Khyber Impasse

How long can the United States and Pakistan keep pretending that they actually have any interests in common?

BY JAMES TRAUB | APRIL 15, 2011

The Davis case infuriated the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's spy agency, not only because Davis was operating on his own but because he was targeting Lashkar-i-Taiba, a terrorist group that the ISI has used to carry out attacks on India. And Kayani first raised the idea of restricting drone strikes in reaction not to the Davis case but to a strike against another tribal ally, the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group of the Tehrik-e-Taliban. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has ramped up the drone strikes because the Pakistan Army has refused to go after Taliban groups that are intent on attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan; the Army hasn't taken the fight to those militants because they don't threaten Pakistan and because they are useful in the perpetual effort to establish "strategic depth" against India, the enemy Pakistan is really worried about.

This is, at bottom, what's so uniquely strange about the U.S.-Pakistan relationship: It consists largely of efforts to finesse the fundamental and apparently unalterable fact that the enemy of one side is the ally of the other. This leads the United States to conduct unilateral operations such as the one Davis was carrying out, and it leads Pakistan's leaders to gin up public opinion against an American presence that it cannot really do without. For the U.S. side, the stakes are only getting higher because Pakistan's repeated intransigence has given the Afghan Taliban a sanctuary that virtually ensures the failure of the current massive counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan. What we may be seeing, in other words, is not simply another episode in a stale drama, but the growing difficulty of finessing the underlying problem.

A divorce would be satisfying; but Pakistan needs U.S. aid, equipment, and training, and Washington is too afraid of what Pakistan might become to let it go. Christine Fair, a Pakistan expert at Georgetown University, is convinced that Islamabad has the upper hand in the confrontation and thus notes that U.S. officials will swallow their ire and make real concessions on drones and perhaps also on the presence of special operations forces. "We're in it for the kids," as she puts it waggishly.

But in Pakistan, as in Afghanistan, the time has come to lower expectations. The United States will have a significant presence in both countries, civilian as well as military, for a long time to come, and over the long run may help foster stability and decent governance in both places. But things will not get better in the short term. Last week, the White House released a report that included the startlingly blunt, if unarguable, assertion that Pakistan's complete failure to follow up its military efforts against the Taliban with even a semblance of efforts to "hold" or "build" cleared areas -- the civilian side of any counterinsurgency program -- meant that "there remains no clear path toward defeating the insurgency in Pakistan." That is, even in those places that Pakistan deems crucial to its own security, a feckless state has undermined an ambitious and often courageous military effort. The stark language may have been intended to shock the Pakistanis into action, but the only effect it seems to have produced is Kayani's edict on the drones.

As a recent government audit of U.S. aid efforts shows, the billions of dollars the United States has poured into economic development and governance in Pakistan haven't made much of a dent yet. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has set out to change the habits and policies of a deeply refractory place -- a prescription for frustration and failure.

I'm not saying the United States should stop sending aid to Pakistan; it may eventually do some good and earn at least a little bit of goodwill. But Obama would be wise to bring the war in Afghanistan to a quicker end than he now plans, to expect less and demand less of Pakistan, and to turn his attentions toward the kind of problems the United States can actually do something about, at home and abroad.

Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. "Terms of Engagement," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

MARTY MARTEL

4:36 PM ET

April 15, 2011

U. S. military engineered its own failure in Afghanistan

U. S. military under Gates/Petraeus/Mullen has been mollycoddling Kayani’s Pakistani Army while Kayani has been protecting the terrorist outfits who are killing US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001.

Defense Secretary Gates has sought to justify Pakistan’s terrorist connections, alluding to a “deficit of trust” between Washington, DC and Islamabad. Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan's concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that while Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants. Both Adm Mike Mullen and Gen Patraeus fancy themselves to be “soldier statesmen” a la Gen Dwight Eisenhower. Adm Mullen has visited Pakistan 15 times and Gen Patraeus no less frequently. Both evidently have high opinions of their abilities to persuade Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to crack down on the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura.

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009, ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly sponsoring four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

Pakistan under General Kayani does NOT want US drones to destroy the terrorist groups that Pakistani Army and Intelligence SPONSOR, namely Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Osama bin Laden‘s Al Qaeda and Hafiz Saeed‘s LeT.

Duplicitous Pakistan has U. S. by the throat. US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

This charade has been going on since 2001 when the Bush administration allowed Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan (but now relocated to Karachi by Pakistani ISI to protect it from possible US drone attacks) and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.

With US military in cahoot with Pakistani Army to prolong this Afghan war, resurgence of Taliban was preordained and U. S. war there was doomed to fail from the very beginning.

 

RIGHT2LIFE

8:32 AM ET

April 16, 2011

Causes & solution to the war of Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Honestly, one can accept and appreciate each and every word of the comments of "Mr. Marty Martel," - with commas and full stops.
But he did not menton the causes of the war and their solutions in Afpak.

