The documents also describe other failures in the Afghan war and are starting to increase Democratic opposition to the policy in Congress. The Democratic leadership, who supports our current policy of short-term escalation of the troops, is rushing to hold a vote on a war-financing bill before the rank and file insist on a more thorough evaluation.

The release of the documents has initiated a review of the war earlier than the Obama administration had hoped, initially scheduled for the end of this year. Meanwhile, mounting U.S. casualties in the conflict are making matters even worse.

There was some criticism of the organization that published the documents, WikiLeaks, but they claim to have redacted all sensitive information, as did The New York Times who subsequently published the piece. In fact, the Administration’s quarrel seems to be more with the content of the documents, contravening the effectiveness of their troop increase and aid to Pakistan, than the actual fact they were published in the first place.

While the Pakistani government strongly denies any current involvement — they are recipients of billions of dollars in U.S. aid — these new documents suggest otherwise. A pattern seems to be emerging with one stance in public and another on the ground.

The United States is in a delicate situation because it wishes to maintain its semi-legal drone attacks that have been so successful against Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and that the Pakistani government seems to be willing to permit, at least in an informal capacity. But what are we to do when the money we use to support the Pakistani government ends up being used to fight our own troops?

The documents the Times has unearthed include a damning portrait of a former head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, with longstanding, and U.S.-condoned, relationships with the mujahedeen who were supported by the United States when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But the mujahedeen transformed themselves into the Taliban.

All this has increased tensions between the American military and Pakistani soldiers, an ominous development in itself. There must be some resolution to this situation if our fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is to succeed.

Pakistan is encouraging Hamid Karzai to incorporate the network of Haqqani fighters, a major factor in the Taliban insurgency, in a power-sharing arrangement. Pakistan has long favored the Haqqanis because they also oppose and have attacked Indian interests in Afghanistan, and India is Pakistan’s arch enemy.

Meanwhile, as the article notes, the United States could be cut out of any separate peace, and the Haqqanis are closely allied with Al Qaeda. And that’s the major reason we’re fighting in Afghanistan in the first place, to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven.

The article also notes that the Haqqanis have struggled and fought together with Al Qaeda for so long, that despite present promises, it is very unlikely the Haqqanis will separate themselves totally from Al Qaeda.

The United States has been trying to get the Pakistani government to fight against the Haqqanis to no avail.

What’s wrong with this picture? The United States is pouring billions of dollars of military aid into Pakistan, and our young soldiers are losing their lives in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Pakistan conspire behind our back to cut us out when we leave.

Apparently, steam has been observed coming from the cooling tower of a current plant in the country, suggesting this unfortunate turn of events. Pakistan, a country hosting major Al Qaeda training camps, represents one of the worst locations for this production to be occurring. Pakistan, however, is reacting to its ongoing fear of an Indian attack, and the nuclear arms race between the two has become worse since the United States, in effect, recognized India’s right to nuclear arms without the sanctions usually imposed for this occurrence.

The summit meeting President Obama will be holding represents the largest gathering of world leaders since FDR called one to found the United Nations. The  President has rightly noted that the procurement of a nuclear weapon or nuclear material by a terrorist group is the largest threat to our national security in the short-, medium- and long-term future.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s increased production of nuclear material makes the securement and locking down of this material even more difficult. Even though the conference was not called to address this issue, the article paints a rightly ominous tone regarding its  overall impact.

The attacks have disrupted Al Qaeda’s operations significantly, impeding their movement though not totally eliminating the training camps. Pakistani forces have recently begun to provide Americans with information regarding the militant movements despite the fact that they refuse to attack the region militarily themselves. The militants have long-standing ties with Pakistan’s intelligence agency and government. And the Pakistani government still officially condemns the drone attacks as a violation of it sovereignty.

When the US government has been on the defensive for so long, in a reactive mode regarding the shoe bomber and the Christmas Day attack, for example, it’s good to see us getting out on the offensive for a change. The local villagers in the region are starting to refuse shelter to Arab militants because they fear a drone attack against their own homes.

My advice to the US government: keep droning on!

