Why Pakistan's Military Won't Change Its Ways Easily

By Cernig

Following on from my earlier posts, here's McClatchy's Jonathan Landay with a great bit of analysis.

"The fact that we're reduced to trying to send messages to the Pakistanis by putting stories in (newspapers) tells you we don't have any good options," said a former senior intelligence official knowledgeable about South Asia. "It also suggests that the high-level, face-to-face contacts haven't worked so far. The trouble is, these kinds of public threats are likely to backfire."

For one thing, the Taliban and other groups allied with al Qaida could respond to any Pakistani crackdown by stepping up attacks inside Pakistan, which is battling Islamic extremist violence, U.S. officials and experts said.

Furthermore, they said, Pakistan's nearly dysfunctional, feud-riddled civilian government has little power over the Army and the ISI. The latest evidence was a botched attempt under U.S. pressure to put the agency under the Interior Ministry before Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani's three-day visit to Washington this week.

Pakistani generals and other leaders are also infuriated by President Bush's pursuit of a strategic relationship with India, their foe in three wars, as embodied by a U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation pact that won United Nations approval Friday, the U.S. officials and experts said.

"One thing we never understood is that India has always been the major threat for Pakistan," said former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain, now the president of the Middle East Institute.

Chamberlain, who was Dubya's pick as US ambassador, has the same kind of trained forgetory as Lisa Schiffren. Anyone who paid attention knew India and Pakistan had fought four wars before 9/11, ferchrissakes. Every analyst and expert on the region knows India has always been Pakistan's bugbear and drives the Pakistani military's thinking. This is another of those 'no-one could have anticipated" moments. But I digress.

"Pakistan over the last several years has increasingly come to believe that it is being encircled by India and a U.S.-India-Afghan axis," said Seth Jones, an expert with the RAND Corp., a policy institute.

For these reasons, Pakistan's military leaders may have decided to scale back their cooperation with the Bush administration's war against terrorism and boost support for the Taliban and other militant groups.

"We have created a set of perverse incentives for the Pakistanis to continue their support for the Taliban," said a U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly. "Pakistan does not view the United States as a long-term player in the region and certainly doesn't view Pakistan's strategic interests as congruent with ours, and that divergence is getting larger, not smaller."

Without a strategy to allay Pakistan's fears, U.S. officials and experts warned, there's little point in sending more U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan as Bush, Democratic candidate Barak Obama and his GOP rival, John McCain, all advocate.

Pakistan vehemently denies backing the Taliban and other insurgents, pointing out that it's lost hundreds of troops in U.S.-funded counter-insurgency offensives.

But many Afghan and U.S. officials scoff at Pakistan's denials, charging that the Taliban leadership operates undisturbed in Quetta and nearby tribal areas with ISI support, guidance, money and weapons.

Bush, anxious to maintain Pakistani support in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al Qaida leaders, apparently believed that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, the former Army chief, would rein in the ISI.

But that hope has proved to be misplaced. Truces forged by the ISI and the Pakistani army freed Taliban and other fighters to fight in Afghanistan, where the worst violence since the 2001 U.S. intervention is claiming higher U.S. casualties than in Iraq for the first time.

I've written before that Pakistan's ISI is the key to Afghanistan. However, the "misplaced hope" meme is pretty much just the Bush-backing current spin: Bush backed the dictator and the dictator couldn't deliver. The truth is that Musharraf had no intention of delivering. His government was mostly backed by the Islamist political parties and his most trusted military colleague was the head of the ISI. The Bush administration were sold a pup by some astute Pakistani operators who figured out how to prevent the U.S. bombing them "back to the stone age" by actually making only cosmetic efforts at fighting America's "War On Terror". Anyone who has ever worked with sub-continent businessmen for any length of time will recognise the deception of giving Bush an appearance of what he wanted while actually suiting themselves. The locals had perfected this capitalist artform while the Europeans were still living in mud huts, but somehow we in the West keep insisting on thinking of them as somehow a younger and more naive culture.

The situation in Pakistan is very precarious. My friend "Empty" of the Empty Corner blog, who knows a more-than fair bit about the region, writes:

Pakistan is in an frighteningly brittle condition right now - the worst I have seen in decades. The closest was right after the dismemberment of the original country in 1971 and their loss to India. And it was not anywhere close to this bad even then. I don't know how close you have been following the situation there but the Bara operations in July and the continuing operations in Swat are getting pretty close to all out civil war. Now is the time to talk softly. Firmly perhaps but softly and with good intelligence.

