[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fw: The Pakistani Crisis
The Pakistani Crisis
2245 GMT, 011220
Summary
With the Taliban withdrawal, the focus is shifting to countries that could
next face U.S. military attention, such as Somalia or Iraq. However, if
Washington really wants to break the al Qaeda network, it must deal with
Pakistan first. It will become increasingly difficult for the United States
to avoid taking some action in at least parts of that country.
Analysis
The mood in Washington is one of subdued satisfaction. The war in
Afghanistan has been concluded, with the primary strategic objective
achieved: the country can no longer be used as a base of operations for al
Qaeda.
Secondary strategic objectives, though, have not been attained. The bulk of
Taliban fighters have not been killed or captured, and it will not be clear
until after winter whether their cohesion has been permanently shattered.
The senior commanders of the Taliban have also not been liquidated. Above
all, al Qaeda's leadership, particularly Osama bin Laden, still appears to
be on the loose.
However, in any war in which the primary objective is achieved with little
cost in lives, there is ample reason for satisfaction. However, there is
another sense in Washington that events in Afghanistan have clearly given
the United States strategic initiative, and that therefore the next move is
up to the Bush administration.
There is a spirited debate underway among policymakers at all levels as to
what such a move ought to be. Some argue that the United States should now
attack Iraq, while others want to deal with Somalia or Yemen.
The debate itself is rooted in a perception of the world that is dubious.
The Bush administration did not choose the war in Afghanistan. It was
forced
on the United States by the actions of others and by geopolitical reality.
Al Qaeda's decision to attack, its relationship to the Taliban and the
geography and politics of Afghanistan scripted the American response.
Washington's perception of the current situation is that it now has the
freedom to choose its next step. But what that will be just isn't clear, as
new issues will force themselves on the United States. The most important
issue, one that the United States has been assiduously avoiding, is that of
the current role and future condition Pakistan.
Pakistan historically has been an ally of the United States, and it was a
base of operations for U.S. and allied efforts to support the mujahideen
during the Afghan-Soviet war.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S.-Pakistani relations underwent a
transformation. Pakistan evolved politically from a secular, pro-Western
orientation until it became a bulwark of Islamic fundamentalism. To a very
great extent, the Taliban is as much a Pakistani creature as it is an
Afghan
one.
On the other side, with the United States no longer driven by the need to
contain the Soviet Union, the U.S. government downgraded Pakistan's
strategic importance. Before Sept. 11, the United States was already
exploring two new relationships: with the Khatami regime in Iran and with
India.
However, after Sept. 11, the United States was forced back into a difficult
and complex relationship with Pakistan. U.S. and Pakistani interests in
Afghanistan were fundamentally at odds because Islamabad had close ties
with
the Taliban and did not want them to lose power, especially to the Northern
Alliance.
At the same time, the United States badly needed Pakistan. Washington was
incapable of containing either the Taliban or al Qaeda inside of
Afghanistan. The quantity of forces deployed simply would not achieve that
goal.
Therefore, Pakistan's willingness to use its armed forces to seal its
border
with Afghanistan became a matter of critical importance. Even more
important, the willingness of Pakistan to use its intelligence and security
forces to uproot al Qaeda cells, disrupt Taliban control in regions where
these cells might find refuge and provide intelligence on al Qaeda
operations in the region became strategically critical. So long as Pakistan
served as active or passive sanctuary, the Afghan operation could not be
conclusive.
The Pakistani government was caught in a serious dilemma. It could not
afford to enrage the United States. An outright refusal to cooperate with
Washington, or continued active support of the Taliban and al Qaeda, would
have made Pakistan an enemy of the United States. Given the evolution of
Washington's relationship with New Delhi, and to a lesser extent, with
Taliban enemy Iran, a direct challenge to Washington could have
crystallized
a strategic alliance that would have doomed Pakistan.
India recognized Sept. 11 as a historic opportunity, and put two policies
into motion. The first was to be absolutely forthcoming with Washington,
offering it a host of military and intelligence accommodations including
the
right to use Indian air bases for operations. Second, it proceeded to
increase its forces in the Kashmir region in anticipation of evolving
strategic opportunities. Iran, with a much more complex internal situation,
was of course less forthcoming and less relevant to the equation.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was caught between the strategic
threat
and domestic reality. He understood he had to cooperate with the United
States, but also understood there were severe limitations on that
cooperation. Orders to act against Taliban supporters could be given, but
whether Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or other security
organs would obey those orders was questionable.
Musharraf faced two problems. First, if he pressed too hard, he could
destabilize his government and perhaps lose power. If he did nothing at
all,
he could get trapped in a geopolitical minefield.
The president's solution was to act against the Taliban while asking that
the United States appreciate the limits of his power. Washington, knowing
that if Musharraf fell, it would leave America in a disastrous situation in
Afghanistan, permitted the president to tread a careful, middle road.
He acted on behalf of the United States, but not so vigorously as to lose
his power base. This meant the U.S. military was able to base only limited
forces in Pakistan, receive some cooperation from Pakistani intelligence
and
have some control placed on pro-Taliban elements in the country.
