When its highest ranking military officer declares a major ally to be the potential sponsor of multiple terrorist attacks, including a 20-hour-long assault on a US embassy, the US has a problem. When it turns out that the same ally has also enlisted its military and intelligence to ambush and kill American servicemen, as Pakistan did in 2007, the US has a crisis. American policy towards Pakistan undoubtedly walks a tight rope, but it also needs an urgent rethink. A transformation in US policy towards Pakistan must begin immediately, from recalibrating its military aid, to premising that aid on Pakistan’s position, vis-a-vis India.
For too long, Pakistan has advanced the excuse that since it is deeply involved in helping the US fight terrorism, the US should have patience and appreciation for its multiple challenges. This has allowed Pakistan to get a pass when certain elements within the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) have provided material aid to elements like the so-called Haqqani network, whose stated aim is the destruction of US forces in the region. The excuse also allows Pakistan to remain complacent with respect to reforming its relationship with India, who it incorrectly views as its main enemy. As a result, Pakistan’s resources (among which US aid dollars count aplenty) are mismanaged and military intelligence failures of the highest order abound. As the Kabul embassy attack demonstrates, the US can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s sloppiness.
While it may not be an immediate solution, the US must begin by changing the nature of military aid to Pakistan. The current system of reimbursing Pakistan for military assistance it provides does not work; an immense amount of money is spent on conventional hardware with an eye on India, that is largely useless in a war against small groups of terrorists. Rather than having this opaque mercenary arrangement, the US and Pakistan must openly demonstrate to citizens in both countries that US aid is being provided to combat terrorism and not for the purchase of redundant hardware, or even worse, siphoned into offshore bank accounts. After yet another alleged show of support for terrorism by elements of the Pakistan Government, the US is understandably sceptical of the Pakistani government, asking for resources and intelligence to deal with terrorists; the US administration is fearful that any intelligence provided will only allow the targets to move on before any operation can be executed. But the deal on the table should be simple: Pakistan must deal with specific threats as identified by the US. A failure to deal with such threats should result in reduction in aid. If the target is sufficiently high value, the US should make clear that it can and will act independently unless Pakistan demonstrates immediate willingness and control of its sovereign territory.
The mismanagement and miscommunication is partially the result of the US doing a poor job of articulating its vision in a way that facilitates Pakistani cooperation. While it is no excuse, recent revelations that Pakistani military officers were involved in attacks aimed at killing American soldiers are thought to be retaliation for US indifference to Pakistani casualties along the Afghan border. To convince a sceptical Pakistani government (and people) that they should be committing more to the fight, the US itself has to make its commitment to the region unequivocal. Washington should make clear to Islamabad and Kabul that, unlike previously, the US sees Pakistan and stability there, as crucial to furthering US regional interests. Part of this must be more pressure, premised on aid and diplomatic recognition, for Pakistan to redirect its military and political efforts (both internally and externally) away from outdated distractions such as confronting India.
Finally, the US must understand that its own reputation in the region is increasingly that of an incompetent dilettante. To show real commitment to the cause of stability in Pakistan means understanding some of the emotional issues that agitate young Pakistanis and using soft power to address these as well. It should reduce its dealings with the army such that it diminishes the role of the army as one of the fundamental components of the nation’s power structure to the benefit of democratic institutions.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 14th, 2011.
COMMENTS (28)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Very perceptive analysis.Keep up the good work.
What do Pakistan and Egypt have in common? They're both countries based around denial.
@Menon:
Enemy is saying I am not enemy.
@Ali Tanoli:
when the whole country is demented,no other country can help them. it is typically alzheimeric to remember only old past with its supposed glories and forget the immediate past which should have been instructive and rational.
@ Menon:
First of all we didnt invade Afghanistan in the 1980s, nor did we invade it in the 2000s. Any country would be crazy not to create contingencies for a situation like Afghanistan and Pakistan reserves the right to make decisions in its own interest.
You talk about Kashmir, yet you completely ignore the legitimate demands of hundreds of thousands of people you claim are your fellow citizens.
Secondly read my comment again. Is there any mention of CIA, Mossad, RAW? What conspiracy theory have i mentioned? Please clarify.
You claim that India is not Pakistan's enemy yet in the next sentence you resort to mindless war mongering of how youre going to fix us when the new generation takes over?
Your comments are despicable.
@Agnostic Muslim:
"unsubstantiated allegations peddled by the US Establishment"
US has said Pakistan shelters dangerous Terrorists. How can you possibly dispute that, with the knowledge that the Haqqanis have been in North Waziristan and Pakistan is just not willing to take control of its own areas.
Your own newspapers have been saying this, including this one. There was even a Editorial saying Pakistan should not support these elements!
"what is left to argue, other than point out this fact?"
What fact! What do you want the US and the World to do? The US was right before when it said Osama was in Pakistan, even though Pakistanis like you were saying there was no evidence to support this theory. Why on Earth would the US like to satisfy your little games by giving the proof it does have?