He's absolutely correct - and Obama's clear neo-liberal interventionist mutterings on the issue aren't at all helpful. However, they're designed for a domestic US audience and his actual policy stresses repurposing aid to civilian police training and poverty-reduction instead of hi-tech military toys - in other words, removing some of the base causes of unrest - rather than across-the-border adventurism. Any military aid would be conditional on "substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan." McCain, on the other hand, hasn't the foggiest clue. He has advocated continued U.S. cooperation with the Pakistani government which would would include bolstering Pakistan’s security capabilities to enhance “Pakistan's ability to act against insurgent safe havens.” In other words, he's being advised by neocons with trained forgetories and would therefore just blindly continue the Bush course which has been so instrumental in bringing about the current disaster.

Update: Patricia Sharpe, who has over two decades foreign service experience, writes at WhirledView:

Okay, I’m going to say it. Not only is ISI cooperating with the Taliban, but the Pakistani army knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding and makes sure he stays a few steps ahead of any attempt to get a bead on him.

It’s one of the principles of diplomacy that you don’t back your quarry into a corner if you don’t have to because humiliation isn’t a good basis to build a future on, whether the situation is one-to-one or country-to-country.

But sometimes the ugly thing has to be said.

She's certain the ISI killed Benazir Bhutto too, and blamed Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud who they have since singularly failed to arrest or even pursue. She's almost certainly correct on both points. Far more at the link for anyone following events in Pakistan.

Comments

[kabura]

it doesn't help how much you cry to save the epicenter of international terrorism and extremism, which is Pakistan that you guys try to defend and make apologies for.

you are a bunch of paki-apologists who should not be taken seriously, because pakistan will dig america's grave in Afghanistan as they did for the soviets using western resources which pakistan is now using against the same west. in other words, pakistan is biting the hand that is feeding her.

what ever you say, pakistan is the biggest threat to afghanistan and india, which means it is the biggest threat in the world. so let us get of this very destructive threat together and now.

[Steve Hynd]

Wow, angry much kabura? I'm guessing you're an Indian nationalist, right? And you didn't read too carefully - I'm certainly not "crying to save" Pakistan.

Regards, C

[M.Robinson]

When Russia intervened in georgia, the Bush administration was quick to hark about the sovereignty of Georgia and how russia should pull out its forces immediately and it should respect international law.
now this truly smacks of hypocracy. The US attacks afghanistan, because the US wants the taliban to hand over osama bin Laden without providing any proof to the taliban, also there was no extradition treaty between taliban and US(Required when you want other nations to hand over individuals). now the bush administration is violating Pakistani territory, and killing Pakistani's. On one occasion women and children were killed. where is the respect for Pakistan's sovereignty, or it that the US assuming it has a right to break all international law under some guise.
As Regards Kabura:
The Indians have over 8 'cultural' centres dotted near Pakistans border in Afghanistan, what are these really for? I dought its for cultural exchanges of the normal kind.
The Pakistani elite is to blame for some of the mess, because they have no vested interest in providing education and prospects to the majority of ordinar pakistani's. As knowledge provides the individual with power and this in turn erodes the power of the elite.
the soviets tried force and it didn't work, what makes Bush assume that force will work this time. the afghan'd do not like invaders whether muslim or non-muslim. we are being told now that we may have to sta 10+ years in afghanistan. the soviets did the same but to no avail. The strateg must be changed, one way is to empower the locals in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the US should not just money to the Pakistani government but should have oversight as to where it is spent. Provide education provisions girls and boys, simple health facilities. This is my take on the situation, I am sure many will disagree.

[muslim khan]

Pakistan, suffered due of USSR occupation of Afgn.
Pakistan helped defeat USSR, and USA now the biggest terrorist nation back stabbed Pakistan, and imposed sanctions on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Afghanistan erupted in civil war, and Pakistan created a taliban force to bring normalcy as blood shed in Afgn was a threat to Pak. stability.
All this was taking place when Pakistan was under economic sanctions and crying out to Terrorist Americans to help it contain militancy. However, Clinton had his white cock in lewinskys mouth and did not bother.

Then came 9/11 when those bldgs were destroyed, now you blame Pakistan? NO. You should blame lewinski for not allowing bill to fuck her in the ass, just like he did Pakistan.