Tale of a Tiger, Part 4

In Part 1, we briefly looked at China's move to increase influence in the Persian Gulf region, touching on China's espionage establishment and Beijing's theft of US nuclear technology, and Beijing's subsequent passing of that technology to Pakistan.

In Part 2, we looked at China's naval expansion in the direction of the Indian Ocean, and in Part 3, we looked at the growing threat China poses to the US Navy. Here, we begin to consider Chinese disputes with India.

First, we review The mystery of missing thousand miles in J&K by C. Raja Mohan, December 19, 2010:

As questions of territorial sovereignty return to the centrestage in Sino-Indian relations, Beijing has added a new twist to the long-running boundary dispute between the two countries by knocking off nearly 1,600 km from its definition of China's border with India.

A Xinhua report from Beijing earlier this week on the eve of premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India described the Sino-Indian border as nearly 2,000-km long. The Indian count of the operational border is a lot longer at nearly 3,500 km (not taking into account the line separating Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and China). The discrepancy is too large to be treated as an inadvertent error in Beijing.

So, where did the hundreds of kilometers disappear? China apparently no longer treats the line of nearly 1,600 km separating Jammu and Kashmir on the one hand and Xinjiang and Tibet on the other as a border with India.

That's it in a nutshell - China no longer considers the Jammu and Kashmir border as a border with India; therefore, China must consider this disputed area to belong to Pakistan.

China's recasting of the length of the border with India appears to be part of the Kashmir puzzle that Beijing has unveiled in recent years. The other pieces include the recent policy of issuing stapled visas to Indian citizens from J&K, the reluctance to host a visit by the Northern Commander of the Indian Army Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal, the dramatic expansion of the Chinese activity in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir that includes the modernisation of the Karakoram Highway and the plans to construct a new rail line and oil pipeline between Kashgar in Xinjiang and the Gwadar port on Pakistan's Makran coast.

Interesting...

A couple of years ago, a blogger pointed out the evidence of Pakistan's support for the Taliban in the mid-1990's as a means of stabilizing Afghanistan to open up Central Asia for trade via Pakistan, and specifically via the port facilities in Gwadar that China was helping Islamabad to develop:

All these warlords and their armies -- self-appointed toll-collectors -- are not good for any real business. To conduct business, there is a need for security along the highways, and for one understandable and consistent set of rules (and tolls, customs, taxes, etc.) by which to abide. That requires subduing all these warlords, and getting them to toe the line or back off.

Any group that wanted to undertake this task would have the support of the people, whose economy was hurting due to these armies of highwaymen, and of businesses -- not just local businesses, but any business that needed products to traverse Afghanistan.

In this light, it is interesting to note that one year earlier, Pakistan began feasibily studies for development of Gwadar. Gwadar was then planned to become, and is currently being developed as, a major seaport. From here, Central Asian products, especially oil and gas, could be shipped to world markets, and products from around the world could arrive for overland transshipment to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.

All of this assumes, of course, an overland route to Central Asia that is secure.

There is no point in bringing goods through Pakistan and then sending them to nearby Iran, when Iran has port facilities in its southeast that could be developed, cutting a few kilometers off the trip, and when one does not in any case know what kind of deal one might get from Tehran. Not only would such an Iranian option not benefit Pakistani business interests, but it would also not be as palatable to Western governments and Western business interests.

So, the alternative is to go north through Afghanistan, which has always been a crossroads of greater Asia, and Kandahar is perhaps the first and perhaps the biggest hub along likely routes on the Afghanistan side of the border.

In 1993 the feasibility studies of improving Gwadar as a major seaport begin, and in 1994 the Taliban magically appear in Kandahar, riding shotgun on a Pakistani convoy with a Pakistani consul.

Would it be too paranoid of me to suggest that perhaps China is / was / has been somehow helping to support the Taliban - hoping at first to have the Taliban stabilize Afghanistan, and later hoping merely that the Taliban would bog the US down in another Vietnam-style conflict?

The same blogger also addressed the significance of Karakoram highway upgrades:

The Korakoram Highway is, in many ways, very symbolic.

Winding its way from Islamabad and Rawalpindi northward, the Korakoram Highway skirts areas subject to Indian control as it makes its way to the Chinese border. From there, it skirts the Afghan and Tajik borders as it winds towards China's interior.

