do with any thing else.

This move was not about a state within a state. It was more about power politics.

 

[blain2]

Blain,

Point taken.

If it is under the PM why the reluctance to follow his instrs ? Why were the orders of the PM reversed ?

The internal dynamics are not known entirely, what is visible is the snakes & ladders that is invariably played out whenever anything is to do with ISI. Surely, things cannot be so spasmodic as they appear ?

The necessity of an efficient Int agency for running the nation is not contested. What irks the world is the reluctance of a Govt agency to follow instrs of the Govt & the flip flop that follows after any instrs are issued.

It indeed does follow the PM's orders however the PM cannot move the organization under the MoI without first taking the legal course. There are laws that have the ISI under a certain structure. If this is to be changed then it cannot be done by decree, rather by an act of parliament specially in cases where such a move without any oversight would spark a controversy.

Secondly, ISI is a national institution. There are certain reasons that it has never been under the MoI. The way this attempt was made has raised eyebrows all over Pakistan. The timing was bad and the ones pushing for this change have pretty shady motivations to do so (Zardari et-al).

The necessity of an efficient Int agency for running the nation is not contested. What irks the world is the reluctance of a Govt agency to follow instrs of the Govt & the flip flop that follows after any instrs are issued.

The problem lies with the government and in the manner in which certain instructions are so publicly announced. This reeks of attempts to gain political mileage at the expense of the country's security.

Secondly, prior to accusing ISI of reluctance to follow orders, one would need to know what these orders are. If they are counter to the way the agency is suppose to work then the system of checks and balances will come into play. We are fine with having a democratic government where the PM wields the ultimate power, however when it is known to all that the PM is not the one calling the shots, then the security establishment will also not go along for a multitude of reasons (the most basic of them is that this move is illogical).

As in the words of Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility"..Pakistan's leaders should realize this before making hasty decisions.

 

[fatman17]

Comment: The ISI imbroglio —Shaukat Qadir

The ISI really came into its own in the Zia era, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when billions of dollars in addition to weapons and munitions were passing through its hands for freedom fighters in Afghanistan

The infamous Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, the ISI, is in the headlines daily. But the real question is still pending: who should it be placed under to ensure that it functions within the parameters laid down for it.

The ISI’s peripheral involvement in political affairs began during the Ayub Khan era when by virtue of the rank of Field Marshal that he had bestowed upon himself, he was, in addition to the president, the commander-in-chief of all three services.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto inherited this arrangement when he took over as president in 1972. However, under the 1973 Constitution, when Pakistan returned to a parliamentary democracy, he placed the ISI directly under the prime minister. Ironically, it was in the Bhutto era that the ISI’s political role was accepted, though it was to fully mature later.

Simultaneously, apprehensive of the potential of the ISI and the possibility of split loyalties of serving generals as director-generals of the agency, Bhutto also created the FIA. The FIA was to be his strong arm, the one that would unquestioningly humiliate such respected personalities as J A Rahim, a founding member of Bhutto’s own PPP.

The ISI really came into its own in the Zia era, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when billions of dollars in addition to weapons and munitions were passing through its hands for freedom fighters in Afghanistan. The US tacitly accepted that both monies and weapons/munitions were being funnelled by the ISI for its own purposes. The monies were later used to help create political parties like Nawaz Sharif’s IJI and the MQM; and both assisted General Beg to fund the indigenous insurgency in Indian-held Kashmir at a time when Benazir Bhutto’s first government strictly forbade this policy.

In fact, during the period of the struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Foreign Office virtually became a post office. Since the Afghan policy had precedence over all other policies, all foreign policy was dictated by or, at the very least, approved by the Afghan cell in the ISI.

When Pakistan decided to reverse its Afghan policy, there is little doubt that this reversal did not receive the wholehearted support of Taliban supporters in the ISI, including the DG, General Mahmood. Similarly our decision to end our support to the Kashmiri struggle in 2003 also did not receive unquestioned support from within the ISI, and most of General Ehsan’s tenure in the ISI was spent purging it of dissident elements.

