Bismillah ar Rahman ar Rahim REALPakNationalists

January 29, 2010

Haqqani: Give Pakistan Armed Drones

The Americans have already pledged to transfer to Pakistan the UAV drone technology to do reconnaissance and intelligence. According to The Nation, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the USA Husain Haqqani is telling the Americans to give Pakistan the armed technology so that Pakistan can target the militants that are attacking us ourselves.

“The government of Pakistan has repeatedly said that we would like to have the capability to be able to identify and take out targets on ground,” Ambassador Husain Haqqani told National Public Radio. Pakistan, he stressed, prefers to do everything on the Pakistani side of the border itself.

“And the reason is very simple: We have a military capability in certain areas and in some areas we lack certain technical capabilities and we would like that technical capabilities for ourselves.”

The Pakistanis are committed to fighting militants in the Afghan border region but it is unfair to characterize Pakistan as a base for al-Qaeda-linked elements, since militants straddle both sides of the porous and challenging border, he clarified.

Haqqani made a very interesting statement also that people are against drone strikes because innocents are sometimes caught in the crossfire. If Pakistan’s military had the technology of armed drones then we would be able to target the militants with our better intelligence and eliminate the problem of innocent deaths while destroying the jihadis.

January 27, 2010

Pakistan and the US Increasing Coordination Against Terror

Filed under: Afghanistan,Defense,hypernationalists,india,Taliban,terrorism,USA — admin @ 7:35 am

Pakistan and the US have tremendously improved coordination with military operations against terrorists.

Those are the sentiments of Admiral Mike Mullen at a meeting this past Monday in Washington, DC. Mullen said all the nations in the region – Afghanistan, Pakistan, India – had to further improve ties and share information. Doing this would encourage diplomatic ties and promote regional security, as all three nations should be carrying out anti-terrorism programs that complement each other. This of course is key in preventing the shuttling of militants back and forth across borders.

This is yet another official calling for greater interaction between Pakistan and her neighbors, and particularly emphasizing the long-term commitments the US has with Pakistan.

The fact is, there are still many in Pakistan who feel the US is completely disinterested in the needs of the Pakistani people and is there for its own needs. They forget, or choose to overlook, the aid packages and substantial investment the American people have made in Pakistan.

Increasingly working with regional authorities and international partners in the fight against terrorism will enable Pakistan to stop the hemorrhaging and stabilize.

It is with that stability our people can thrive…we have to get there!

January 23, 2010

Pakistan to Receive Drone Technology From USA

Shadow Drone UAV

Chinese news Xinhua is reporting that USA is giving drone technology to Pakistan:

The United States will supply drone aircraft to Pakistan which will significantly enhance the country’s surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, visiting U. S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday. Talking to reporters in Islamabad, Gates said that 12 RQ-7 Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be part of one billion dollar allocation for Pakistan from its Coalition Support Fund.

He said weapons and equipment will also be provided to Pakistan for the war against terrorism.

In addition, the American Defense Secretary has said that the US will soon make a payment of $500 Million to support Pakistan’s military:

Gates also said the U.S. will soon make a payment of 500 million dollars from the Coalition Support Fund to reimburse Pakistan for its expenses in the war on terror.

This drone technology is far advanced of what Pakistan currently has and will allow for much improved intelligence gathering and reconnaissance against TTP militants, India, and any other aggressors who think that they can encroach on Pakistan’s territory.

President Zardari has been calling on the Americans to transfer drone technology to Pakistan for some time. While this is not the armed drone that is used to launch missiles against militants, it is a great step forward and shows that the Americans are working with us to defend our national security. Surely if we continue to show our military excellence – our military that the Americans are praising as an important partner.

Building this partnership will have two important results. First, it will strengthen our military access to advanced technologies like drones. Second, it will send a clear message to belligerents like Deepak Kapoor.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

January 22, 2010

USA Secretary of Defense Pledges Faithfulness to Pakistan

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has pledged faithfulness to a partnership with Pakistan in comments to military officers today. The following report is from Dawn newspaper:

The United States has no designs on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or ”a single inch of Pakistani soil,” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pakistani military officers Friday, adding that fighting terrorists along the Afghan border is in Pakistan’s interest as well as Washington’s.”We have enemies in common along the border, but we also have many other interests in common,” Gates said, and the Pakistani military has choices to make about its resources and focus just as the US armed forces have done.

