Here are the main points of contention. The CIA seems convinced that the ISI is playing both sides and, to test this theory, gave the Pakistani spy agency information about a militant hideout in North Waziristan. They then watched as the ISI raided the house only after the militants had been warned and had cleared the area. The ISI is concerned that the Americans are violating Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty, a concern that has only amplified after the May 2 Abbottabad raid. It may sound unduly pessimistic, but this is an impasse that will be very difficult to end. When it comes to the hunt for terrorists, the US considers our sovereignty disposable. And the ISI doesn’t need to actually be playing both sides; as long as the US believes that it is doing so, it will not trust the spy agency one bit and intelligence-sharing will be minimal.
These talks aside, neither country is making moves that inspire much confidence. The decision by the US to cut $800 million in military aid to Pakistan is likely to achieve nothing other than further convince the military and the ISI to go it alone. At a time when cooperation rather than retaliation is called for, both Pakistan and the US seem hell bent on confrontation.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 16th, 2011.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The relationship is dead and it is too costly to get a divorce. Net result adultery.
CIA drones and Raymond Davis's Pakistan. They also gave and still give paychecks to Wali Karzai likes who bring heroin and crime to Pakistan. Real nice bunch yea. Don't worry, I don't think the ISI is much better.
So basically the CIA is upset at the ISI because it has taken a risk and proven that the ISI is playing both sides --- while the ISI is upset that the CIA has sufficient resources to prove that the ISI is playing both sides? That about sum it up?