Why Are U.S. Officials Protecting the Pakistan Military on Aid to Taliban?

WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (IPS) -- Despite evidence implicating the current Pakistani Army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, in a major military assistance program for the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan over the past few years, senior officials of the Barack Obama administration persuaded Congress to extend military assistance to Pakistan for five years without any assurance that the Pakistani assistance to the Taliban had ended.

Those officials, led by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, have been arguing that Kayani is committed to ending support the Taliban and other radical Islamic movements receive from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate, but that he is not yet able to control ISI operatives.

Late last year, U.S. officials were reportedly pressing Kayani for far-reaching changes in the ISI that would end its role in support of insurgents in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) demanded that the ISI be put under civilian control and threatened to introduce legislation making military assistance to Pakistan conditional on evidence that the Pakistani military had ended such support to the Taliban.

But Kerry dropped his proposal for conditioning U.S. military assistance to Pakistan on ending the ISI-Taliban program. In February Kerry said conversations with Mullen and "other players" had persuaded him that Kayani and his choice for new ISI chief, Ahmad Shuja Pasha, had "a willingness to engage in transformation" of the ISI.

The Kerry-Lugar legislation passed by the Senate in June provides 2 billion dollars in military aid as well as 4 billion dollars in economic assistance to Pakistan over five years and makes no mention of evidence of military aid to the Taliban. It merely requires the Secretary of State to certify that the "security forces of Pakistan" are making concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban and associated militant groups from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan."

Obama’s national security team established a critical basis for its argument to Congress by leaking a story to the New York Times asserting that Kayani would not be able to control the activities of ISI in the short run.

The story, published Mar. 26, acknowledged "direct support from operatives" of the ISI for the Afghan Taliban insurgency, but quoted anonymous U.S. officials saying it is "unlikely that top officials in Islamabad are directly coordinating the clandestine efforts" -- a carefully chosen formula that does not deny that they are presiding over a policy of aiding the Taliban.

The story said unnamed U.S. officials "have also said that mid-level ISI operatives occasionally cultivate relationships that are not approved by their bosses." That statement diverted attention away from whether the Pakistani military leadership has approved military assistance to the Taliban.

Mullen has been suggesting that Kayani has demonstrated good faith by purging the ISI. He told Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer in early April that the new head was "handpicked" to change the ISI.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee May 21, Mullen emphasized that Gen. Kayani had changed "almost the entire leadership of ISI" over the previous six months.

After a conversation with Mullen, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius quoted him in a Jun. 29 article as saying that Kayani and his choice for ISI Chief "have committed very specifically to change the culture of ISI," but that "that’s not going to happen overnight."

Mullen has carefully avoided saying that Kayani has given assurances he intends to halt the military assistance to the Taliban, however.