<p>The US appears to have gone a step further than India in linking Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) with terrorism. While India has been drawing the world’s attention to the ISI’s logistical support to terrorist groups and its role in masterminding terrorist attacks, US government briefing documents for Guantanamo officials that were leaked by WikiLeaks list the ISI as a terrorist organisation. The documents also say that inmates with links to the ISI in the late 1990s-2003 period were to be looked upon as al-Qaeda or Taliban. The US, which in its public documents has been reluctant to label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and which described ISI’s links with terrorism as being confined to ‘rogue elements’, has a different view in private. In its classified documents, it sees Pakistan’s intelligence agency not just as a sponsor or supporter of terrorism but as a terrorist organisation itself.<br /><br />Even in recent months, top US military officials have been waxing eloquent over the enormous co-operation from the ISI in battling terrorism. Now that their true perception of the ISI is out in the public domain, will the ensuing debate and discussion result in a change in strategy? Dependent on Pakistan’s support in the ‘war against terrorism’, the US has been avoiding confronting Islamabad — at least in public — on the ISI’s links with terrorism. It has shirked demanding the ISI’s reform simply because it depends on it for intelligence on various terror networks. But a strategy which involves using terrorists to fight terrorists has not worked. India has repeatedly pointed out that the US’ approach of ignoring anti-India terrorists and its pre-occupation with only those targeting the US is flawed. It has warned Washington of its selective approach to terrorism. All terrorists, even if they are official as is the ISI, should be targeted. If the US recognises the ISI as terrorist, why is it not acting resolutely against it too?<br /><br />Much of the US’ resistance to tackle the ISI with a firm hand is the fact that they both have much to hide. The US played a major role in making the ISI what it is today. Who can forget the close ties between the CIA and the ISI during the 1980s? Was it not US funding of the ISI that made it a monster, an entity far more powerful than the Pakistani state?</p>
<p>The US appears to have gone a step further than India in linking Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) with terrorism. While India has been drawing the world’s attention to the ISI’s logistical support to terrorist groups and its role in masterminding terrorist attacks, US government briefing documents for Guantanamo officials that were leaked by WikiLeaks list the ISI as a terrorist organisation. The documents also say that inmates with links to the ISI in the late 1990s-2003 period were to be looked upon as al-Qaeda or Taliban. The US, which in its public documents has been reluctant to label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and which described ISI’s links with terrorism as being confined to ‘rogue elements’, has a different view in private. In its classified documents, it sees Pakistan’s intelligence agency not just as a sponsor or supporter of terrorism but as a terrorist organisation itself.<br /><br />Even in recent months, top US military officials have been waxing eloquent over the enormous co-operation from the ISI in battling terrorism. Now that their true perception of the ISI is out in the public domain, will the ensuing debate and discussion result in a change in strategy? Dependent on Pakistan’s support in the ‘war against terrorism’, the US has been avoiding confronting Islamabad — at least in public — on the ISI’s links with terrorism. It has shirked demanding the ISI’s reform simply because it depends on it for intelligence on various terror networks. But a strategy which involves using terrorists to fight terrorists has not worked. India has repeatedly pointed out that the US’ approach of ignoring anti-India terrorists and its pre-occupation with only those targeting the US is flawed. It has warned Washington of its selective approach to terrorism. All terrorists, even if they are official as is the ISI, should be targeted. If the US recognises the ISI as terrorist, why is it not acting resolutely against it too?<br /><br />Much of the US’ resistance to tackle the ISI with a firm hand is the fact that they both have much to hide. The US played a major role in making the ISI what it is today. Who can forget the close ties between the CIA and the ISI during the 1980s? Was it not US funding of the ISI that made it a monster, an entity far more powerful than the Pakistani state?</p>