The head of Pakistan’s army, General Kayani, has made the offer to several leading U.S. generals, in an effort to maintain the peace when the United States leaves the region. The Haqqani tribes has links with many in the Pakistan army and intelligence services. However, the United States is most concerned with the link between the Haqqani and Al Qaeda. If this link can be severed, they might be persuaded to tacitly approve the talks.

Pakistan’s main concern remains India, and they see Afghanistan as a second front that they don’t want to open. Whether this can work in the United States favor remains to be seen.

The political considerations in all this jockeying for position are profound and complex. In my opinion, the shifting alliances could eventually work against the United States. And, in fact, this article concludes with the observation, “The United States is pretty worried about seeing a deal emerge that suits everyone other than us.”

8H358GEY9563

Apparently, the men killed were part of a  Special Operations unit, and they were travelling in a dangerous area to help mark the opening of a new school for girls, built with U.S. funds. The Taliban typically destroy any attempts to educate the female population as inconsistent with the Koran.

The article hypothesizes one reason the soldiers were killed — as retaliation for the increasing number of drone attacks against Pakistani targets. There was also some question of betrayal among the government forces since the soldiers were well camouflaged and protected by a cordon of vehicles.

Despite this setback, the attack tends to show the effectiveness of President Obama’s increased attention to the region, the area where many believe Osama bin Laden is holding out. Otherwise, there would have been no perceived need to retaliate.

However, the sensitivities of the Pakistani government are another matter, and we can only hope to continue to downplay our role behind the scenes.

The article points out, however, that this point of view has not been widely supported among the political leadership of NATO countries, a significant caveat. General McChrystal, however, is continuing to lobby, an action that conflicts with our country’s tradition of civilian leadership of the Armed Forces. He was not originally scheduled to make any appearance here, and his continued insistence, at a time when the White House is undergoing a series of meetings to evaluate his recommendation, is becoming redundant and suggests an effort to box President Obama into a decision in his favor.

Vice President Joe Biden, who supports a more focused counterterrorism approach, as opposed to counterinsurgency, seems to have much of history on his side, if not the military-industrial complex. It has been widely quoted that there are only about 100 combatants from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, compared to Pakistan where they have established training camps — and where Osama bin Laden is hiding out.

The Vice President has been widely praised for his acumen on foreign policy, and I’m hoping that President Obama will listen to him.

The article analyzes the recent takeover of the Pakistan Army headquarters as well as the assault on two Pakistani military training centers and a federal investigations building on Thursday. It found cooperation between Pakistan militant groups is increasing in a combined attempt to overthrow the government and forestall a planned government attack on Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in the Waziristan provinces.

In my opinion, this unholy alliance represents one more setback to American efforts in Pakistan. By combining their objectives against India, the United States and the civilian Pakistani government, the militant groups have become a powerful force to be reckoned with, not just guerilla bands carrying out isolated attacks. Even more ominously, the article notes that the Pakistani population supports the militant groups because they view the Americans as an occupying force.

This alliance could make it even more difficult for the Pakistani government because of its ties with the military, intelligence forces and throughout society. Leaks and inside connections will make it nearly impossible to mount a surprise attack, and militant support among the citizenry will ensure their ability to melt away into the population during any sustained operation.

Apparently, the terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (or Lashkar for short) continues to operate with impunity in Pakistan and maintains unofficial relations with the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, as well as the Pakistani military. In addition, the government refuses to arrest the head of Lashkar, Hafiz Saeed, despite Indian intelligence regarding his participation in the Mumbai plot.

Lashkar also boasts wide membership, up to 150,000, among the Pakistani people as well as support for its mission to liberate the Muslim majority in Kashmir, currently under Indian control. More ominously, Lashkar is planning future attacks, and, if successful, it would most likely generate an Indian military response.

The mind boggles at the current possibilities of nuclear or otherwise horrific combat these days including between Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan, and, last but not least, between Al Qaeda and the United States. Any single one of these events would be enough to start a conflagration that would be difficult to control.

Hopefully, while President Obama works on health care and other domestic matters, he’s keeping his eye on the ball overseas.