[snip]

As alluded to above in the news article about road upgrades in Tajikistan, the Korakoram Highway upgrade, significant by itself, is nevertheless part of a broader plan, reaching all the way to the development of new port facilities in Gwadar, as the Wikipedia article touches on:

China and Pakistan are also planning to link the Karakoram Highway to the southern port of Gwadar in Balochistan through the Chinese-aided Gwadar-Dalbandin railway, which extends up to Rawalpindi.

Why is this highway symbolic?

[snip]

The Korakoram Highway, built under Benazir Bhutto's father, seems to symbolize Pakistan's pragmatism, given the dynamics of international politics.

Now, we see China beginning to establish the legal framework to physically distance India, an enemy common to Beijing and Islamabad, from the important road being upgraded to connect China with Pakistan - a Pakistan which would be rejuvenated by increased trade from Central Asia via a friendly and stable Afghanistan, assuming the Taliban win.

And, even if the Taliban lose, the Indian frontier would still then be miles farther away from this important new line of communication connecting China to key ally Pakistan and all the way to the Persian Gulf - a line of communication the Chinese Army and Air Force could, with Pakistan's help, defend against both the US and Russia!

Stick around for Part 5!

The District Next Door

Anyone following the news is aware of the Taliban's killing of some international aid workers in Karan Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan Province in Afghanistan.

First, we consider excerpts from International Assistance Mission slayings: part of Taliban war strategy by Patrik Jonsson, August 7, 2010:

The execution-style killings of 10 people working for a Christian medical team in a remote region of northern Afghanistan fit into Taliban insurgents' stated shift in tactics: Target Western civilians, especially Christians, as "foreign invaders."

The Taliban took credit for one of the deadliest attacks yet on aid workers in Afghanistan, saying the Christian charity workers were proselytizing to poor villagers – a charge that the International Assistance Mission, which dispatched the team, denies.

[snip]

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack in conversations with Western reporters. "One of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners," Mr. Mujahid was quoted as saying. "They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all." In the past, the Taliban has claimed responsibility for attacks carried out in actuality by bandits and independent warlords.

But the Los Angeles Times quoted Gen. Agha Nur Kamtuz, police chief in Badakhshan, saying the area had become dangerous in the past month, with intense fighting taking place between Taliban and Western-backed Afghan security forces.

Notice the name of the Taliban spokesman: Mr. Mujahid - in English, Mr. Holy Warrior. That's another story altogether... or perhaps it is the same story?

The article points out that the Taliban claim credit for any kind of attack on Westerners, which makes sense: any street gang wants to claim credit for any drive-by done on its rivals within the boundaries of its turf.

However, notice also that they are stating Badakhshan Province has become dangerous lately. Badakhshan is along the extreme easternmost frontier of Afghanistan bordering both Pakistan and China.

From Afghanistan war: Deadly ambush of medical mission roils one of safest provinces, by Ben Arnoldy, August 7, 2010:

In one of Afghanistan's safest provinces, 10 members of a medical mission - including six Americans - were killed by militants. The attack highlights the trouble coalition forces have had containing the reach of insurgent activity in the Afghanistan war.

[snip]

Some reports suggested the attack might stem from criminal activity, but a Taliban spokesman claimed the killings, telling the Associated Press that the group was "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity." The group, International Assistance Mission (IAM), is a Christian organization, but on its website the group says it does not use aid to further a religious view.

[snip]

Badakhshan is located in the far northeast of Afghanistan and is home to few ethnic Pashtuns, the group from which the Taliban draws its membership.

However, "dry tinder" for militancy remains: The province lies on a major opium smuggling route and some former commanders are searching for work. Meanwhile, the Taliban have recently overrun several bordering districts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, imperiling the stability of one of the country's calmest provinces.

"I believe we have this risk of losing some areas of Badakhshan, either through the criminal groups, former commanders who are allied with insurgents, and some who are part of the insurgency," says Waliullah Rahmani, head of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies.

In the second quarter of this year, Badakhshan ranked 5th safest out of 34 provinces in terms of attacks initiated by armed opposition groups, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office.

[snip]

The attack on the international medical team took place in Badakhshan's southernmost district, Kuran wa Munjan. The group had been performing medical work in neighboring Nuristan Province. The head of the IAM told the Associated Press that the group decided to drive back to Kabul via Badakhshan because they thought that was the safest route.

[snip]

An aid worker based in Badakhshan says that Kuran wa Munjan borders two districts in Pakistan that had been taken by the Taliban two months back.