Addressing the legacy of mistrust and what he called an ”organized propaganda campaign” to misrepresent US intentions, Gates used carefully calibrated phrasing to tick off some of the allegations against the United States in wide circulation in Pakistan.

”I fully understand why some of you may be skeptical about the US commitment to Pakistan,” Gates told officers at Pakistan’s National Defense University.

Many in his audience came of professional age in the 1990s, when the United States had cut off military ties to Pakistan and largely ignored the growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The United States wants Pakistan to take on Taliban militants who use its territory as a refuge, but Gates’ rhetoric on the subject during two days of talks in the Pakistani capital was notably mild.

He said he was deeply impressed with Pakistan’s military offensive against militants within its borders.

”The leadership will make the decisions” about when or whether they are going to do something. ”That’s just fine with me,” Gates said during an interview with Pakistani and US journalists.

Asked whether the US was winning in the long battle against al Qaeda terrorism, Gates said the United States has made progress but hasn’t won yet. He said al Qaeda and what he calls a syndicate of affiliated groups are less capable of large-scale, coordinated attacks than they once were and in many cases their leadership has been killed or captured.

The Obama administration has taken a softer tone with Pakistan in recent months, praising the country’s unprecedented assault on militants inside its borders and dropping public appeals for Pakistan to focus on the militants along its western border.

In his speech to military officers, Gates said the US seeks no military bases in the country and has no desire to control Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

”The United States does not covet a single inch of Pakistani soil,” Gates said.

In meetings Thursday with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the country’s army chief and others, Gates called the antiterror operations a success so far, ”and he acknowledged to all of them that we realize that has come with a great deal of sacrifice for the military,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said following the sessions.

”We are not trying to prescribe a timeline by which they must do things,” Morrell said.

The Pakistani army said Thursday it cannot expand its offensive against militants for at least six months, after time to consolidate gains made against militants who primarily target Pakistan. Remarks from the Army’s chief spokesman did not rule out the offensive that would more directly benefit the United States.

”We are not talking years,” Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told reporters traveling with Gates. ”Six months to a year” would be needed before Pakistan could consolidate the gains it has made against militants in other parts of the country and then consider going farther, he said.

January 21, 2010

Is Pakistan an Elite Nation?

There is no secret that India is meddling and trying to destabilize Pakistan. This has been well documented. It is also no secret that India is trying to isolate Pakistan by driving a wedge between us and global powers like the USA and UK. The Daily Times published an editorial earlier this week that discusses the US’s India tilt, but they have taken the wrong lesson from events and are playing into the hands of India by acting indirectly as Indian ‘Trojan Horses.’

The editors of The Daily Times conclude that the US attitude is not helpful. But they are looking at the relationship incorrectly. If the US attitude is not helpful to Pakistan, it is because the US does not see helping Pakistan as being in their interest. The US does not have a helpful attitude towards India because of some secret love affair. Rather, they believe that India is a rising power and that it is in their interest to make a close relationship between the two nations.

It perceives India to be an emerging power and is strongly biased towards developing a strong strategic relationship with it. The US has pledged special concessions to India for transfer of nuclear technology, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, but this has raised legitimate concerns in various quarters about the space this allows for enhanced weapons production.

This is exactly the point. The US is trying to build a strong relationship with India because “it perceives India to be an emerging power.” I was reminded of the above paragraph this morning when I read Syed Talat Hussain’s column in today’s Daily Times. Mr. Hussain takes the correct lesson from dealing with the US – when dealing with a world superpower, we must go to them with heads held up as equals, not having an inferiority complex.

Much of this bilateral mess would not have been created had we been clear and forthright in dealing with Washington and if we had worked out the minutest detail of every part of our support to the US, not just in monetary terms but also procedurally, and then inked a proper, honest and honourable agreement and made it public. Instead, we chose the wrong path and, regrettably, continued on it even after the administration changed in Washington. Even today we see piecemeal agreements with the US as sufficient grounds for cooperation and building a mutually beneficial relationship. And when it comes to our defence arrangement with Washington, even a self-contained document is lacking that could offer a broad insight into this important realm.

