Admiral Mike Mullen’s warning that Pakistan is using extremism as an instrument of policy marked a major change in US tone. Will Pakistan respond?
You could be forgiven for dismissing the latest diplomatic spat between the United States and Pakistan as just another hiccup in a long-estranged marriage. Trading accusations and navigating diplomatic crises has become a weekly affair for this deeply troubled alliance. But the broadside launched against Pakistan by the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in congressional testimony on September 22 represents a rupture so dramatic that its significance is difficult to overstate.
On Thursday, Adm. Mike Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan was using ‘violent extremism as an instrument of policy’ and said the Haqqani network, Af-Pak’s deadliest militant outfit, ‘acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Internal Services Intelligence Agency.’ Mullen further explained that Pakistan was using militant proxies to ‘hedge their bets’ in Afghanistan, adding, ‘in reality, they have already lost that bet.’ To be sure, independent analysts and former government officials have been airing such complaints for years. But never in the long, dark history of the Afghan war have serving officials so unequivocally called Pakistan to account for its double game.
Pakistan’s reaction was swift but uninspiring. The country’s new foreign minister warned that the United States ‘cannot afford to alienate Pakistan,’ while Mahmood Shah, a former army brigadier, explained that the US is simply ‘mak(ing) Pakistan the scapegoat for (its) failures in Afghanistan.’ Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani added: ‘They can’t live with us. They can’t live without us.’
That sort of response simply isn’t going to cut it anymore. The Obama administration – indeed, the country at large – has lost faith in Pakistan. The turning point for the White House appears to have been the September 13 attack on the US embassy in Afghanistan; a brazen assault by Haqqani network insurgents that resulted in a 20-hour gun battle in a fortified corner of the Afghan capital. Just a few days earlier, the Haqqani network orchestrated a truck bombing outside a US base in Wardak that wounded 77 US soldiers and killed five Afghans.
Indeed, a barrage of crises has been propelling the United States and Pakistan toward a reckoning for months. The year opened with the Raymond Davis saga, when Pakistan refused to grant diplomatic immunity to a US contractor who killed two armed Pakistanis in a mysterious confrontation in January. That was followed by the expulsion of US military trainers and intelligence agents and a diplomatic row over visas to US officials. A series of US drone strikes on al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistan’s tribal lands strained ties even further, as did the continuing refusal of the Pakistani military to launch an assault on the militant stronghold of North Waziristan. The discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden in May in a wealthy suburb miles from Pakistan’s premier military academy served as the grand finale.
The bin Laden raid raised red flags across Washington, not least on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers were told by then-CIA director Leon Panetta the Pakistanis ‘were (either) involved or incompetent.’ Many congressmen and senators, long in the dark or uninterested in South Asian affairs, were shocked to find the degree to which Pakistan was misusing American aid and harbouring US enemies. Key congressional leaders began demanding a fundamental reassessment of the United States’ Pakistan policy, and in July the US announced it was withholding $800 million in Pakistani aid.
Pakistan has fared little better inside the administration. Under former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Pentagon had been a staunch opponent of taking a tougher line with Islamabad. The defence department helped torpedo stiff restrictions on US aid to Pakistan in the $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar bill. But now Gates is out, and tough talking Leon Panetta is in. As the United States’ top spy from 2009 to 2011, Panetta is intimately familiar with the ISI’s transgressions. He expressed his frustrations recently, explaining, ‘Time and again, we’ve urged the Pakistanis to exercise their influence over (the Haqqanis) and we’ve made very little progress. The message they need to know is: we’re going to do everything we can to defend our forces.’
Panetta will find an ally in his replacement at the CIA. David Petraeus carries his own intimate knowledge of Pakistan’s double game, having served as the top US commander in Afghanistan for the past year. His heroic efforts there were consistently stifled by the safe haven and support Afghan militants receive from Pakistan, and his relationship with Pakistan’s generals is famously estranged. The Agency has its own bone to pick with Pakistan: the CIA blames the Haqqani network for a December 30, 2009 bombing at an agency outpost in Khost, Afghanistan that killed seven CIA officers – the single deadliest attack on US intelligence personnel in the Agency’s history. Moreover, the last two CIA station chiefs were forced to leave Pakistan after they were publicly ‘outed’ in December 2010 and May of this year. Nor will Pakistan find help inside the State Department, which is still reeling from the embassy attack. The new US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, told Radio Pakistan on September 17 that the Haqqani network was responsible for the assault and ‘there is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government…This is something that must stop.’
Photo Credit: US Defence Department
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Danilo
So Nasser will be this board’s real life acvtdaoe of colonialism. I didn’t think people like this actually existed.I consider Iran lucky that this viewpoint is a minority, an essentially inconsequential one at that.
