From the department of “now, who could have really guessed this?”: The Pakistani government’s peace accord with the Taliban in the Swat Valley (or to be more precise the Malakand Division) has led to an influx of terrorists, expanded recruitment, and the establishment of new terror camp. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Yet a visit to the Taliban-controlled valley here found mounting evidence that the deal already is strengthening the militants as a base for war. U.S. officials contend the pact has given the Taliban and its allies in al Qaeda and other Islamist groups an advantage in their long-running battle against Pakistan’s military. The number of militants in the valley swelled in the months before the deal with the Taliban was struck, and they continue to move in, say Pakistani and U.S. officials. They now estimate there are between 6,000 and 8,000 fighters in Swat, nearly double the number at the end of last year. Taliban leaders here make no secret of their ultimate aim. “Our objective is to drive out Americans and their lackeys” from Pakistan and Afghanistan, said Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the group, in an interview here. “They are not Muslims and we have to throw them out.” Militant training camps are springing up across the valley’s thickly forested mountainsides. “Young men with no prospect of employment and lack of education facilities are joining the militants,” said Abdur Rehman, a schoolteacher in Swat.
Back in February, Tom Ricks said the Swat peace agreement was “a smart move”. Here is what he said:
I know it looks like a setback but I suspect this might be a smart move. Give the people of Swat sharia law, and see how they like it. Meanwhile, bolster your security forces in the area so they can pick up the ball when the Taliban has sufficiently alienated the populace. Risky? Sure. But better than losing Swat altogether.
When Ricks wrote this, it should have been clear to anyone who has tracked these peace agreements over time and understands the situation in Swat and the Northwest Frontier Province that the agreements had failed in the past and would continue to fail in the future.