If (and it’s a huge if) we were to accept the accusation that the ISI was responsible for the attack on the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, there could only be one of two explanations: a) a tit-for-tat response to the Indians who are undoubtedly involved in furthering unrest in Balochistan — unlike our president, I am only 99 percent certain of it — in which case it would have government sanction, but not only does it make no political sense to undertake such an operation when the prime minister is about to make his maiden visit to the US, the establishment’s reaction(s) only reconfirm the unlikelihood of this possibility; or b) there are rogue elements intent on further destabilising this already unstable government.

In the latter eventuality, only one individual stands to gain from further destabilising this government: Pervez Musharraf. It is amazing that after five months of coming into power, Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have finally agreed to get rid of Musharraf but no one has seen fit to replace his appointee as DG ISI, Nadeem Taj, who is a known Musharraf loyalist.

The ISI was, idiotically, placed under the Interior Ministry on the eve of the PM’s departure for an official visit to the US. That this came in the wake of American assertions (without providing substantive evidence) that the ISI was responsible for the Kabul blast indicates that it was, most likely, intended to appease the American accusers, but again without changing the DG.

How would the ISI be reigned in by the Interior Ministry if the PM cannot do so? This is the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate; while each service — the army, navy, and the air force — has its own internal intelligence organisations focusing on the threat to their respective service, the ISI is primarily intended to provide a comprehensive threat assessment for the nation as a whole, whether the threat emanates from across the borders or, as is becoming increasingly important, domestically. This assessment is not solely military, but multi-dimensional, including economic, diplomatic, or any other kind of threats. It is also intended to undertake approved covert operations.

If there are apprehensions regarding its performance or loyalty to the government, find a new DG, make him answerable for each act of an ISI employee, let him pick his own team of immediate subordinates, and authorise him to initiate punitive action against any subordinate who undertakes an unauthorised covert operation.

I will again recommend that it be placed under the JCSC, whose Chairman is the adviser to the government on all military matters; if that is done, then instead of the DG ISI, the CJCSC should be held accountable for every act of the agency. In addition, it will be the joint duty of the CJCSC and the DG ISI to ensure that the country’s chief executive and all those members of the cabinet that he wishes to include in the briefing are periodically updated on threat assessment and on the progress of any covert actions approved by the PM/CE. The IB and the FIA should suffice to provide sufficient intelligence information to the PM/CE through the Interior Ministry.

The knee-jerk reaction of our present government only reaffirm the incompetence of our current rudderless political set-up.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I just remembered that the ISI was in fact a major target of the Taliban last year. That the ISI is not as an institution supporting the Taliban, and is in fact inflicting quite some damage in it, should also be evident form the spate of suicide bombings that specifically targeted ISI personnel last year.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Hue and cry about ISI
Wed, 2008-08-13 01:11

By Asif Haroon Raja

After taking Pakistan on board in October 2001 as a coalition partner, a web around Pakistan was cleverly woven by USA-India-Afghanistan-Israel combine with a view to destabilise, denuclearise and de-Islamise it and turn it into a client state of India. For the achievement of these objectives, our strengths were to be emasculated and our psycho-politico-religious-social vulnerabilities accentuated.

The state institutions, army, nuclear assets, fighting elements within FATA and elsewhere were marked as targets. To start with victory of King’s Party through rigged elections was validated since rubber stamp National Assembly under the control of blue-eyed Musharraf suited them. In response to the allegation that foreigners were based in South Waziristan, Musharraf agreed to induct the army in the quagmire of FATA.

Cards of religious extremism and cross border terrorism were played. After maligning AQ Khan nuclear network’s involvement in nuclear proliferation, fear was created that sooner than later our nuclear assets would be stolen or taken over by extremist elements. It was said that our nuclear assets were unsafe and our control systems inadequate. Musharraf accepted all the charges pasted on Pakistan and vowed to remove their concerns. All Jihadi groups were banned and their funds frozen and Kashmir issue put in the back burner. Our agencies and police in conjunction with FBI and CIA hounded and nabbed religious extremists and hundreds were handed over to USA without trials. Purging of conservative elements serving in nuclear setups and ISI was done at the behest of USA.