However, the United States would still have to operate in a nation in which
Taliban support was strong and the government was intimately bound up with
the Taliban. The ultimate understanding was that the United States would
turn a blind eye to Pakistani collaboration with the Taliban, so long as
Pakistan cooperated with and never impeded the U.S. war against al Qaeda.
On paper this arrangement seemed fine. Washington cared much more about al
Qaeda than the Taliban. The Pakistanis seemed to care mostly about the
Taliban and little about al Qaeda. Washington recognized that support for
the Taliban and support for al Qaeda came from the same quarters and
entities in Pakistan.
Those who were willing to strike at Musharraf were equally unwilling to
cooperate in liquidating the Taliban. And since the ISI was a center of
pro-Taliban sentiment, the probability of actual cooperation was slim.
Much of this was academic prior to the recent Tora Bora operation, when it
suddenly became a burning issue. It is far from clear that bin Laden was at
Tora Bora. Why would he choose to go there from Kandahar as the Taliban was
withdrawing from the cities?
But it seems extremely likely that he would have tried to make his way into
Pakistan, and if he personally didn't go there, it seems certain that other
members of the command cell, as well as less senior al Qaeda operatives,
did
make their way into the country.
There has been a great deal of speculation as to where they will go from
Pakistan, although it is not even clear they would wish to leave the
country
at all. There are important sectors of the government, especially in the
ISI, who are prepared to actively protect them and provide them with
infrastructure for movement, communications and even training.
Whatever Musharraf might want -- and he probably wishes that al Qaeda
members would disappear from his country so he can get on with his life --
it is not certain that the president will or can act decisively.
One indication of the true status of Pakistan policymaking occurred last
week when Islamic operatives attacked India's Parliament. It is difficult,
from Musharraf's point of view, to imagine a worse development right now.
The last thing he wants is to give the Indians an excuse to attack in
Kashmir. He does not want to create a crisis in which the United States is
forced to make choices at a time when Pakistan cannot fulfill American
demands.
Unfortunately, the attack on the Parliament was likely supported by
organizations that depend on Pakistani patronage and which clearly want to
intensify the crisis between India and Pakistan. They may see their
situation inside of Pakistan deteriorating under U.S. pressure, and a
conflict with India might increase their power.
First, the United States would be revealed as a useless ally. Second, those
Pakistanis who see some accommodation with the United States as necessary
would be discredited. Finally, an attack by India would create an
atmosphere
in which Islamic forces could flourish.
Thus, the attack on India indicates two things. One, Islamic
fundamentalists
inside Pakistan feel pressure from Musharraf. Two, they have the ability to
act in a way that would reveal the president as incapable of controlling
his
internal forces. And that would drive a wedge between Islamabad and
Washington in exactly the way they want.
The core of the problem is this: The next country the United States has to
deal with if it wants to break al Qaeda is not Iraq or Somalia. It is
Pakistan. The United States cannot begin the process of shutting down al
Qaeda globally until their organization inside Pakistan is broken. Al Qaeda
was always present in Pakistan, and following the Taliban collapse, its
numbers there have undoubtedly surged. Many or even all may stay because
Pakistan is a good place from which to operate.
This means that unless the Pakistani government acts directly against al
Qaeda, the United States must either begin to treat Pakistan as a hostile
power or must abandon its strategic goals. The latter is impossible. It is
also impossible to imagine a circumstance under which Musharraf will be
able
to act effectively to destroy al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan. There are
too
many in Pakistan who would have to cooperate with this process who are
unwilling and incapable of doing so.
Therefore, the United States is on a collision course with Pakistan, made
all the more complex by the fact that the government there is not capable
of
giving the United States what it must have. If Washington is not going to
abandon its goals, it must create a plan of operation in Pakistan. It is
difficult to imagine any circumstance under which this will not compel the
United States to take some actions against at least parts of Pakistan.
The United States will need regional strategic support. India is ready and
waiting. China, on the other hand, is unpredictable. It is wary of U.S.
actions, hostile to increased Indian power and has longstanding relations
with Pakistan. China does have an Islamic problem, but Beijing's
geopolitical interests do not include the collapse of Pakistan.
As the Bush administration has said, things now get harder. The hardest
part
is recognizing that the United States has not yet achieved true freedom of
action. The menu is still being drawn up by others, and from where we sit,
the next item on the menu is Pakistan.
That is the country of refuge for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. That is
the
country where support for them is the highest and where supporters deeply
influence major institutions. Pakistan must either change or be changed, or
the United States must abandon its ambitions relative to al Qaeda. The
United States will not abandon its fight, nor can it unilaterally act in
Pakistan, although it can manipulate internal affairs as it did in
Afghanistan. However, Pakistan is not Afghanistan, and such manipulation
could have explosive results. And for India, this is the historical
opportunity it has waited for since its founding.
>
>
> The Revolution will not be televised: News at 11...
>
> grok
> Independent canadian marxist
>
> The U.S. ruling class: A godzilla monster
> that stalks the world, devouring everything.
> (apologies to Godzilla and friends)
>
>