And another bordering district, Nuristan's Barg-e-Matal, has switched hands four times this year between insurgents and coalition forces. Last month, several hundred Taliban seized control of the district before being pushed back by NATO and Afghan troops.

So actually, much of the trouble is from the Barg-e-Matal District (also Bargi Matal) from neighboring Nuristan Province:

(To download your own copy of this map, which will allow you to see it much better, click here.)

But, the trouble really begins in Pakistan. The Taliban have a safe haven there. Among my many related posts, may I suggest The Colonel Imam Situation?

Meanwhile, we review excerpts from Paths of terrorism lead but to Pakistan by Ardeshir Cowasjee May 9, 2010:

Many of our neo-terrorists are schooled and brainwashed beings, with a grudge, or several grudges, imbued with bravado, intent on disrupting what is left of civilised life, with nary a care as to how many complete strangers they either blow to smithereens or maim, or how much they destroy.

[snip]

What is it about Pakistan that it manages to produce so many young men who are violence prone, caring neither for their own or other people's lives? We seriously need to ask ourselves this question.

It was asked and partially answered in the Wall Street Journal of May 3 by Sadanand Dhume under the heading 'Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists'. He firstly asks: "Why do Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora churn out such a high proportion of the world's terrorists?" He cites Mir Aimal Kasi, the CIA shooter, Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Centre bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of 9/11 fame, Omar Saeed Sheikh, the Daniel Pearl kidnapper, and three of the four July 2005 London train bombers as being 'made in Pakistan'.

He goes on to list a few "whose passage to jihadism passes through" Pakistan — Osama bin Laden himself, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and his shoe, and John Walker Lindh of the so-called American Taliban. These are not lists to be proud of. Something is radically wrong and heaven alone knows how long it will take to even start to put it right. With the governments and leadership we have suffered and still suffer it is not likely that in the foreseeable future our production line will decrease, let alone cease.

[snip]

No one, not even the most nationalistic Pakistani, can deny that the country is used as a training ground for terrorists or jihadists or whatever.

It is open knowledge that both the ignorant poor and deprived and the university-educated youth, and even adult men, can come to Pakistan and learn how to make bombs to blow up themselves, if they so wish, and as many others that they can either take with them or leave dead and maimed while they flee.

Karan Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan is now unstable because of a nearby district, Barg-e-Matal in Nuristan. But the real trouble lies across the international boundary in Pakistan.

Islam's borders are bloody, but Islam's interior is bloodier still, and Pakistan was founded in an environment promoting Islam as a reason to divide the subcontinent upon independence from Britain. Now, however, that promotion of militant and political Islam has joined Wahabbism from Saudi Arabia, developing into a powerful jihadist conflagration that threatens the whole world.

But, the most threatened are those who live in among the burning fuel, and those who live nearby - in this case, in the district next door.

I Want You

I couldn't have made this one up.

An article in Islam Times entitled NATO turning its Back on Opium Sales:

(Islam Times) - NATO has refused to close down the Afghan poppy fields in fear of what would happen after Afghan's sole source of income is eradicated.

Islam Times reports from Press TV: NATO has rejected an appeal made by Russia for eradication of opium fields in Afghanistan, arguing that the sole source of income in the region cannot be removed.

Addressing a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday, head of Russia's Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN) Victor Ivanov said "Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?"

The Russian official tasked NATO forces with "normalizing the situation in Afghanistan" which includes "the elimination of drug production."

Meanwhile, NATO spokesman James Appathurai voiced understanding for Russian concerns, given the country's estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year as a result of their addiction.

However, he went on to say that the Afghan drug problem had to be handled carefully in an effort to avoid alienating local residents.

"We share the view that it has to be tackled," the spokesman said. "But there is a slight difference of views," Appathurai added.

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income for people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them an alternative. That is simply not possible," the NATO official explained.

According to statistics provided by Ivanov, Russia was the single largest consumer of heroin in 2008. Moscow blames NATO for the surge in heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to Russia.

The production of opium in Afghanistan has [been] skyrocketing since the US-led invasion of the country in 2001.

But, the story goes far beyond that; this is a question of "Deep Politics".

As I pointed out in a recent post:

According to information in the Sibel Edmonds case, some of which has now come out through depositions, heroin money was being channeled through Turkish contacts to bribe US government officials, both elected and appointed, from both parties, in the years prior to 9/11. (The Sibel Edmonds case tells us a great deal about this; you can start learning about it here.) Word of the coming terrorist attacks was coming through counternarcotics and counterespionage channels - and, had word gotten out, a lot of US politicians would have been caught with their fingers in a poppy pie!