There are some who say that Pakistan should not have any dealing with the USA and should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. This is pure rubbish. Pakistan belongs in the community of elite nations. We are the 6th most populous nation in the world, our GDP is in the top 26% of the world’s nations, and we are one of only nine nations in the world that is a nuclear power. So why is it that some individuals continue to say that we should not be having mutually beneficial relationships with the other world powers?

USA is not going to be our rich uncle Sam. But it will be our partner in the business of national and economic security if we will only learn to have the pride to act as an equal. The US is able to negotiate its deals and make its relationships because it is a world power. By rights, Pakistan is also a world power (this is explained in the previous paragraph). Just as US, Russia, China, and yes even India have relationships that benefit each other, so Pakistan should be part of this group also.

January 6, 2010

Pakistan, US Join Forces Against Taliban Threat

US Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

US Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

American General Stanley McChrystal was full of praise for Gen. Kayani and the Pakistani military when he spoke to reporters at the residence of the US Ambassador on Monday. Additionally, the US General said about the fight against Taliban that the Americans will be working jointly with Pakistan’s military to defeat the militants attacking Pakistan.

The Daily Times is encouraged by these developments as well as the changes to policy being made by American President Barack Obama. Still, though, the editors have some important suggestions for the Americans. Namely, they need to continue doing more to build trust among the people and show that they are not going to abandon them. Also they have some advice for those government officials who may try to use Taliban as an asset and part of its ‘strategic depth’ policy – this is undermining the Army’s efforts to stop the violent attacks.

Joint Pak-US action against Taliban in the offing

Pakistan and the United States are working on a plan to take joint military action against Taliban and launch coordinated attacks on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border, according to Gen Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan.

He was talking to reporters at the residence of the US ambassador on Monday evening after holding talks with military commanders here and visiting Swat.

“In fact, we are developing a joint campaign plan so that we approach the entire problem together and as much as possible we can make our efforts synergistic.”

Gen McChrystal said strong partnership between the US and Pakistan was critical for counter-insurgency operations on both sides of the border.

“The most important thing we can do is to coordinate our operations with the Pakistan Army and then there is, of course, going to be political coordination.”

In contrast to some other US officials, who have been lecturing Pakistanis on the need to ‘do more’ in the fight against extremist elements, Gen McChrystal repeatedly called for ‘partnership’ between the two countries and said that differences should not detract them from their aims.

Referring to the often-discussed trust deficit between the two countries, he said the level of mistrust had declined but it needed to be narrowed.

Surprisingly, Gen McChrystal, did not broach either the Haqqani Network or the Quetta Shura – the two problems that have posed serious challenges to cooperation between the two countries.

Pakistan Army, which is engaged in a campaign against militant groups operating from its soil, has been accused of ignoring Afghanistan-focussed groups, prompting critics to claim that Islamabad being fearful of growing Indian influence in the war-torn country, was trying to preserve these factions as future assets for keeping its influence in Afghanistan.

Gen McChrystal, who was all praise for the military’s counter-insurgency campaign and the leadership of Army Chief Gen Kayani, said he had no reasons to doubt Pakistan Army’s sincerity.

“I’m hopeful of the time when the Haqqani Network, which is causing damage inside Afghanistan, is taken on by both of us jointly to reduce the damage they are causing. It is important that we together do that.”

About the Quetta Shura, he said that the best course was cooperation with Pakistan military. He opposed any direct action against the Shura.

“Taliban that threaten Afghanistan need to be pressured everywhere … Partnership with Pakistan is the best road to that as we strengthen the strategic partnership … that is the best way I think.”

He said that successes against Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan were interlinked and could not be achieved in isolation. “If Afghanistan suffers from instability it is going to be contagious.

“Everybody has a stake in coming out well.” On the issue of India using Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan, he said, the complaints needed to be addressed. Although he said he did not have enough information to confirm or deny the allegations.

“If perceptions drive people to mistrust then there is a need to work on them.”

