What is happening between the US and Pakistan?

The US has linked the seizure of aid to the precondition that Pakistan undertake a military operation in NWA.

Those who recall my attempt some months ago to explain Joe Biden’s hurriedly-arranged visit to Pakistan, would recall that I tried outlining why and how Pakistan was assisting the Afghans to find an Afghan solution for their future — a future in which all Afghans across the ethnic divide would participate, including the various chapters of the Afghan Taliban. While Pakistan would assist, the ‘(Burhanuddin) Rabbani initiative’ was intended to be exclusively Afghan.

I also mentioned in the same article that, when Biden’s hurriedly-scheduled visit was announced, The Washington Post (concluding from the briefings he received) outlined his messages to Pakistan. Apart from increased military and civil aid/assistance, these included a reassurance that no ground attack by US/Isaf forces would occur on Pakistani soil, the US would no longer press for an operation by the Pakistan Army in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) and, that “Pakistan has an important, if not dominant role in Afghanistan”.

A month later, we were caught up in the Raymond Davis imbroglio. However, that, too, was settled amicably and CIA operatives in Pakistan were grossly reduced. It should have been expected that relations between these two ‘allies’ would improve. But what has happened since? Let us examine recent developments before attempting to understand why these have occurred.

The day after Davis’s release, a drone attack in NWA killed around 44 civilians (no militants). For the first time, Pakistan launched a genuinely strong protest; so much so, that the army chief, General Kayani, vocally condemned the attack (a first). For some days, the Pakistan Air Force patrolled the skies along the Durand Line and drone attacks halted. In the meantime, our ISI chief travelled to Washington for a meeting with his counterpart at the CIA.

He had not yet set foot in Pakistan when, on April 22, another drone attack in NWA killed 22 people, including women and children! I have frequently commented that, since 2008, drone attacks by the CIA have become increasingly accurate in targeting militants and the (indecent term) ‘collateral damage’ has become minimal. Suddenly, after Davis’s departure, these have become even more inaccurate than they were in the period from 2006-2008! Why?

In his online article, “Carving up Pakistan: The Balochistan gambit”, Tony Cartalucci wrote on April 22: “In a broader geopolitical context, these constant and seemingly random attacks in western Pakistan serve a more diabolical purpose. With each attack on ‘suspected militants’, the all-inclusive term used to describe CIA targets, the authority and stability of Pakistan’s establishment is undermined and whittled away. With many of the attacks claiming the lives of civilians, outrage and unrest is purposefully being fanned and spread. The recipient of this outrage and unrest is a national government seemingly bent to the will of the United States as it callously murders Pakistanis. In particular, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is being intentionally weakened, undermined and isolated from the whole of Pakistan”.

The last sentence is given credence by the fact that, after a considerable interval, during which the ISI was not subjected to false allegations by the US, suddenly US military chief Admiral Mullen found it necessary to castigate this organisation again. With such vehemence did he do so, that once again, Pakistan’s army chief had to decry this ‘negative propaganda’!

Then there is the incident of the two-day firefight in Dir! Where did that come from? It certainly isn’t al Qaeda, which maintains only a token presence in Afghanistan, having moved to greener pastures in the Middle East and Iraq. Equally certainly, it wasn’t the Taliban.

In his online article “CIA Directs and Funds Terrorism In Pakistan CIA’s Afghan Kill Teams Expand US War in Pakistan”, published September 21, 2010, Spencer Ackerman points at the likely perpetrators. “Let there be no doubt that the US is at war in Pakistan. It’s not just the drone strikes. According to insider journalist Bob Woodward’s new book, the CIA manages a large and lethal band of Afghan fighters to infiltrate into Pakistan and attack al Qaeda’s bases. What could possibly go wrong?” He adds, “Administration officials didn’t just confirm the existence of the teams — they bragged about them. ‘This is one of the best Afghan fighting forces and it’s made major contributions to stability and security,’ says one US official who would only talk on condition of anonymity — and who wouldn’t elaborate”. Ackerman concludes, “One of the larger political narratives Woodward’s book apparently presents is President Obama’s inability to either bring the Afghanistan war to a close or find good options for tailoring it to the US’ main enemies in Pakistan. When the CIA comes to the Oval Office with a plan for inflicting damage on the safe havens — no matter how fraught with risk and blowback the plan is — is it any surprise that Obama would approve it?”

Ackerman’s comments seem to confirm my growing belief that US foreign policy, at least towards this region, is not tailored in the White House, but in the Pentagon and Langley. If the GHQ has a definite input in our foreign policy, it seems we are only following the sterling example of ‘the World’s Greatest Democracy’, the US of A!

And what is more, the US has, once again, linked this seizure of promised aid as well as its intent to continue its inaccurate drone attacks in NWA to the precondition that Pakistan undertake a military operation in NWA — if not, no aid and drone attacks now (rather obviously) targeting civilians will continue!

“Elementary, my dear Watson”, as the inimical Sherlock Holmes would have said, “the US has to destabilise Pakistan”. The only question is: Why?

Published in The Express Tribune, April 30^th, 2011.