A critical time in US-Pakistan relations
Pakistan has suffered tremendously for 9/11; 30,000 Pakistanis have been injured or killed since 9/11.
The make-or-break moment between Pakistan and US relations has arrived. While Pakistan plunges deeper into the midst of uncertainty, one thing is for sure: Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential bid has been given a significant boost. Peter Bergen, CNN’s security analyst announced “killing Bin Laden is the end of the war on terror”. The highly publicised death of Bin Laden is inspiring for some, but al Qaeda still exists and has spread throughout the globe.
The mood in the US was understandably jubilant and demands have already been made for the end of war in Afghanistan. With the US economy struggling and millions dealing with unemployment, the US cannot afford to keep pumping dollars into Afghanistan and Iraq and Bin Laden’s death might provide Obama the exit strategy he needed. US Congressman Jerrold Nadler (Democrat-New York) said that the US needs to stop wasting troops and money in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Senator Joe Lieberman told reporters that there have been many calls to withdraw from Afghanistan now that Osama is dead but “if we did that, we would repeat the mistake that we’ve made once before”. Thus, for now, the US has said that it is sticking with its 2014 partial-withdrawal plan from Afghanistan.
Pakistan has suffered tremendously for 9/11; 30,000 Pakistanis have been injured or killed since 9/11 and 140,000 troops have been deployed along the border with Afghanistan. It takes a group of 48 other countries to match the commitment which Pakistan continues to sustain. These figures are enormous, yet they are now overshadowed by the ISI’s inability to discover Osama living in Abbottabad.
The government of Pakistan declared that unilateral operations will not be tolerated in the future. During Senator John Kerry’s visit, the US and Pakistan said in a joint statement that they have agreed to work together in the future against high value targets in Pakistan. Nonetheless, it was not clear if the US still reserves the right to conduct a surgical strike within Pakistan, if Mullah Omar’s location is discovered. Likewise, the US did not confirm or deny a report by a British newspaper claiming that the US will send troops into Pakistan if its nuclear installations come under terrorist threat. The latest intrusion of a Nato helicopter into Pakistani airspace in North Waziristan is also troublesome. Questions over Pakistan’s sovereignty were set aside for drone strikes but to push the limits even further and include unilateral ground operations in Pakistan, will escalate the situation to dangerous levels.
Demands have also been made to cut off aid to Pakistan which has received a total of $18 billion from the US over the last eight years: $9 billion of which is reimbursement for expenses incurred while providing support to the US military in Afghanistan. In comparison, it costs the US $10 billion a month ($2.5 billion a week) to support the troops in Afghanistan. Thus, what Pakistan receives in exchange for its role in the ‘war on terror’ is short change. In January 2008, USAID awarded a three-year, $43.4 million contract to Development Alternative, an NGO, to increase the capacity of Fata governmental institutions and NGOs, however, little has been achieved. The Kerry-Lugar bill pledged $7.5 billion over five years, but a report by the Government Accountability Office revealed that only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion was disbursed by December 2010. Incompetence and corruption within the Pakistani government have also been named as factors for slow progress on allocation of funds for development projects.
There is also potential for the US to again consider negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to end the war. John Kerry mentioned that the Taliban have shown “heightened interest” in negotiations after Bin Laden’s death. Pressure to end the Afghan occupation is not exclusive to politicians and decision-makers. But it does not matter where the pleas come from: A sudden and complete US withdrawal is not recommended. This time around, the US needs to finish what it started.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 23rd, 2011.
The mood in the US was understandably jubilant and demands have already been made for the end of war in Afghanistan. With the US economy struggling and millions dealing with unemployment, the US cannot afford to keep pumping dollars into Afghanistan and Iraq and Bin Laden’s death might provide Obama the exit strategy he needed. US Congressman Jerrold Nadler (Democrat-New York) said that the US needs to stop wasting troops and money in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Senator Joe Lieberman told reporters that there have been many calls to withdraw from Afghanistan now that Osama is dead but “if we did that, we would repeat the mistake that we’ve made once before”. Thus, for now, the US has said that it is sticking with its 2014 partial-withdrawal plan from Afghanistan.
Pakistan has suffered tremendously for 9/11; 30,000 Pakistanis have been injured or killed since 9/11 and 140,000 troops have been deployed along the border with Afghanistan. It takes a group of 48 other countries to match the commitment which Pakistan continues to sustain. These figures are enormous, yet they are now overshadowed by the ISI’s inability to discover Osama living in Abbottabad.
The government of Pakistan declared that unilateral operations will not be tolerated in the future. During Senator John Kerry’s visit, the US and Pakistan said in a joint statement that they have agreed to work together in the future against high value targets in Pakistan. Nonetheless, it was not clear if the US still reserves the right to conduct a surgical strike within Pakistan, if Mullah Omar’s location is discovered. Likewise, the US did not confirm or deny a report by a British newspaper claiming that the US will send troops into Pakistan if its nuclear installations come under terrorist threat. The latest intrusion of a Nato helicopter into Pakistani airspace in North Waziristan is also troublesome. Questions over Pakistan’s sovereignty were set aside for drone strikes but to push the limits even further and include unilateral ground operations in Pakistan, will escalate the situation to dangerous levels.
Demands have also been made to cut off aid to Pakistan which has received a total of $18 billion from the US over the last eight years: $9 billion of which is reimbursement for expenses incurred while providing support to the US military in Afghanistan. In comparison, it costs the US $10 billion a month ($2.5 billion a week) to support the troops in Afghanistan. Thus, what Pakistan receives in exchange for its role in the ‘war on terror’ is short change. In January 2008, USAID awarded a three-year, $43.4 million contract to Development Alternative, an NGO, to increase the capacity of Fata governmental institutions and NGOs, however, little has been achieved. The Kerry-Lugar bill pledged $7.5 billion over five years, but a report by the Government Accountability Office revealed that only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion was disbursed by December 2010. Incompetence and corruption within the Pakistani government have also been named as factors for slow progress on allocation of funds for development projects.
There is also potential for the US to again consider negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to end the war. John Kerry mentioned that the Taliban have shown “heightened interest” in negotiations after Bin Laden’s death. Pressure to end the Afghan occupation is not exclusive to politicians and decision-makers. But it does not matter where the pleas come from: A sudden and complete US withdrawal is not recommended. This time around, the US needs to finish what it started.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 23rd, 2011.