Shrinking trust deficit

Afghan Coalition Commander General Stanley McChrystal has said that the trust deficit between the US and Pakistan is shrinking, but things could get better. He said that enhanced cooperation in the war on terror between the two countries as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan could help bridge the trust deficit. McChrystal refuted the notion that there were any differences with Pakistan over the US troop surge in Afghanistan. Bridging the trust deficit between the two allies in the war on terror is critical if the Taliban and al Qaeda are to be eliminated. The terror threat cannot be eliminated until and unless the Pakistani establishment revisits its stance of deliberately or through neglect letting the Afghan Taliban operate from Pakistani soil. Though the Pakistan Army has launched a successful military offensive against the local Taliban, it may still consider the Afghan Taliban an asset and part of its ‘strategic depth’ policy. This has worsened the situation for Afghanistan and the foreign troops there. The military operations have undoubtedly put pressure on the border, which is why some of the key al Qaeda operatives have been forced to flee the area and take refuge in Yemen and elsewhere. This poses a threat to worldwide peace.

That said, it is also important to take a closer look at the US strategy in Afghanistan. President Obama may have adopted a different policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan but it has yet to prove itself in the field. Success in Afghanistan cannot be achieved until and unless some lacunae are addressed properly. The Bush administration’s military strategy was to seek out the enemy, which created some problems as the enemy was not only inherently elusive but could also melt into the local population with ease. This led to collateral damage and increased the anti-US sentiment in Afghanistan. Despite the troop surge, the Obama administration’s policy is more focused on protection of the Afghan people and development of the war-torn country. While this is a positive policy shift, President Obama must realise that such a one-sided strategy cannot be successful since it may end up abandoning large tracts of the uninhabited countryside to the Taliban. Winning the hearts and the minds of the Afghan people will not lead to a complete annihilation of the Taliban. For that, the US needs more boots on the ground. The US also needs a credible partner in Afghanistan on the political front. Karzai’s fraudulent elections have made him lose whatever credibility he had left. This in turn puts the Americans in a difficult situation. No amount of troop surge or new policies can succeed until and unless the government in Afghanistan is acceptable to the local people. The prospects of success in Afghanistan seem bleak for the moment.

December 18, 2009

Adm. Mullen Praises Pakistan Army's War Plan

Filed under: Defense,USA — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 12:36 pm
Gen. Kayani with American Military Chief Adm. Mullen

Gen. Kayani with American Military Chief Adm. Mullen

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said he “couldn’t give the Pakistani Army anything but an ‘A’” for how they’ve conducted their battle so far, after eight-months-plus of fighting to clear militants from the Swat Valley. He was speaking to those of us traveling with him, after he spent the day touring the now-conquered Swat Valley with Pakistan’s Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Kayani . (For the record, after so many visits with U.S. and Pakistani military officials and diplomats in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last few days, he looked worn. But so did we.)

“He planned well, and he’s been very deliberate about how much he can get done and when he can get it done,” Mullen said. “I think that’s a very realistic approach to the operations.”

He said that includes how the Pakistani military is currently conducting their counterinsurgency campaign there—trying to boost economic and political development there, after taking that territory. That’s a new way of fighting for the Pakistani army, and one many U.S. military analysts and officers had publicly doubted they could pull off.

Mullen’s comments are also unexpectedly high praise from American’s top military commander in uniform — at a time when U.S. officials are often quoted in the media saying Pakistan is not doing enough to fight the Afghan Taliban, which threatens U.S. troops across the border in Afghanistan. The Pakistani army continues to fight the militants, but they’re concentrating on the Pakistani Taliban, who have waged a deadly suicide bombing campaign in their country, and bypassed areas populated by some of America’s enemies.

You could cynically say Mullen’s warm comments are good preparation to soften the Pakistani leadership up, before asking them to do more. But Mullen is a known for being more matter of fact than manipulative. And he’s not known for being overzealous in handing out praise.

His staff explained he really thinks the Pakistani army in general, and Kayani in particular “get it.” “They’re a learning force,” one official said. They learned the hard way, by taking hundreds of casualties early in this campaign, and finding out that if you don’t hold territory after you take it from the Taliban, you just have to take it again, and lose more troops in the process.

And as the U.S. military learned in Iraq, the official explained, they’ve also learned that it’s easier to “clear and hold” the first part of counterinsurgency, than it is to “build and transfer”—as in building hospitals, schools, roads, and bringing in jobs and business, and then transferring the area to a stable government and security force.

Admiral Mullen said it’s something Kayani and his military commanders brought up a lot in their tour today – that while they’d conquered much of the territory they’d gone after, the economic aid and support from their own government and the international community wasn’t coming in fast enough to both get people back to work, and keep them satisfied enough to keep them from supporting the Taliban again.

