The dysfunctional relationship between CIA and ISI
This weekend’s New York Times has an article on the dysfunctional relationship between the Central Intelligence Agency and Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence.
The article recounts the dealings between the two agencies over the past three decades, the results of which should leave observers wondering whether the ISI is an ally or adversary of the United States.
Perhaps the most interesting facet of the article is its portrayal of CIA officers assigned to Kabul and Islamabad apparently succumbing to the “Stockholm Syndrome” at their respective stations. According to the article, working relations between CIA officers posted to Kabul and Islamabad may be little better than the working relations between the Afghan and Pakistani governments, which is to say, not good at all.
The U.S. will not be able to achieve success in Afghanistan until it first achieves much greater leverage over the ISI. Unfortunately, it appears as if it is the ISI that possesses all of the leverage.
The article recounts the dealings between the two agencies over the past three decades, the results of which should leave observers wondering whether the ISI is an ally or adversary of the United States.
Perhaps the most interesting facet of the article is its portrayal of CIA officers assigned to Kabul and Islamabad apparently succumbing to the “Stockholm Syndrome” at their respective stations. According to the article, working relations between CIA officers posted to Kabul and Islamabad may be little better than the working relations between the Afghan and Pakistani governments, which is to say, not good at all.
The U.S. will not be able to achieve success in Afghanistan until it first achieves much greater leverage over the ISI. Unfortunately, it appears as if it is the ISI that possesses all of the leverage.
posted by Westhawk at 6:14 PM
1 Comments:
Someone who would know said:
"PakMil sucks and they're inclined to some serious treachery. (The other guys got our fucking night vision.) Really, really bad combination.
Cut 'em loose and you're gonna have to take care of all those target packages yourself.
Rock.
Hard place.
NATO agreed to take over Asscrackistan when it looked like a good deal.
Now it's the booger on their finger that they can't get rid of.
(Want more air mobility? Lease it, for Chrissake.
We fly every goddamned thing that'll get off the ground and stay there awhile.)
What's wrong with 'Stan? I'll tell you what's wrong with 'Stan.
Nowhere near enough of those motherfuckers have been killed.
Nowhere near.
And it ain't got nuthin' to do with number of uniforms.
Or the Afghans, who are good enough.
Get with it.
Or go home."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home