Soon after, a vicious propaganda campaign was launched against the army in 2004 to defame it. Baluchistan was heated up and BLA reincarnated from nowhere forcing the army to take stock of the situation. Both flanks of the country were enflamed. Musharraf was pressed in 2006 to hold elections and restore full democracy. Chief Justice Iftikhar was made non-functional in March 2007 since he had taken suo moto notice on missing persons and was seen as a threat to future plans conceived by USA-Mush. After extracting firm commitments from late BB on certain sensitive issues, USA brokered a deal as a result of which she was allowed to return under NRO. On finding that she had begun to charter an independent course, she was bumped off. Musharraf was allowed to impose emergency on 3 November to remove defiant judges and replace them with pliant judges. MMA was conked out to allow liberal parties to come to fore.

Consequent to elections in February 2008, although another dummy legislature was put in place under Gilani to complete the ritual, however, real power remained in the hands of cultivated persons with soiled past who captured key appointments. Decisions on crucial matters rested in their hands and they were also linked with Musharraf who was told by his mentor not to vacate presidency. Oil crisis were created to bring down all our economic indicators. Restoration of deposed judges was complicated to breed judicial crisis and political instability. Pakistan was then declared as the most dangerous country. Having purposely destabilised peaceful Fata, it was demonised through a well orchestrated media campaign where Osama and some of the top Al-Qaeda leaders were believed to be hiding. It was declared as the most dangerous place on earth from where a 9/11 like attack against USA could emanate.

It was then alleged that not only the army was not doing enough to control terrorism in Fata; some of its elements as well as the FC and the ISI were in collusion with the Taliban and were not within the control of the government. US military commanders blamed Pakistan for the sudden surge of Taliban and increase of fatalities of Nato troops in Afghanistan which in their view was because of inking of peace deals with militants and ISI’s linkage with them. Since June their posture has become aggressive and Pakistan is painted as real threat to world security. Bush has threatened Pakistan of dire consequences if Pakistan is again found involved in terrorist attack in Afghanistan. USA also pressed Pakistan to scrap peace deals and deal with the militants firmly and show results or else US-Nato troops would be constrained to barge in and act unilaterally.

Using its old policy of stick and carrot, USA succeeded in pressurising Pakistan government to do away with its policy of dialogue and recommence the policy of force. Series of military operations have been launched, first in Khyber Agency, then in Hangu and in Swat and now in Bajaur Agency. Mohmand Agency will be next in the firing line. This is part of the preparatory manoeuvre to soften the ground for US-Nato offensive against North and South Waziristan sometime in September.

It was in context with war preparations that the ISI was picked up as the chief suspect contributing towards successes of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was also accused of playing a double game. In American assessment the ISI was bound to jeopardise their intended operation in FATA.

Having gained monopoly over the internet, wireless communication, satellite communication, mobile network, GPS and imagery system, USA has succeeded in penetrating each and every system in vogue and rendering the world naked and vulnerable. Nothing remains hidden from its roving eyes. Its success is however dependent upon the cooperation extended by the country receiving its technology. In Pakistan, it has yet to fully penetrate within our nuclear setup, ISI and Nadra. Placement of ISI under MI-6 agent Rehman Malik was the first step towards its emasculation. Strategic Planning Division controlling various nuclear organisations is another target whose funds for R&D have been radically reduced by PPP government.

Having worked intimately with CIA since from 1981 till 1989 and again from 2001 onwards, it should be asked as to why the ISI has suddenly come in bad books of USA with which CIA and so much of hue and cry is being made. The ISI accidentally stumbled across hard evidence indicating deep involvement of CIA and RAW in Swat, FATA and Baluchistan. It learnt that the duo had friendly terms with militant groups within FATA which were fighting Pak army and was unfriendly with those who were pro-army. Hellfire missiles were fired from Predators to disrupt peace negotiations or to gun down pro-army elements. Having smelt the ***, the ISI quietly started to monitor their activities and tracked their agents involved in sabotage, and wherever possible, restrained from sharing intelligence. Having played dual game for so long while pretending to be friends, Americans have felt so outraged over ISI’s modest effort to safeguard Pakistan’s interest that it has been put on the firing line.