However, on the other fingers on the other hand, there was no poppy pie, but plenty of fossil fuels: a major terrorist attack on the US would galvanize public opinion to attack Al Qaeda's sponsors, the Taliban. This would pave the way for the pipeline deal to go through. And, for those in the US government receiving bribes from foreign organized crime, it would also allow US troops to protect opiate production from Taliban interference as part of a strategy to win the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers, while blaming resurgent opiate production on Al Qaeda (who, incidentally, does in fact play a role in opiate production and shipment).

Here's what this looks like:

1) We know that heroin sales financed the jihad in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, and the Soviet Union's troubles in Afghanistan helped cause the Evil Empire to implode -- no big loss.

2) We understand from alternative media and "the Left" that much of the de facto interest of our government in the Middle East has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism and the efforts of the faithful to force the world to submit. Indeed, if this were the main concern, why are we so friendly with Saudi Arabia, the source of the ideology and money to fund it? Why are we not more forceful with Pakistan, who sponsors and gives safe haven to the Taliban?

It looks like we are still playing big power politics in Central and South Asia, viewing Russia as the enemy.

Now, I am not advocating we suddenly trust Medvedev and Putin with our lives.

Of course, I don't trust Obama/Bush/Clinton or the other unindicted criminals in Washington, either.

But if we accept that we are playing big power politics, then the jockeying for oil under cover of a "War on Terror" (or what ever the Obamanistas call it now -- the only change the Obamanator has delivered is a new name) is the real game, and it makes sense.

And, many people are duped into not interfering in the heroin trade, because it is killing off our "real enemy", the Russians.

But, what is really going on once you dig down another level and explore the Sibel Edmonds case is that heroin money finds its way to Washington as bribes, so officials find ways to not interfere in somebody's very profitable business.

The Russians, the Afghans, the Americans -- WE THE PEOPLE of all these nations, and of other nations -- are getting screwed by the same dirty machine.

Having said all that, look what I found:

And it's true! The "real" Uncle Sam -- i.e., Real America -- needs us all (Americans, Russians, Afghans, etc.) to do just this: wake up, wake others up, know we are free, think for ourselves, and resist tyranny.

So, where did I find this??

At a website for the Religion of Peace, an ideology that seeks to deprive us of our rights to think freely, and which seeks to impose upon us a barbaric sixth-century tyrrany!

I could have sat here all day, and not have made this one up!

I WANT YOU to think for yourself.

Flies In The Ointment

In a previous post entitled Back-Channel Peace Talks Shut Down - Why?, I finished with this:

By the way, don't think that it is only corrupt elements of Pakistan's government and Islamic extremists who profit by drug trafficking. That money travels from the street, where the drugs are bought, to the fields of Afghanistan, where poppies are grown -- and most of it stops somewhere in between, or gets diverted elsewhere.

And those damned peacetalks with the Taliban were going to ruin all this.

Funny how, after decades supporting militant Islamic extremists and supporting the Taliban, Pakistan's security forces all of a sudden got on-board, coming up with the Taliban's No. 2 guy.

There is an interesting article at Asia Times Online, entitled War and peace: A Taliban view, by Syed Saleem Shahzad, dated March 26, 2010. In it, a spokesman for the Taliban denied the back-channel peace talks:

Mullah Baradar was part of the Taliban and there was no trust deficit between him and Mullah Omar. However, it is entirely false that he was part of any reconciliation process or that he held any talks with anybody.

Hmmm... no back-channel peacetalks?

Part 2 has some interesting information:

I switch topics. "Do you think the conflict in Afghanistan will just go on, and that there is no point in talks?"

The Taliban leader looks into my eyes for a while before answering.

"This all comes from real intentions. They want our defeat, not reconciliation. This talks issue is not a new one. The Taliban talked to the Americans, the Saudis and to the Pakistanis even before 9/11. The Taliban wanted to avoid the war [on Afghanistan in 2001] but we felt that the Americans were bent on a war and wanted to dislodge the Taliban government, and they were looking for some excuse.

"They made an issue of Osama bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan and tightened the noose around the Taliban government. We said that Osama bin Laden was just an individual. For argument's sake, say that tomorrow he died. Would the Taliban government then be acceptable to you? The Americans responded with other issues, women's rights and human rights in Afghanistan, as well as education.

