Subscribe to our BlogCIA, ISI: Cooperation Comes at a Price
By William Tucker
Yesterday the AP ran a story that discussed the ongoing battle between the CIA and the Pakistani ISI. In the context of the War on Terror the US has been forced into a shotgun wedding of sorts with the Pakistanis. Both nations are hesitant to work with each other, but in the wake of the 9/11 attacks the renewed relationship was inevitable. When two nations are forced to work with one another their respective intelligence agencies will ultimately follow suit. But we shouldn't confuse diplomatic cooperation with intelligence cooperation. Diplomats are paid to make nice while intelligence agencies will cooperate with one another when forced, but will also target each other out of necessity.
The article in question describes how the CIA was forced to review their list of informants because of suspicion that some were double agents working with the ISI (this turned out to be accurate). For those that are familiar with intelligence this sort of thing in nothing new. The US is operating in Pakistan which means that it is collecting intelligence in areas that would normally be inaccessible without the cooperation of the powers in Islamabad. In this type of environment it is understandable that individuals who have been recruited by the CIA may well work for the ISI. After all it is these assets that possess the intelligence that the CIA needs.
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 may not be able to correct.
Graphic: CIA, ISI Crest
Comments
Thanks for the comments.
You are indeed correct. Shortly after the Mumbai attacks I wrote a paper discussing that dynamic. Since both Pakistan and India are nuclear armed states conventional war has become difficult if not impossible. This means that covert operations will prevail, hence the use of proxies to fight a war of attrition. Problem is sometimes proxies turn on their patrons.
Posted by: William Tucker | July 7, 2010 9:36 PM
It should be remembered that the ISI created the Taliban and still funds it. It is well documented how the ISI still supports, trains, and enables jihadist groups such as Let and HIG just to name two. This has been a marrage of two groups with polar opposite goals. It is no wonder that we are no better off in the fight against jihadist than we are they have a state sponsor in Pakistan. What Iran is to Hezbollah Pakistan is to the Taliban and in effect al Qaeda.
Posted by: Rick Keyes | July 7, 2010 9:14 PM