The ISI has been brought under vicious propaganda spearheaded by India and duly supported by Afghanistan and USA. The US senior most officials including Bush have alleged that ISI has links with Jallaluddin Haqqani based in Khost whose set up is engaged in fighting Nato-Afghan troops in Afghanistan. They charge that the ISI forewarn the Pakistani Taliban about US air strikes against suspected targets in Fata and that it has evidence of ISI’s involvement in attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul on 7 July. However, the accusers have not furnished any proof to substantiate their allegations.

PPP leaders with feet of clay panicked and a notification placing ISI and IB under Ministry of Interior was issued on 26 July. Abrupt issuance of the notification to time it with visit of Gilani to Washington was a clear indication that the move was made to appease Bush. The plea taken was that it would help protect army and ISI from defamation and earning a bad name. Placement of premier agency under the leash of iniquitous and unelected Rehman Malik whose performance in the last four months leave much to be desired caused consternation to many. Mercifully the notification was cancelled because of severe criticism but efforts to cut it to size would continue.

Even if it is agreed that the ISI has links with Pakistani Taliban in FATA, there is nothing immoral about it since they are also Pakistanis and not foreigners. There is nothing alarming about its contacts with Afghan Taliban since both Pakistan and USA had helped the Taliban to capture power in 1995. 1.8 million Afghan refugees are still residing in Pakistan. RAW, besides destabilising all its neighbours, is also busy destabilising Pakistan from its new base in Afghanistan in concert with RAM, Mossad and CIA. Afghan refugees who have returned, Uzbeks and Baloch dissidents are being trained by RAW in Afghanistan and launched into selected areas with full connivance of CIA. BLA leadership based in Helmand is patronised by RAW and CIA. Foolproof evidence of RAW’s activities in Baluchistan had been furnished to visiting Bush in March 2006 and also to Karzai. Pakistan’s lukewarm complaints have however been ignored because of lack of aggressiveness and consistency on part of our leaders.

Contrary to Pakistan’s diffidence to avoid naming the culprit openly and making noise about it, India has blamed Pakistan for each and every terrorist act taking place in India or in IHK. At times it has cooked up dramas to serve its vested interests. ISI was blamed for terrorist attack on State Assembly in Srinagar in August 2001 and then on Lok Sabha in December 2001. Both attacks were stage-managed to justify carrying out biggest ever troop mobilisation against Pakistan. The purpose behind it was to coerce Pakistan to change its policy on Kashmir as it had done in Afghanistan and rein in all Jihadi groups. This time the target is ISI which has acted as a first line defence against RAW’s conspiracies and has at times used its long arm within India. The Indians are instrumental in convincing and colouring US perceptions about ISI and are keen to make it impotent.

Having destabilised FATA, adjoining districts of Frontier province and Baluchistan, MQM has now been geared up to destabilise Karachi under the plea of threat of Talibanisation. Altaf has given a call to the activists of MQM to arm and train themselves in martial arts to confront the self-created threat. The MQM will go to any length to please its foreign masters. By September both eastern and western borders would be heated up and Pakistan will again be coerced militarily to extract more concessions. In October 2001, USA’s position was strong and it had bargained from a position of strength. Musharraf had melted all too soon and conceded more than what Americans had expected. He again wilted under Indian pressure in 2002 and ceded several concessions. Today, USA stands on a weak wicket and is not in a position to dictate terms but Pakistan also is weak and ruled by weak-willed rulers. Dual faced Zardari’s sincerity will be tested soon when Musharraf will be impeached.

Asif Haroon Raja is a retired Brig based in Rawalpindi and a defence and political analyst.

- Asian Tribune -

Hue and cry about ISI | Asian Tribune

 

[fatman17]

Who Controls Pakistan's Powerful ISI?