-PZ-
Adm. Mullen’s words on Pakistan come under scrutiny
“Mullen’s language “overstates the case,” said a senior Pentagon official with access to classified intelligence files on Pakistan, because there is scant evidence of direction or control”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/adm-mullens-words-on-pakistan-come-under-scrutiny/2011/09/27/gIQAHPJB3K_print.html
Haqqani network controlled by Taliban, not Pakistan
http://thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=23499
Jonas
Pakistan is young nation and still straggling to find right identity in order to keep the country united. Islam was used for separation from India but nowadays is not serving for the country’s development as prosper and stable unity of different ethnic group with very different level development. For the foreign countries and particularly for the USA should be more attention paid for the development of the ethnic region of Pakistan and not only supporting just Punjabi.
Jay Bhattacharjee
An elegant and perceptive article. However, a few nagging questions that Mr. Smith may like to answer / deal with. Before that, a caveat : I am far from that (very small) group of Indians who harbour an instinctive hostility to the US and Americans. Indeed, like the overwhelming majority of Indians from my socio-economic segment, I have a lot in common with, and considerable empathy for, American thought, principles, values and norms. Now the queries : (1) How is that a manifestly democratic country’s establishment could flagrantly override its basic values in order to nurture and protect a virulently anti-democratic and fundamentalist country for so many years ? The fig – leaf of containing the Soviet Union etc. doesn’t really wash any longer. That argument, in any case, was operative before the demise of the USSR. (2) Post – Sept. 2001, how could the Pakistanis make such complete fools of the Pentagon and the State Department ? (3)Would Mr. Smith admit that there is such a thing as “institutional memory” that can override logic and common sense ? This phenomenon clearly fogs the mind of the Pentagon and State. (4) Has the Pakistani establishment some other unknown lever over American decision – makers ? (no, I am not a conspiracy theory buff).
Seshadri
I am inclined to believe that democratic values and principles are not guiding principles on foreign policy. There is a good rationale for it. On domestic issues, there is an overall control so democratic principles can be used for guidance and where deemed necessary influenced and enforced. This is not true on a foreign environment and therefore civilised engagement is essentially on a jungle law. Put this this way, friendship is good but do you really want to trust it with your life? Even if you are the most powerful de jour?
I fully understand why self-interest is placed at the fore while yet advocating and advertising and where possible influencing on democratic principles.
It is just that while dealing with the United States, other state actors should keep this in mind. United States is capable and when appropriate does play for a win-win. However, it does also bargain very hard. You just do the same! It should be that simple.
Toothy
There are few fundamental aspects that need to be taken into consideration in so far as Pakistani military is concerned.
1. Current bluster is nuanced upon perception of TINA factor and belief that Americans after a lot of venom letting may come around to compromise. This may well be true.
2. Pakistani military despite its great strategic engagement with US and others remain tactical in approach, and has lived by miscalculations, all these 64 years be it 1971 or 1999. Former led to creation of Bangladesh. There is therefore a sense of denial and too much self belief which can be counter-productive at times.
3. This whole notion of strategic depth is misplaced, until it is matched by strategic vision, which I do not see. To what good is strategic depth if the country itself is on the brink of economic collapse.
4. china support and belief that China will pull its chestnuts out of fire is also misplaced, may I respectfully remind 1965 and 1971 once again.What is Chinese aid or assistance to Pakistan? Not even one billion dollars.
5. Current hubris is based on Pakistani nuclear capability and nuanced posturing more implied than even mentioned. Basic issues is will Pakistan be willing to play this brinkmanship card?
The best option for Pakistan is to seek guarantees from US and even India, Iran and other regional actors that Pakistani security interests in Afghanistan will not be compromised. it is in its own interest to get down from Haqqani and TTP tiger for the sake of its own future and stability. Hope better sense prevails on all sides.
swashplate
It is time for a new day with strong Leaders, in Washington and absolutely no tolerance of bs from Pakistan or any of the tribes or anyone anywhere.
Either you deal with us honestly and are on our team or we will not deal with you but against you.
kevin anderson
it is time for action not words,the american defence policy towards pakistan has been far to tolerant,due to the long term inconsistancies by the pakistan government in realation to past and current events,i have always believed the if you support terror then you are part of terror.how many more must die before positive action is taken.
SGMS
This has nothing to do with Afghanistan and nothing to do
with the US. The real conflict remains Pakistan-India.
Pakistan’s ISI and military only need Afghanistan so they
can turn up the militant violence which ripples over into
Pakistan. At any time these forces can be manipulated
to attack India. As long as there is instibility in Afghanistan
India remains uncomfortable and that’s exactly Pakistan’s
brilliant yet totally self-destructive strategy.