What are the main cause of Afghan war? Well, in 1947 Pashtun lands
were annexed with Pakistan without the consent of Pashtuns. Afghanistan
protested about it and defied the "Durrand-line" and opposed the entry
of Pakistan in United Nations in 1947.

On the other hands, Balochs prefered Pakistan instead of Great Britain
as their Protectorate State. Balochistan was freed in 11th August, 1947 but she was occupied in 18th March, 1948. Only Afghanistan protested the illigal action of Pakistani Army, who had sidelined the Politicians.

The mean reason of Pakistani adventure to keep Afghanistan in stone
age was and is the "bone of contention"- the Durand line and the
lands of Pashtuns and Balochs which were illigally occupied by Pakistan.

All Pakistani policies, stratagies and foreign policies are related
to enslave Baloch and Pashtun lands for which Pakistan is killing not only Balochs and Pashtuns in Pakistan but also punishing Afghanistan and other country whom they suspect are potential dangours to free Baloch and Pashtun lands.

NATO/ISAF and Afghan forces made no mistake to handle the Afghan crisis but the policy makers in Washington D.C. knowing well the actual causes of the war but failed to frame right policies for their remedy instead they used ploster on the wounds for their temporary gains.

The remedy to eliminate war of Afghanistan is not to accept the "Durrand-line" or the assurances on high level to Pakistani Military about the integrity of Pakistan or to seek an "exit-way" of NATO forces from Afghanistan.

The real permanent solution to keep peace in Afghanistan, stability in
South Asia including the whole world lies in the bottom lines of reality. The reality to "urge Pakistani Military to leave alone Baloch and Pashtun-lands alone and accept the right of self-determination of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtun-khawa in accordance with the charter of United Nations.

The Western Civilisation can`t afford to be collapsed like Soviet
Union who turned her back from the legitimate question of the freedom
of Balochs and Pashtuns of Pakistan.

 

VODKA

2:16 PM ET

April 16, 2011

US AID

US Aid to Pakistan is a joke........... Pakistan is 63 years old and thus far received $62 Billion aid, less than a billion a year. Copper and Gold in Baluchistan only add up to over $300 Billion. Do Pakistan a favor stop aiding it.

 

OMARALI50

10:44 AM ET

April 16, 2011

SO in the end, James Traub's

SO in the end, James Traub's prescription is "more of the same"?
The heart of the problem is the unwillingness of some in the US (like Pakistan, the US is not a person, there are different people with different agendas, especially in a shadow war like this) to aim for real change. I have no idea if this is just because of the usual combination of arrogance and ignorance, the kind of thing that causes every JCS to crow about the three cups of tea they had with Kiyani last week; or because of more sinister reasons (one can imagine that some people on both sides actually benefit from having the problem go on forever...as William Burroughs noted, he met an American working to stop the Aftosa epidemic in Mexico and asked him how long the epidemic would go on; the inspector dreamily replied "as long as we can keep it going").
Whatever the real reasons aftosa continues to plague the land (the crucial factors may be local and environmental, not the fault of misguided control measures), this article does not indicate that this strange transactional relationship is going to change any time soon. Pakistan's generals have been in this relationship since 1953 and they know more about their patrons than their patrons care to know about them. Obviously, they also have more to lose; who is likely to play their cards better? Do the math.
As a Pakistani, this superior card-playing ability gives me no pleasure. The success of GHQ's "strategy" is a recipe for more conflict within Pakistan and in the region. We would be much better off if we could stop being a "rent-an-army" operation and if we stopped our insane zero-sum game with India (a change to which Indians would also have to contribute, but one must admit that given their recent economic success, they do have other aims in mind now and may be amenable to rising above this 64 years old nonsense). One hopes for the best.

 

KILLA ABDULLAH

11:36 AM ET

April 16, 2011

 

RIGHT2LIFE

12:24 PM ET

April 16, 2011

Sir KILLA ABDULLAH, like a

Sir KILLA ABDULLAH, like a Pakistani General
you are trying to shut-up the on going discussion.
This is a Political intellectual disscussion not a
business which Pakistani Army does in the form of
"beat and snatch money" and business from narcotic
and selling of weapons of Darra, Proliferation of
nuclear technology, abduction of Pakistani citizens
for ransom and etc. etc.

ISI has their own Journalists who kill the politician like Ahmed Shah Masood in Afghanistan and they lecture in the "Panel of International Peace" in Washington D.C. to abuse Balochs.