August 14, 2008

By Ron Synovitz

NATO's commander in Afghanistan, U.S. General David McKiernan, said this week he is certain there is "a level of ISI complicity" in the militant areas of Pakistan and within organizations like the Taliban.

McKiernan's remarks echo allegations made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the Indian government, and Pentagon insiders who are frustrated about the rising cross-border militancy that is based in Pakistan.

But McKiernan said he is unable to speak about the level of leadership within Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency that is involved with the Taliban and other militants.

Pakistan has refuted allegations that the ISI supports cross-border insurgent attacks into Afghanistan. Islamabad does acknowledge that elements within the ISI are sympathetic to the insurgency in Afghanistan. But it portrays such agents as "rogue" operators pursuing their own private agendas.

Barnett Rubin, director of New York University's Center on International Cooperation, tells RFE/RL that he thinks the ISI is too disciplined for rogue agents to carry out such activities without getting caught.

"Whatever is happening, I don't think it is attributable to rogue elements," Rubin says. "In any intelligence service -- especially for covert operations -- you often try to maintain a level of deniability so that the top decision makers are not fully informed about what is going on."

Level Of Deniability

Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of the book "Taliban," has maintained for years that the ISI has played a double game with Washington and the Taliban.

On the one hand, Pakistan is a key U.S. ally in the war against terrorism. At the same time, the ISI is alleged to covertly support cross-border militant attacks in neighboring Afghanistan, India, and the Indian-administered parts of Kashmir.

In his latest book, "Descent Into Chaos," Rashid maintains that the ISI has set up private organizations in order to distance the relationship between its military leadership and extremist fighters. He says the private organizations are staffed by retired ISI officers and funded through the budget of Pakistan's Frontier Corps.

The scenario described by Rashid highlights the lack of oversight that the civilian government in Islamabad has over the ISI.

"There are still huge differences between the military and the politicians as to how to combat terrorism -- what to do about it. The military is really controlling the policy. The civilians don't have much of a say," Rashid says.

"This is one of the reasons why Pakistan has not been able to fight the war on terror decisively and why there are so many differences with the Americans on this. Not everyone is reading from the same page."

Rubin says that although the ISI is nominally controlled by the Pakistani prime minister, the reality is that it is controlled by Pakistan's armed forces.

"Formally, the [director-general] of the ISI reports to the prime minister. The [director-general] of the ISI, however, is a three-star general appointed by the chief of army staff, who reports to the president. The eight departments of the ISI are headed by eight two-star generals who are chosen by the [director-general of the] ISI. And the budget comes out of the defense and intelligence budget, which is not subject to civilian review in Pakistan," Rubin says.

"So, while formally [the ISI] reports to the prime minister, the control is effectively lodged with the military," he adds. "Now how that actually works -- that is, who finally makes decisions -- I don't know."

Nasim Zehra, a prominent Pakistani journalist and security analyst, as well as a research fellow for Harvard University's Asia Center, points out that the "ISI is heavily manned by people from the armed forces. So it is not an organization which is a purely civilian organization.

"It would be correct to say that it has not been controlled, really, by the prime minister the way it should be. Technically and constitutionally, it is under the control of the prime minister. But operationally speaking, and substantively speaking, the prime ministers have not really even strengthened the defense cabinet committees," Zehra adds. "As the ISI stands today, it pretty much doesn't function under these kind of parliament-related civilian controls."

Continuing The Jihad

Indeed, the top military generals in charge of Pakistan's army and the ISI were appointed by President Pervez Musharraf after he seized power in 1999 in a bloodless coup.

Musharraf -- who also held the country's top military post until he resigned late last year as chief of the army staff -- now faces the prospect of impeachment by the governing coalition in Pakistan. Musharraf is accused of misconduct and violating the constitution.

Rashid says Pakistan's army never understood that after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the international community would have no tolerance for Islamic extremism and that the ISI's backing of militant groups would have to cease, not just in Afghanistan, but also in Kashmir.