"We replied, 'OK, we will work on mechanisms under which we will take steps for women's education and the improvement of human rights.' What then? The Americans raised another issue, about holding elections. At this point we realized the Americans were only concerned about waging war on Afghanistan for whatever reason. Had 9/11 not happened, they would have found any old excuse to wage war," says Abdullah.

Hmmm... "'any old excuse to wage war,' says Abdullah."

A series entitled "Genesis" was done at another blog based on official US government documents, and the series, with some analysis, led to the conclusion that Pakistan, likely with US support, established the Taliban to stabilize Afghanistan, with an eye towards building a pipeline through the country from Central Asian gas fields to the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

Looking back decades before, to another war and another part of the world, there's a debate about whether the United States had really been caught off-guard at Pearl Harbor, or whether some people high in government had information about an attack, but allowed it to occur so there would be reason for the United States to enter the war, and provide badly needed help in defeating the Axis.

Of course, that could never have happened, and it SURE could never have happened again!

:)

One of the problems with conspiracy theories (there are usually many problems) is that they tend to overestimate the competence of governments.

:|

From 'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes', dated April 2, 2004:

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."

FBI and other government documents, officially released in the course of the Moussaoui trial, specifically and strongly support the assertion that the US government was aware of the danger prior to the attack.

You know, the Taliban were getting in the way of our petroleum deals.

And, in 2001, they had just cracked down on opiate production.

According to information in the Sibel Edmonds case, some of which has now come out through depositions, heroin money was being channeled through Turkish contacts to bribe US government officials, both elected and appointed, from both parties, in the years prior to 9/11. (The Sibel Edmonds case tells us a great deal about this; you can start learning about it here.) Word of the coming terrorist attacks was coming through counternarcotics and counterespionage channels - and, had word gotten out, a lot of US politicians would have been caught with their fingers in a poppy pie!

However, on the other fingers on the other hand, there was no poppy pie, but plenty of fossil fuels: a major terrorist attack on the US would galvanize public opinion to attack Al Qaeda's sponsors, the Taliban. This would pave the way for the pipeline deal to go through. And, for those in the US government receiving bribes from foreign organized crime, it would also allow US troops to protect opiate production from Taliban interference as part of a strategy to win the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers, while blaming resurgent opiate production on Al Qaeda (who, incidentally, does in fact play a role in opiate production and shipment).

From War and peace: A Taliban view, Part 2:

"Once [Mullah Omar] asked Mullah Baradar to meet him, but Baradar replied that he operated in the field and might one day be arrested, and that would compromise Mullah Omar's position. Remember, nobody can isolate Mullah Omar. Everything in the Taliban starts and ends with Mullah Omar's orders," Abdullah says.

Mullah Omar, "commander of the faithful" - the weak link in the Taliban?

Or, The Taliban - fly in the ointment?

Okay, as long as I'm off in the direction of the loony bin, let's go all the way - in for a penny, in for a pound! For conspiracy kooks, there is a series of posts that has to be the Grand Unified Theory of conspiracies. From The Twilight Zone, Part 1, dated February 22, 2008:

The War on Terror is a charade: scratch it once, it comes up Big Oil; scratch it twice, it comes up Big Heroin.

Speaking of conspiracies, the first commentator at the end of The Twilight Zone, Part 1 wrote to the post author:

This is high explosive, YD! Take very good care of yourself.

And now that blogger, the author of that "high explosive" post, has stopped blogging, leaving behind a mysterious comment on how his (or her) email had been subpoenaed:

Another fly in somebody's ointment?

Back-Channel Peace Talks Shut Down - Why?

Anyone following events in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan has by now heard the news about a recent Pakistani arrest of Taliban leaders including the arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

The incident was touched on in a Pakistani newspaper article, which ended thusly:

But one issue that got immediate attention emerged from a statement earlier on Friday by Kai Eide, the former UN special representative to Afghanistan. In an interview to BBC, he said that the arrest of key Taliban leaders in Pakistan blocked a secret channel of communications between the United Nations and the militant Afghan group.

"We are extremely gratified that Pakistan apprehended the number two (Taliban leader) and others," said Mr Holbrooke when asked if the US supported the move. He said the arrests brought "more pressure" on the Taliban than before and the move was "good for the military operation" in Afghanistan.

Mr Holbrooke's statement differs sharply from Mr Eide's who claimed that the detentions had a "negative" effect on attempts to find a political solution to the eight-year-old Afghan war.

You can hear a BBC interview with Mr. Eide, or you can read transcripts of key parts of the interview, or read about the revelation from Mr. Eide about this secret communication channel.