Good article that will be met with denial and deflection in the Land of the Pure.
Ali is an Iranian citizen/nationalist and Shahpur deserted Pakistan some years ago and emigrated to UK, because in his words (on an interview online), the tiny Parsi community in Pakistan holds a disproportionate amount of Pakistani wealth and feels threatened by the majority Muslim population, which is becoming too "Muslim" for their taste. . When you have their backgrounds in front of you, you can better understand why they would write what they did.
Excellent Rational and Lucid. Too bad not many in the "Land of the Muddly Head" will appreciate the depth of the analysis.
Excellent analysis. Very perceptive.
I bet not one can argue against the points but will just call names.
The author is assuming that a 10 year long US Presence in the region is justified and completely unquestionable. The author does not mention 30,000 Civilian deaths and 69 Billion USD loss on Pakistan's side. The author is unaware of strategic thinking, one needs to understand the policy of containment of the epicenter of this war theater outside and away from Pakistan's borders. The author's probably don't know there is more freedom inside Heera-Mandi Lahore than any place else. So what's this rant about baby?
Emotion-based ranting that has discounted reason, reality, or truth. Suffice to say there will be no takers, and rightfully so.
The authors seem think that without US aid Pakistan will not be able to survive. It is exactly such egotistical thinking that is responsible for the present impasse in US Pakistan relations. Almost all of 1990's the US had sanctioned Pakistan and even then Pakistan survived. The authors are naive to think that increasing the amount of aid could entice the Pakistani State into acting against what it considers its core interests. At the end of the day that is what it is all about. I think it has been proven that no amount of arm twisting and mud slinging is going to achieve this goal. The facts are that the US is not in Afghanistan for nation building. Karzai has already signed an act that will allow US forces to remain in Afghanistan for an additional 10 years after 2014. Everyone knows this is not for fighting Al Qaeda and Taliban. For the US to achieve this; they would have to play ball with the Pakistani State i.e. take into account the interests of Pakistan.
Not much sense written here. I'd expect more from Cal-B and Cambridge. The prescribed solutions have already been tried, and failed. Pressure (check), "aid" (check, and not that important). The US needs to own up on strikes that have killed Pakistanis, both civilians and soldiers alike. Do that, and there won't be any reason for expensive "soft power" and "public diplomacy" drives that remain unconvincing and out of touch with reality. Until then Pakistanis are well within their right to defend themselves. If that means the death of some US soldiers, so be it. It's the price one pays, and one most sane people expect when they put on a uniform.
@Mustafa: The first half of what you said is a deflection, and a very flawed one at that, worthy of being ignored. The part about India is, again, another deflection of sorts. No country in their right mind would not be on the complete defensive with their military with the comments coming out of Pakistan in regard to them. It's completely justifiable paranoia on their end and your paranoia towards them is more or less clinical.
Everything else, well, you're a conspiracy theorist poster boy. It's hard to even take seriously as an argument.
Complete and utter tripe! The coup-de-grace is that it took TWO(!) stunningly confused minds to come up with this embarrassingly laughable op-ed! Please don't peddle cartoon logic guys, let the big boys handle it.
Such bold articles can only be written by expatriate Pakistanis settled abroad. It is a clean straightforward article with a pointed emphasis on facts. However in the country facts count for nothing and perception is everything. Friends of Pakistan have been giving sound advice for decades but have found no takers anywhere in the Establishment. To expect the country to suddenly become wise and go for course correction voluntarily is fantasy. The alliance between the Military and Mullah is so strong that every other section of civil society lives in constant fear of them. Through patronage or threats they have been able to coerce support for their ideological leanings and thus retained their firm footing on top of the power structure. Often the deep state has indulged in brinkmanship to invite retaliation form external forces but neither India or the US have so far retaliated militarily against sponsored terrorist attacks. Military diplomacy has led the country to almost a dead end but a choice has to made and very fast. The clock is ticking, sooner or later a major terrorist attack sponsored by militant groups against Indian or western targets is on the cards. The fallout from that the country may not be able to handle.
A very fine and convincing piece.
Very good article. .
It is a canard, like so many others, that low level, disgruntled elements in ISI/Army are acting outside the chain of command.
US committment to do this and that is yet another argument to show a 'balanced' approach. No one has given more arms and aid than the US since, now and in the future. It is committed to provide $7.1B over the next few years. China just gave us $5M cash. One is our enemy, and the other deeper/higher friend! The Emirs of Denial send their children to school and emigrate themselves to the USA. Yet every opportunity they get, they inflame the masses against America. The burden is not on the USA - it will leave eventually - but upon us. What future do we see for ourselves and our children?
You cannot intimidate or motivate someone to reform unless they want to. We are convinced that we are "superior" to others.
We dont seem to understand one basic concept that writ of the state should be present all across the territory
I have a idea u guys should join some think tank they pays good money and lived nice lux life close to some church so dont get late..