The first-ever ground military attack on Pakistan’s soil by the US-led troops on Sept 3 provoked strong condemnation and outrage in Pakistan. Now the cat is out of the bag. The New York Times said the raids were authorised by President Bush “without the approval of the Pakistani government.” The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen declared on Sept 10 that the US military “will revise its strategy for Afghanistan to include militant safe havens in Pakistan in its areas of concern.” Translated in simple terms, the US attacks are part of a well planned strategy. Gen Pervez Kayani rejected US claims that the “rules of engagement” gave the coalition forces the right to enter Pakistan. He denied that there was “any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border.” Prime Minister Gilani backed Kayani’s statement while President Zardari has so far chosen to keep quiet and talk about Kashmir. If he decides to visit Britain first and not China, as was earlier reported, it may be seen as a capitulation to the US pressure.
The ground attack had come after a number of airstrikes and artillery attacks which have intensified this year. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi termed the attack as shameful, regrettable and surprising and an “unforgivable incident.” Since Mr Qureshi’s statement, more missile attacks have killed dozens of innocent people near the Afghanistan border. Qureshi said he was surprised at the attack but was the attack really a surprise or the attacks were purely unilateral American acts? A careful review of the developments and reports since January suggests otherwise.
A New York Times report of Feb 22, 2008 offers some insights into what has been brewing. The paper reported that “American officials reached a quiet understanding with General Musharraf in January [2008] to intensify secret strikes against suspected terrorists.” The paper noted that the new agreements with Pakistan came after a trip to the country on Jan. 9, 2008 by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Gen Michael Hayden, the CIA director. The American officials met with Mr Musharraf and the army chief, Gen Kayani, and offered a “range of increased covert operations” aimed at thwarting intensifying efforts by Al Qaeda and the Taliban to destabilise the Pakistani government.
On March 22, 2008, Newsweek confirmed these reports and disclosed that although some news reports said at the time that Musharraf had “rebuffed” US proposals to step up combat operations inside Pakistan, US officials and Pakistani sources, who asked for anonymity discussing sensitive information, said the recent wave of Predator attacks are at least partly the result of understandings the high-level visitors reached with Musharraf and other top Pakistanis, ‘giving the United States virtually unrestricted authority to hit targets in the border areas.’
Alarm in Pakistan about possible American intervention rose after a surprise visit July 12 by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, to Islamabad, where he met with the army chief, Gen Kayani; Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani; and President Pervez Musharraf. It was Admiral Mullen’s fourth visit to Pakistan in six months. Days afterward, reports about a build-up of NATO forces on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan added to Pakistani anxiety.
On Aug 28, Admiral Mullen again met his General Kayani secretly on board a US aircraft-carrier in the Indian Ocean. After the news was broken by The New York Times, Mullen conducted a press briefing and heaped praise on Kayani.
Mullen said: “… as I’ve come to know him [Gen Kayani], he’s been very clear to me, and not just in saying it, but what his actions are, that his goal — my view — is to do the right thing. He’s an extraordinary individual and his ultimate — his goals are — his principles and goals are to do what’s best for Pakistan. And everything he’s done, our engagement, indicates that’s absolutely the case.”
However, Admiral Mullen refused to give more information about his meeting saying, “”I’m not prepared to discuss in great detail the specifics of everything that we covered. But I can tell you I came away from the meeting very encouraged that the focus is where it needs to be at the military to military relationship.”
This theme was earlier articulated by Lisa Curtis, an influential analyst and a former CIA official, in a Heritage Foundation (a think tank) paper dated Aug 7. “The army’s full attention should be on the real threat to the country’s future: the advance of Taliban militants along the border with Afghanistan and in some of the settled areas of the Northwest Frontier Province”, she wrote. In an obvious reference to the charges that the US actions could destabilise Pakistan, Curtis stressed that Islamabad must accept that regarding terrorism, ‘a convergence of US interests with those of Kabul and New Delhi does not translate into a wider conspiracy to undermine core Pakistani national security interests.’
The US attaches the top most priority to stop the infiltration of the militants into Afghanistan from Pakistan’s tribal areas and deny them a ’safe haven’ from which to launch attacks. It has been dealing directly with Pakistan’s military leadership under Musharraf and now with the tacit approval of the PPP government which has not shown any serious will to stand up to the US policy of conducting military operations from across the borders. They may now be reaching the point where they could cost it popular support and, consequently, its ability to fight militancy.
Apparently, while the US is satisfied with the cooperation of Pakistan’s military and political leadership, notwithstanding its reservations about the role of the ISI or elements within it, the Bush administration seems to place a low priority on supporting democracy. It remains to be seen if a Democrat president would follow a substantially different policy.
The attacks came just days before the presidential election and were coincided by a stinging personal attack on Mr Zardari in the conservative The Wall Street Journal on Sept 2. In an article written by a member of the editorial board, the paper alleged that the Pakistani government agreed to stop its air strikes on the Taliban, in exchange for which Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam agreed to throw its support to Mr Zardari. The paper described him as a caricature of everything that’s morally bankrupt with the country’s Westernised elite, and thus an inviting propaganda target for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “Al Qaeda and the Taliban feed on chaos, and a Zardari presidency will almost certainly provide more of it.”
Whether or not, these views reflect the thinking of the White House and US establishment, Pakistan is likely to face more military strikes and a even greater pressure from Washington, directly and indirectly, overtly and covertly, in both political and economic terms, to aggressively fight the Taliban, and to ‘do more’ sans negotiations with the ‘terrorists’. Hence, the ‘hot pursuits’ and airstrikes are likely to intensify in the coming months despite “strong protests” from Pakistan’s leaders. If allowed to continue, they will further inflame the insurgency and may ultimately lead to a military takeover by destabilizing the civilian government.
The writer is an economist and author of The Gathering Storm in Pakistan: Political Economy of a Security State. Email: ynazar@cyber.net.pk
Sphere: Related Content