There is a great deal to be had in this situation. One of the key things I find interesting is the process that was interrupted, and who interrupted it.

Mr. Eide, a Norwegian, was pursuing an avenue favored by the UK, whose government favors more engagement with the Taliban in the hope of separating them from Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban, though allies, are two different organizations with two different goals; where those goals overlap, they can cooperate, and nothing will bring them together more than a fight with a common enemy. However, if one of the two could get some of what it wants through negotiation, as opposed to getting nothing through a military stalemate, then why not abandon the other, who has essentially been nothing but problems?

There is a disagreement between this approach and the approach favored by the American government. Specifically,

The diplomat also took issue with senior US military and political officials, including General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, who argue that peace talks are premature and that the Taliban will only begin to negotiate in good faith once they have felt the full force of the US-led military surge.

Could it be that they negotiate now in good faith, but might feel that negotiations after having lost a major battle would be seen as a loss of face? Or, does this impression that the Taliban are winning need to be changed in order to get them to see that they won't win just by biding their time?

Regardless, the process was shut down. But, why?

From Taliban second-in-command captured in Pakistan, dated February 16:

That [Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar's] capture appears to have occurred in Karachi underlines the degree to which senior Afghan militants have used Pakistan as a secure base for their operations, but may also signal a very significant change in attitude on the part of the Pakistani army towards the hardline Afghan Islamist militant movement.

The Pakistani security establishment's ambivalent attitude towards the Taliban has been repeatedly cited as a major cause of the problems that have beset the western intervention in Afghanistan since then fall of the Taliban regime in December 2001.

Yet, Mr. Eide has questions about this:

Baradar's seizure was reported as a breakthrough in co-operation between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, but a key figure in back-channel talks involving Saudi Arabia described his arrest as "a huge blow" to the fledgling peace initiative.

Eide was highly critical of Pakistan and questioned its motives. "If your question had been, 'do I believe that Pakistan plays the role it should in promoting a political dialogue that is so necessary for ending the conflict in Afghanistan?' – then my answer would be no, the Pakistanis did not play the role that they should have played. They must have known about this; I don't believe that these people were arrested by coincidence. They must have known who they were, what kind of role they were playing; and you see the result today."

Perhaps this helps clarify things some:

LAHORE: Chief Minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif on Thurday said that terrorism is the worst form of crisis faced by the country, and if not solved, it will serve as a death warrant for the entire nation.

Sharif said that foreign dictation is tampering Pakistan's progress and is causing a negative effect on its policies.

Sharif blamed former president Pervaiz Musharraf's policy for being the root cause of the rise of terrorism in the country.

He applauded the sacrifices made by the people of NWFP in the war against terrorism, but warned that a lack of uniformity among the political parties of the country will cause a lot of problems in fighting terrorism.

He, however, said that the signing of the NFC awards is a big step forward towards uniformity as it develops mutual respect among the provinces.

Like any national government, Pakistan has different political factions vying for power.

One faction has an ideology dating back to the days of World War II: use Islam as a rallying cry in South Asia to polarize the Muslims (Pakistan) against Hindu India. India is larger, so strategic depth needs to be sought. This can be achieved by spreading more extreme versions of Islam into Afghanistan. Furthermore, the militants, who are trained in Pakistan, are used for a proxy war against India. However, this militant extremism has gotten mixed in with a broader, global rejuvenation of Islamic jihadism, and its Pakistani handlers now have a tiger by the tail.

Mixed into this are the other problems that go along with the lawlessness and chaos in the region, namely illicit drug production, trafficking and use: these are exacting a toll on Pakistani society, as well. This jihadism is profitable, as it nicely sets the stage for heroin trafficking.

So, there is a counterfaction that wants these related problems to end, before these problems put an end to Pakistan, either directly or indirectly.

By the way, don't think that it is only corrupt elements of Pakistan's government and Islamic extremists who profit by drug trafficking. That money travels from the street, where the drugs are bought, to the fields of Afghanistan, where poppies are grown -- and most of it stops somewhere in between, or gets diverted elsewhere.

And those damned peacetalks with the Taliban were going to ruin all this.

Funny how, after decades supporting militant Islamic extremists and supporting the Taliban, Pakistan's security forces all of a sudden got on-board, coming up with the Taliban's No. 2 guy.

Minister Sharif is exactly right, but good luck getting sincere cooperation out of all parts of Pakistan's officialdom.