Zehra says the ISI grew by leaps and bounds when an "international jihad" against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was being bankrolled through Pakistan with funds from the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and other countries. She says that is when the ISI grew in capacity, skill, and resources as an agency capable of carrying out covert operations externally.

"Past that period, the ISI strategy that has flowered -- the training that was given -- was really essentially...'religionized militancy' and 'Islamicized militancy,'" Zehra says.

"And the tools -- the assets -- that were developed by the intelligence agency were subsequently used to reach [the goals of] Pakistan's own security interests and [for] battling Pakistan's own security threats as perceived by intelligence agencies in Pakistan."

Question Of Politics

But Zehra says it is the ISI's political machinations within Pakistan, rather than its external activities, that have damaged its reputation among Pakistanis.

"This country has been under military rule quite a lot. When it has been under military rule, one section of the ISI has been used by military rulers to engineer the political situation in the country," Zehra says. "And for that it has earned a very bad reputation."

As a result, Zehra says the issue of civilian oversight for the ISI is now very important to Pakistan's governing coalition.

"Internally, obviously, there has always been a big question that we need to have an organization which reports to the executive -- and the reporting lines are stringent and there is oversight. That's the concern within the country," Zehra says.

"There has been an effort in the past under General Musharraf -- the question of growing a nexus between the executive authority and the ISI so that there is unity of command. General Musharraf has been very keen that the intelligence agency would come completely under his control," Zehra adds. "Now the question, of course, is: With an elected government, how do you arrange this control of the ISI?"

Zehra concludes that regardless of what happens with the coalition's efforts to impeach Musharraf, officials in Islamabad need to ensure rigorous lines of authority for the ISI in the future.

She says one possible avenue is having the defense cabinet committee -- as well as parliamentary committees -- oversee the ISI. But Zehra adds that the path of institutional accession -- the supremacy of the parliament as laid out in the constitution -- means that the parliament also needs to get serious on this issue. An issue that is not only important to Pakistanis -- but also very important to Pakistan's neighbors and the country's allies in the war against terrorism.

GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

ISI most professional:​

Margolis writes that on his subsequent trips to Pakistan he was routinely briefed by succeeding ISI chiefs. He maintains that before Gen Pervez Musharraf took over as military dictator, the ISI was the Third World’s most efficient, professional intelligence agency. “It still defends Pakistan against internal and external subversion by India’s powerful spy agency, RAW, and by Iran. ISI works closely with CIA and the Pentagon and was primarily responsible for the rapid ouster of Taliban from power in 2003. But ISI also must serve Pakistan’s interests, which are often not identical to Washington’s, and sometimes in conflict,” according to Margolis.

He points out that Washington has been forcing Pakistan’s government, military and intelligence services through secret payments and threats of war into policies that are bitterly opposed by 90 percent of Pakistan’s people.

According to Margolis, since 2001, ISI directors have all been pre-approved by Washington.

All senior ISI veterans deemed “Islamist” or too nationalistic by Washington were purged at Washington’s demand, leaving ISI’s upper ranks top-heavy with too many yes-men and paper-passers. Even so, there is strong opposition inside the ISI to Washington’s “bribing and arm-twisting the subservient Musharraf dictatorship into waging war against fellow Pakistanis and gravely damaging Pakistan’s national interests.”

He emphasises that the ISI’s primary duty is defending Pakistan, not promote US interests. Pashtun tribesmen on the border sympathising with their fellow Taliban Pashtun in Afghanistan are Pakistanis. Many, like Jalaluddin Haqqani, are old US allies and “freedom fighters” from the 1980s. When the US and its western allies finally abandon Afghanistan, as they will inevitably do one day, Pakistan must go on living with its rambunctious tribals.

Margolis argues that violence and uprisings in the Tribal Areas are not caused by “terrorism”, but result from the US-led occupation of Afghanistan and Washington’s forcing the Musharraf regime to attack its own people. The ISI is trying to restrain pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen while dealing with growing US attacks into Pakistan that threaten a wider war. India has an army of agents in Afghanistan and is arming, backing and financing the Karzai regime in Kabul in hopes of turning Afghanistan into a protectorate.