 

ST1NGR

1:37 PM ET

April 17, 2011

Unanswered Questions

How does Mr. Traub know the intentions behind Raymond Davis's making connections with Lashkar?? How does he know it was lashkar, and since when did you kill people to make connections with them, looks like a covert deal went bad? Also the article could have mentioned how General Kayani criticized US drone strikes after they killed militant leaders AND Tribal elders who were trying to negotiate a resolution to conflict in the area:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/17/c_13784458.htm

It would be really helpful if you reported a more complete version of events, incomplete information tends to be misleading.

 

AVILLA

6:13 PM ET

April 17, 2011

Nonsense

The title of the article on the front page made sense. The actual article? Not so much. The jist of this, like virtually all other articles on Pakistan, is that America can't get the heck out of dodge because Pakistan will be "worse" without American aid. I call BS on that. Pakistan is an absolute mess and gets worse every day, no matter how many supplies, money, or men the Americans send it. If Pakistan is going to go the Afghanistan route, it will do it with or without America's presence there. If it's going to be reformed, it can ONLY do that without America there--the populace is simply too anti-Western to accept a government that operates with American help. There is no point in any Western nation, especially America, spending another iota of time, energy, or money on Pakistan. Abandon ship, I say.

 

DDSNAIK

5:28 PM ET

April 18, 2011

Agree mostly, AVilla

It seems astute to limit aid significantly to humanitarian pursuits (instead of going cold turkey) in the region and allocate the net subsequent large chunk of foreign aid into an endeavor out of which something useful actually has a chance to result. You're absolutely right that Pakistan is a total mess and doesn't have much hope of resembling a modern, functioning country anytime soon. If they don't want that, that's their right, but we should stop funneling our major funds there.

Growing pains are to be expected as a by product of haphazardly creating a country where there was none historically. The Brits/Europeans have a talent for that, but it was wasn't done in a total vacuum of political and ideological zeal from locals. Hard to lean on the inexperienced argument for over 60 years, though - but I digress... sorry.

 

BILL_L

11:58 AM ET

April 19, 2011

Gettin' Out

What is 'sticky' about Pakistan? Is there anything other than the nukes? If there is nothing that can be done to turn the country around and the only reason we are there is to safeguard the nukes, then let's destroy the nukes and get out. As has been said lately, hope is not a strategy.

 

CHARLEY S

12:00 PM ET

April 20, 2011

Getting out

Amen to that, Bill_L.

 

SADASIVA

1:17 PM ET

April 22, 2011

The True Weaklt of India

One one the most important qualities in the Indian resurgence is its cultural gifts - its spiritual / scientific gifts such as Yoga, Ayurveda (its holistic medical system) and even vedic astrology. Not to mention the qualities of ahimsa (non-violence), which includes non factory-farming practices - which destroy the land, etc. These are the true treasures of India that the world is reawakening to.

 

JASONSANDERS

5:02 AM ET

April 25, 2011

Islam and Pakistan

Militant Islam continues killing, yet political figures and journalists even now avert their eyes.

One particular horrendous case in point arises from Pakistan, in which a series of attacks upon Christians, both regional and foreign, has taken place in the last year:

Oct. 28: an assault on St. Dominic's Church in Behawalpur kills sixteen.
March 17: an encounter within the Protestant International Church in Islamabad kills five (which includes a couple of American citizens).
May 22: an attack upon the executive assistant of Karachi Diocese of Church Pakistan, who had been tied up to a chair, forced to renounce kasper suits, and injected with toxin.
Aug. 5: an attack within the Murree Christian School kills six.
Aug. 9: an attack at the Christian medical center in Taxila kills four.
Sept. 25: an attack on the Institute for Peace and Justice, a Christian charity in Karachi, kills seven.

There've been a host of additional non-lethal attacks on places of worship and church services, the latest earlier this Weekend. There's no question concerning the causes of the perpetrators: Militant Islamic associations brazenly speak out their thoughts, proclaiming their goal is "to eliminate Christians" and later on boasting of having "slain the nonbelievers."

Victims understand full well the reason why they're zeroed in on - "just that they are Christians," as one individual put it. An area Christian leader declares "that the terrorist assault was an act by al Qaeda or some pro-Taliban agencies."

 

ASJIBRASDA

2:06 AM ET

May 11, 2011

These events dramatically

These events dramatically illustrate Ahmed Rashid’s central contention in his brilliant and passionate book Descent into Chaos. Throughout the book Rashid emphasizes the degree to which, Amazon Affiliateseven years after September 11, “the US-led war on terrorism has left in its wake a far more unstable world than existed on that momentous day in 2001

 

JIBRAN_PCC

6:31 AM ET

May 12, 2011

The deeply entrenched Islamic

The deeply entrenched Islamic and tribal character of Pashtun rule in the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan will not be transformed by invasion or war. jacksonvillerealestateThe task requires probably several generations to start to change the deeply embedded social and psychological character of the area. War induces visceral and atavistic response.