“That’s something he is concerned about,” Mullen said. “He has got to hold this territory, until the building starts. So that’s where his main focus is.”

Mullen is taking that message back to Washington – what is essentially a polite pushback from the Pakistani military that they are fighting as hard as they can, as fast as they can, but they’re taking care of their own business, and their own direct enemies – the militant groups responsible for a string of bloody bombings across Pakistan—before they go after America’s enemies.

That said, the admiral said he did bring up Washington’s desire that Pakistan pursue the Afghan Taliban, aka Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and crew, thought to be sheltering in Pakistan, as well and the militant Haqqani tribe, which straddles Afghanistan and the Pakistani territory of Northern Waziristan. Mullen said Kayani “gets” that too.

“He is very aware of the additional insurgents that are out there, and he is likewise focused in getting at them,” Mullen said. “I say that broadly. That’s without exactly how that’s going to be done or when that’s going to be done.”

And that sounds to this reporter like two military commanders getting together and saying to each other, we know what needs to happen, and we also know how fast the politicians want it to happen. But we also both know that from a military standpoint, it doesn’t happen that fast on the ground.

Call it a diplomatic version of “back off, and let us do our job.” But you won’t hear a general, or an admiral, saying that to a reporter out loud.

December 15, 2009

US-Pakistan Partnership Vital to Pakistan Security

US Gen. David Petraus and Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani Meet

US Gen. David Petraus and Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani Meet

US. Gen David Petraus met with Army Chief Gen. Kayani yesterday and discussed the current security crisis, and two important points of information came out of the meetings: First, the military is committed to supporting the civilian government. Second, a long-term US-Pakistan partnership is vital to Pakistan’s national security.

On the first point, an article in Dawn today quotes the American General saying he discussed the possibility of a coup with Gen. Kayani and was told that the military has no plans for a coup and is committed to supporting the democratically-elected civilian government.

In a briefing with Pakistani journalists during a visit to Islamabad, Petraeus said Pakistan’s military had told him it was not interested in destabilizing the elected civilian government.

‘I have seen no indication that (army chief) General Ashfaq Kayani is entertaining such a notion,’ local newspapers on Tuesday quoted Petraeus as telling reporters at the US ambassador’s residence when asked about his meeting with Kayani.

‘Whenever we have talked to them they say they are committed to democratically elected civilian government.’

This should put to rest predictions such as those made by Shaheen Sehbai in yesterday’s The News that the US “has almost categorically declared that they are no longer interested in saving President Asif Ali Zardari if he falls in his current battle for survival.”

The second point was described in The New York Times yesterday in an article about the meeting between the American and Pakistani Generals. This article details discussions between the two military leaders about cooperation in the fight against Taliban and jihadis in both Afghanistan and Pakistan both.

The article notes that the Pakistani military has been trying to make a delicate balance as it relates to Siraj Haqqani. The difficulty in attacking the Haqqani network of jihadis comes from a skepticism about the American dedication to the region. After all is said and done, if the Americans abandon the region, Pakistan must choose the best course of action to secure its border with Afghanistan and build its strength and influence in the region.

The core reason for Pakistan’s imperviousness is its scant faith in the Obama troop surge, and what Pakistan sees as the need to position itself for a regional realignment in Afghanistan once American forces begin to leave.

It considers Mr. Haqqani and his control of large areas of Afghan territory vital to Pakistan in the jostling for influence that will pit Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran against one another in the post-American Afghan arena, the Pakistani officials said.

Pakistan is particularly eager to counter the growing influence of its archenemy, India, which is pouring $1.2 billion in aid into Afghanistan. “If America walks away, Pakistan is very worried that it will have India on its eastern border and India on its western border in Afghanistan,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States who is pro-American in his views.

For that reason, Mr. Fatemi said, the Pakistani Army is “very reluctant” to jettison Mr. Haqqani, Pakistan’s strong card in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr. Haqqani because they consider him an important player in reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.

Because Mr. Haqqani shelters Qaeda leaders and operatives in North Waziristan, Washington is opposed to including Mr. Haqqani among the possible reconcilable Taliban, at least for the moment, a Western diplomat said.

But this is a dangerous game of strategy that has already resulted in the current security crisis. For decades, the military used jihadis as a force of defense against Indian meddling in Kashmir and Afghanistan and it has allowed the build up of those groups to become a real threat to Pakistan.

