By William Tucker
Last week Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that the Pakistani government sanctioned the murder of journalist Saleem Shahzad. Shahzad was well known for writing articles decrying the infiltration of the Pakistani military by Islamist militants. Naturally, this didn’t sit well with many Pakistani politicians or military leaders, and the top military official in the United States airing Islamabad’s dirty laundry did nothing to diffuse the situation. To top off the diplomatic fallout, the White House confirmed the next day that 800 million dollars in military assistance to Pakistan was being cut off. Mullen’s remarks and the cut in aid certainly appear coordinated and this has forced the Pakistanis to respond.
Pakistan’s response to the cut in aid is similar to how it has dealt with this threat in the recent past – by threatening to pull troops away from the Pakistan/Afghan border. The response to the murder accusation was quite different. Instead of making idle threats, Islamabad decided to blow the whistle on an alleged CIA operation that was designed to capture DNA from a family member of Usama bin Laden. This report comes from the UK daily the Guardian. The newspaper claimed that the CIA ran a false vaccination program in Abbottabad, using a local doctor, with the aim of gathering DNA evidence from one of bin Laden’s younger children as a way to confirm the terror leader’s presence. The Guardian article contained enough specific information on the operation that its source was likely the same organization that is currently holding the doctor accused of working with the CIA – Pakistan’s ISI.
Mullen’s remarks didn’t appear to be off the cuff. One does not rise to be the most powerful officer in the U.S. military by making inflammatory remarks that could cause a diplomatic crisis. If Mullen did make these remarks in a careless fashion, then calls for his resignation would likely be rather loud by now. At this point there hasn’t been a peep to suggest that the administration is upset over the language thus suggesting that it was likely sanctioned by the White House. Furthermore, the White House isn’t going to accuse a foreign government of murdering a specific journalist without some evidence to back up the claim. If the ISI was indeed behind Shazad’s murder then it follows that it was a source within the ISI that leaked the information. Essentially, it was likely a CIA source.
Intelligence agencies cooperate for a whole host of reasons, but in that cooperation opportunities to peek at each others secrets are presented. When I first wrote about the love-hate relationship between intelligence agencies one year ago, with a primary focus on the CIA and ISI, I noted that:
“We know that intelligence agencies are inherently secretive – they have to be. Intelligence agencies may cooperate and share some information, but any good spy agency is going to want to know as much as possible. This is why intelligence agencies run double agents against friendly countries and adversaries alike. The ISI isn’t the only one playing the duplicitous role in this relationship, however. The CIA has been using this cooperative environment to learn more about the Pakistani nuclear program using similar methods. The battle between these two agencies is certainly ugly, but not unprecedented. In fact we can expect the competition to increase as the US looks to withdraw from Afghanistan. Ultimately the Americans can go home, but they need to accomplish some things before that happens. The Pakistanis on the other hand will have to deal with Islamist militants that have turned on Islamabad – something a peace deal [with the Taliban] may not be able to correct.”
Indeed, the fight between the CIA and the ISI has intensified, rather publicly, in the last year. In recent months this spat has been attributed to the raid that killed bin Laden back in May, but that is certainly not the case. Some of the posturing has to do with the fracturing of the ISI and the Pakistani state at large. In reality, this type of fight between spy agencies was inevitable. The CIA and the ISI have different goals because the nations they represent have different interests. This type of battle between two intelligence agencies that have a short term need to cooperate will be replicated in different relationships and different situations. Truth be told, this battle between the CIA and the ISI is far from over.
Comments are closed.