Pakistan’s historic strategic interests in Afghanistan have been undermined by the US occupation. Now, the US, Canada and India are trying to eliminate Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. The ISI, Margolis argues, has every right to warn Pakistani citizens of impending US air attacks that kill large numbers of civilians. The agency also wants to prevent the resurgence of the Pakhtunistan demand. “Washington’s bull-in-a-china shop behaviour pays no heeds to these realities. Instead, Washington demonises faithful old allies ISI and Pakistan while supporting Afghanistan’s Communists and drug dealers, and allowing India to stir the Afghan pot, all for the sake of new energy pipelines,” he concludes.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Zehra adds that the path of institutional accession -- the supremacy of the parliament as laid out in the constitution -- means that the parliament also needs to get serious on this issue.

And this shoudl not involve ham handed attempts to merely move it under a politically charged Interior Minstry, headed by an unelected confidante of the head of a major political party.

A move to have the defense committee in parliament (composed of both opposition and ruling MNA's) perform oversight would have actually provided the proper institutional controls, while also reducing the chances of abuse of the agency against political opponents.

 

[fatman17]

ISI most professional:​

Margolis writes that on his subsequent trips to Pakistan he was routinely briefed by succeeding ISI chiefs. He maintains that before Gen Pervez Musharraf took over as military dictator, the ISI was the Third World’s most efficient, professional intelligence agency. “It still defends Pakistan against internal and external subversion by India’s powerful spy agency, RAW, and by Iran. ISI works closely with CIA and the Pentagon and was primarily responsible for the rapid ouster of Taliban from power in 2003. But ISI also must serve Pakistan’s interests, which are often not identical to Washington’s, and sometimes in conflict,” according to Margolis.

He points out that Washington has been forcing Pakistan’s government, military and intelligence services through secret payments and threats of war into policies that are bitterly opposed by 90 percent of Pakistan’s people.

According to Margolis, since 2001, ISI directors have all been pre-approved by Washington.

All senior ISI veterans deemed “Islamist” or too nationalistic by Washington were purged at Washington’s demand, leaving ISI’s upper ranks top-heavy with too many yes-men and paper-passers. Even so, there is strong opposition inside the ISI to Washington’s “bribing and arm-twisting the subservient Musharraf dictatorship into waging war against fellow Pakistanis and gravely damaging Pakistan’s national interests.”

He emphasises that the ISI’s primary duty is defending Pakistan, not promote US interests. Pashtun tribesmen on the border sympathising with their fellow Taliban Pashtun in Afghanistan are Pakistanis. Many, like Jalaluddin Haqqani, are old US allies and “freedom fighters” from the 1980s. When the US and its western allies finally abandon Afghanistan, as they will inevitably do one day, Pakistan must go on living with its rambunctious tribals.

Margolis argues that violence and uprisings in the Tribal Areas are not caused by “terrorism”, but result from the US-led occupation of Afghanistan and Washington’s forcing the Musharraf regime to attack its own people. The ISI is trying to restrain pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen while dealing with growing US attacks into Pakistan that threaten a wider war. India has an army of agents in Afghanistan and is arming, backing and financing the Karzai regime in Kabul in hopes of turning Afghanistan into a protectorate.

Pakistan’s historic strategic interests in Afghanistan have been undermined by the US occupation. Now, the US, Canada and India are trying to eliminate Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. The ISI, Margolis argues, has every right to warn Pakistani citizens of impending US air attacks that kill large numbers of civilians. The agency also wants to prevent the resurgence of the Pakhtunistan demand. “Washington’s bull-in-a-china shop behaviour pays no heeds to these realities. Instead, Washington demonises faithful old allies ISI and Pakistan while supporting Afghanistan’s Communists and drug dealers, and allowing India to stir the Afghan pot, all for the sake of new energy pipelines,” he concludes.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

guys like eric margolis, robert fisk, brian cloughley are the minority in the western media who write regularly about the wrong policies of their western governments.