Pakistan currently has its hands full fighting the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan and other places, and it is beyond its capacity to open another front against the Afghan Taliban, the officials said of General Kayani’s response. The offensive has had the secondary effect of constraining the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and driving some of its commanders and fighters across the border to Afghanistan, senior American military officials in Afghanistan said.

But implicit in General Kayani’s reply was the fact that the homegrown Pakistani Taliban represent the real threat to Pakistan. General Kayani argued that they are the ones carrying out attacks against security installations and civilian markets in Pakistan’s cities and must be the army’s top priority, the officials said.

Pakistan has its own problems to deal with in the TTP and LeT groups that are now daily committing bombings and attacks inside Pakistan. As the Haqqani network is primarily operating in Pakistan which should give the Americans the opportunity to eliminate him themselves. This is the position of Pakistani security officials.

But making a separate peace with Haqqani is not a sustainable strategy, and risks increased and prolonged attacks inside Paksitan.

For his part, Mr. Haqqani fights in Afghanistan, and is considered more of an asset than a threat by the Pakistanis. But he is the most potent force fighting the United States, American and Pakistani officials agree.

He has subcommanders threaded throughout eastern and southern Afghanistan. His fighters control Paktika, Paktia and Khost Provinces in Afghanistan, which lie close to North Waziristan. His men are also strong in Ghazni, Logar and Wardak Provinces, the officials said.

Looking back, it was a mistaken strategy by both the Americans and our own military to make deals with jihadis to be security assets. Whether the countries were using the mujahedeen to fight against the Soviets or the Indians, once those battles were finished, it was impossible to put the monster back in its cage.

How the Taliban repays deals. Destoryed school in Pakistan.

How the Taliban repays deals. Destoryed school in Pakistan.

This time, we must not repeat past mistakes. While making deals with the likes of Siraj Haqqani or TTP or any other jihadi network will only bring possible short-term gains, those deals will surely result in long term setbacks. The best strategy for maintaining Pakistan’s security long-term is to build the trust with the Americans so that Gen. Petraeus does not abandon us. Already there are good signs that he will not leave us.

But also we should work together to root out the jihadi forces so that they can be defeated once and for all, leaving Pakistan stronger and more influential in the region. Partnering with jihadis will not provide this strength. Only partnering with Gen. Petraeus will.

December 14, 2009

Anti-Americanism

Lt. Gen (retd) Talat Masood

Lt. Gen (retd) Talat Masood

Retired Lieutenant General Talat Masood has a very good column in The News today about the rising attitude of anti-Americanism in Pakistan and how this is is based in paranoia and not in fact. Also, the anti-American attitude is harmful to Pakistan’s defense and national security because it threatens a fragile relationship with the superpower that could help to ensure Pakistan’s security and independence.

Gen. Masood begins by pointing out that the US has a history of mistakes in dealing with Pakistan, but that the administration of President Barack Obama is trying to address those mistakes and build a closer relationship between the two nations.

Anti-Americanism continues to rise unabated in Pakistan. It is not confined to fringe elements alone but is spreading in the mainstream. A few recently retired military officers and politicians have gone as far as accusing US for abetting and supporting acts of terror that have engulfed the country. This is despite the fact that President Obama and the administration has made serious efforts clearing up misunderstandings and reducing the inherent tensions not only with Pakistan but with the Muslim world in general.

Washington has tried to redress the past policy mistakes of abandoning Pakistan by developing a long-term strategic relationship. It has expanded, in scope and depth, Pakistan’s economic assistance threefold and doubled military assistance, totaling $2.2 billion annually. The Enhanced Partnership Act, notwithstanding its intrusive clauses and abrasive wording, is a clear manifestation of breaking from the past. The United States has also been highly supportive of Pakistan at the World Bank, IMF and other multilateral forums to ease its financial crisis.

Furthermore, on a larger canvas, President Obama has tried to reach out to the Muslims and expressed as a matter of policy his desire to develop a relationship on the basis of mutual respect. He has repeatedly emphasised his close personal links with Muslims and frequently reflects warmly on his experiences in Muslim countries during the early part of his life. His speech at the University of Cairo and prior to that in Turkey was a clear indication of this shift. The immediate withdrawal of some of the draconian measures like water boarding and his plans to close Guantanamo Bay, although as yet to be implemented, are all signs that were meant to reduce the cleavage with the Muslim world and an assurance that the US is not at war with Islam but is only fighting those radical Muslim elements that have taken arms against them. The Nobel Peace Prize award to Obama was an acknowledgement of the transformational changes that he was aspiring to bring in American policy.

Obviously, America still has some problems with dealing with Pakistan, otherwise there would be no anti-Americanism. But no government is perfect. Islamabad is not exception and neither is Washington, DC. But is it in our security interest to push the Americans away?

But nothing seems to work. Even when the US administration or the military leadership makes a statement that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute would contribute towards regional stability, it is viewed with great scepticism. Similarly, when top US military and government officials publicly acknowledge that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are safe it fails to resonate.

In short, cynicism and dislike for America has reached a point of no return among a certain class in Pakistan, and from their point of view nothing that US does can possibly be good for the country. And they cling to the mantra, despite repeated assurances, that Washington’s interest only lies in taking out our nuclear assets.

America can’t be both friendly and unfriendly. If there is contradictions between past actions and current actions, we can best judge what the Americans are doing based on what is in their own best interest. There is no argument that Obama will follow a policy that is best for America, so where does Pakistan fit into this arrangement?

What then are the reasons for this distrust and how far are these allegations of the US wanting to destabilise Pakistan, with the help of India, credible?

Any major power, when it adopts a security or foreign policy, always weighs the flip side of everything. If Washington were to destabilise Pakistan as a deliberate policy, then the ensuing chaos will create a vacuum that would surely be filled by the Taliban and jihadi forces, posing a far greater danger to the US, India and the rest of the world. It would be absurd for the US to simultaneously fight the militants, be it the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and support them.

The fact, however, is that the internal and external policies Pakistan has pursued in the last three decades to advance its perceived national interests were flawed and have come to roost. Regrettably, we are in a state of denial and not prepared to accept that militancy is not home grown, and has taken root with the people. There is no doubt that American policies along with Indian designs have accentuated Pakistan’s regional problems. But the answer to our insurgency and the expanding frontiers of terrorism lies primarily with us. It is the responsibility of our leaders to give clarity in defining the nature of threat and mobilising the nation’s resources, both human and material, to combat it successfully. Failure to do so has resulted in the spread of endless rumours generally to the advantage of the militants. We are also failing to optimise the exceptional support that the international community is willing to extend in these difficult times.

This is also true that the legacy of betrayal is so strong and deep-seated that the US will have to work very hard to overcome the prevailing suspicions. The US administration will have to make a categorical assertion that Blackwater or its associates are not operating in Pakistan if confidence in the public of its sincerity is to be restored. The policy of employing drones needs also to be reviewed so that Pakistan military’s involvement at the intelligence and operational levels is fully integrated.

Otherwise every drone attack fuels anti-Americanism and exposes the contradiction in our relations, neutralising the tactical advantage that its employment accrues.

It is equally important to realise that, while we are passing through the worst of times, not everything is lost. There are many positive elements that are emerging as we wade through the present crisis. Despite all odds, a democratic system however fragile has been put in place. Institutions have started functioning, the judiciary is asserting itself, and media is robust debating every facet of our political, economic and social life and acting as a watchdog on our leaders. Parliament has yet to energise but is under public pressure to assume its responsibilities of legislating and assisting in the formulation of national policies. The civil society is emerging, albeit somewhat gradually.

Tragically, the nation is paying a heavy price in blood and sweat in combating militancy. It is forcing us to reform or face the consequences of an existential threat. The cumulative impact of these developments whether it is pressure of media, civil society or the violent acts of militants is bringing about fundamental changes in the society. Feudalism and tribal hierarchy is on its way out and politicians canot fool the people, and the military is in no position to capture power. Militancy is now compelling the government to act and reach out to the tribal people whom they neglected for 62 years. Similarly, the insurgency in Baluchistan is forcing the government to take political and economic measures that it denied to them. The military is acting against the proxies that at one time it patronised. The society is in flux and anarchic but there are several positive happenings as well.

Clearly, despite the ongoing chit chat about Black Water and drone attacks and national security, the facts are that our national defense and security is best served by a cautious but committed attempt to build a close relationship between our military and the Americans. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Rather, you can take the word of a distinguished General.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress