Hard Power

Why Pakistan is so difficult to work with.

BY ANATOL LIEVEN | APRIL 22, 2011

Last week, the Pakistani government demanded that Washington end drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan's tribal areas and drastically scale back CIA operations. This followed a drone attack in North Waziristan that killed more than 40 civilians on the very day after* Pakistan released contracted CIA operative Raymond Davis, who had been arrested for killing two Pakistanis in Lahore. The Davis affair caused intense anger among ordinary Pakistanis. Americans, meanwhile, are furious at Pakistan for sheltering the leadership of the Afghan Taliban, who are fighting U.S. forces and the Kabul government in Afghanistan. Given this explosive situation, is it really possible for the United States and Pakistan to go on working together against terrorism?

The answer is complicated, but basically it is yes. The Davis affair has damaged the relationship between Washington and the Pakistani Army and military intelligence, but it is very unlikely to end it. Hard as it may be to swallow, the United States must go on cooperating with the Pakistani state, military, and intelligence services against terrorism directed against the West and not allow this relationship to be destroyed by Pakistan's sheltering of the Afghan Taliban. In fact, the United States should accept and even welcome continued Pakistani military links to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the terrorist group alleged to be behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while holding to the absolute condition that the Pakistani military uses these connections successfully to prevent further LeT attacks on India and, above all, the United States.

Although Pakistan's protection of the Afghan Taliban has certainly been unacceptable, on other questions the Pakistanis do have a point. Some U.S. officials -- especially in the State Department -- themselves recognize that what happened to Davis is strong evidence that it is not, in fact, a good idea to have hundreds of Special Forces types, wired to the max but inadequately trained for intelligence work, wandering around Pakistan. The Davis case was bad enough; future incidents could be much, much worse. Equally, there is considerable private disagreement in Washington as to whether the killing of Taliban commanders by drone strikes is really worth the Pakistani anger caused by the killing of civilians.

Above all, though the Pakistani establishment and the United States differ greatly on Afghanistan, they are basically at one when it comes to preventing international terrorism against the West. This is in part because the Pakistani elites shop in the West, send their children to study in the West, and to a large extent actually live in the West. On any given day, a bomb in Harrods in London would be very likely to claim a Pakistani elite family among its victims.

More importantly, the Pakistani government and military know that a successful terrorist attack on the United States by a Pakistan-based group would inevitably lead to a U.S. response that would be extremely damaging to Pakistan. If the attack were carried out by members of one of the groups linked to the Pakistani military, such a response could be on a scale that would lead to the collapse of the Pakistani state.

There is therefore no reason to doubt the basic goodwill of the Pakistani state and military on this issue; indeed, British and U.S. intelligence officials have attested to the very important help that Pakistan has given against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Where this has been limited, it has been because of Pakistani incompetence and bitter divisions among Pakistan's different intelligence and police agencies, not because of support for terrorists.

Pakistani authorities, however, have also given shelter to the top leadership of the Afghan Taliban and have allowed free passage to volunteers fighting the war against Western forces in Afghanistan. The Pakistani security establishment continues to calculate (in a somewhat paranoid fashion) that the festering Afghan civil war will continue to develop as the United States withdraws, pulling in India on the side of anti-Pakistani forces -- basically the former Northern Alliance. Therefore Pakistan must keep strengthening its links to the Afghan Taliban, its only potential allies against India in the imminent proxy war.

This official policy takes place against a background of overwhelming sympathy for the Afghan Taliban among ordinary Pakistanis, at least to judge by my hundreds of interviews on the street in all four provinces over the past four years, including this March in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistanis do not necessarily support the Taliban's ideological and revolutionary program. Rather, they see the Taliban's fight against the United States and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration as a legitimate national resistance struggle, just like the war of the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets and their Afghan communist allies in the 1980s.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

 

Anatol Lieven is a professor in the War Studies Department of King's College London. This essay is based on his book Pakistan: A Hard Country.

GRANTS

5:38 AM ET

April 23, 2011

Terrorism is pakistan's industry

Its an endless process. Pakistan groom terrorists, entice them to attack civilians in other countries, other countries send them billions of dollars Government Grants to fight terrorism and while the ordinary pakistanis are dancing in the tune of religion and the holy man in the cloud , the officials and millitary elites are millionaires and their whole family resides mainly in UK.
USA need to start covert operation to take out nukes out of pakistani's hands because sooner or later Talibans are going to have access to it.

 

SUBAIRMI

10:42 PM ET

April 24, 2011

Do you think your much-hyped

Do you think your much-hyped 'covert operation' is as easy as stealing an egg from a hen? You are raving mad. Those who try to do such a 'covert operation' may not live to tell their story!

 

STEVEM

10:14 AM ET

April 23, 2011

Twisted Power

Maybe the default assumption about applying "Hard Power" should be that it will net negative and be a big waste of money. Rather than the other way around as it is now.

Make the Militarists disprove the negative before blowing things up and employing cowboys like Raymond Davis.

 

BABUR CHUGHTAI MUGHAL

10:50 AM ET

April 23, 2011

Besiege Us And Don't Expect A Reaction?

Missing in this otherwise fairly good analysis is a key point: Beginning from the first days of 2002, the United States played a key role in the quick deterioration of Pakistan's geo-strategic environment.

Washington entrenched anti-Pakistan elements in Kabul, invited India to set up shop in Afghanistan, harbored Pakistanis claiming to represent the southwestern Balochistan province and allowed them to set up terror training camps to recruit poor Pakistans to work against their country. Not mention that a US-controlled Afghanistan continues to provide the main reasons that the TTP or the so-called Pakistani Taliban continues its warfare against Pakistani military and people. Lastly, the US is responsible for most of Pakistan's $60 billion+ direct and indirect losses over 9 years since joining the US war. Whatever 'religious extremism' in Pakistan before 2001, it was negligible to the disastrous impact of the American war on Pakistan. Thanks to US blunders in Afghanistan and inside Pakistani tribal belt, millions of Pakistanis are crippled, dead, maimed, orphaned or homeless.

This is a hell of a list for a country that claims to be an ally of Pakistan.

Minus CIA infrastructure in Afghanistan, there will be no insurgency in Balochistan province and the TTP would be largely wiped off in no time.

An average Pakistani understands this larger picture very well. It is now discussed at tea stalls. In a way, almost the entire Pakistani nation is mobilized against the destr

Keeping all of this in mind, a Pak-US relationship of some sort can and will continue. But nothing you say or do will deter Pakistanis from demanding an exit from America's failed Afghan war, for which the US bears full responsibility. The US is also responsible for any radicalized American or western citizens who are now flocking to the Pakistani tribal belt for training with TTP using routes that pass through American and western airports all the way into US-controlled Afghanistan before reaching their destination on the border. Pakistan is not responsible for security and societal lapses at your end.

 

JOHNBRAGG

11:44 AM ET

April 23, 2011

Quoth Inigo Montoya, you keep saying that word...

"Although Pakistan's protection of the Afghan Taliban has certainly been unacceptable"...we need to accept it.

"On any given day, a bomb in Harrods in London would be very likely to claim a Pakistani elite family among its victims."

Actually, a Pakistani elite family is more likely to have victims of the innumerable jihadist attacks in PAKISTAN. But that hasn't caused the ISI from sponsoring the Taliban and the plethora of other jihad groups.

So why would attacks on the west?

 

SHOBHIT

3:27 PM ET

April 23, 2011

Milking Cows

So the world's biggest military machine is again getting humbled by cheap tricksters...If the reasoning of this article is true, US can as well remove its army from Afghanistan, and donate the similar money to Pakistan to "Outsource" its security from terrorists. Ethically ,It might look like ransom money, but you are anyway paying it. Right?

 

KERLL

9:19 PM ET

April 23, 2011

Hard Power

Hard Power.. Big waste of money. That is what I think.

Check info about humidity and air quality at your home www.home-dehumidifier-reviews.com

 

CODESEO

11:23 PM ET

April 23, 2011

Somehow the Pak Army/ISI is

Somehow the Pak Army/ISI is supposed to make a good faith effort to keep an organization that exists to kill Indians and westerners from killing Indians and westerners. That organization, LeT, (omar correct me if i got this wrong) was in part created by the Pak Army/ISI. What are they going to have them do, open up a line of paintball emporiums to use their skills productively?

free xbox live

 

CRANKTHATSKUNK

5:34 AM ET

April 24, 2011

CODESEO

The dead bodies I referred to in my last comments, belong to the Indian agents who were fighting in the area of Swat.

Yesterday it had been disclosed in the Supreme Court of India, “Sanjiv Bhatt says he attended a meeting at which Mr Modi is alleged to have said that the Hindus should be allowed to vent their anger.”

Over 1000 people were killed due to the targeted riots which resulted after Modi’s comments and approvals. Do you think Hindus should be allowed to vent their anger on innocent Muslims, Christians and Low Caste Indians, to take revenge of last 1000 years?

Do you think, India is a terrorist country, if not why not? When we have evidence of direct involvement of India, in Bangladesh, in Sri Lanka, In Nepal, In Burma, In Afghanistan. Not to mention state sponsored murder of thousands of Kashmiris by the Indian forces over the years.

Why do you think India is not a terrorist’s state?

 

CRANKTHATSKUNK

4:29 AM ET

April 24, 2011

Understanding needed by the West

I request the westerners (I am one too) to understand one important point here. Pakistan has lost more of its innocent citizens because of American invasion of Afghanistan, than all the western countries combined in the war against terror.

Instead of levelling false accusations, you should consider a fact, if any western country has faced constant bomb blasts on their streets, losing thousands of civilians, what would be their response?

Pakistanis are loosing their lives in thousands due to the fail policies of the West, namely Americans.

Those who commit these monstrosities on the street of Pakistan, somebody is training them, financing them and providing them sophisticated and state of the art communication devices and systems. These systems are so advance that even the Pakistani Army can not afford them.

Any guesses who supply them? Who has such advance technologies?

Pakistan has proofs of arms, with the marking showing their origins, terrorists which are caught with these arms, dead bodies of the terrorists which did not belong to Pakistan. But can it be allowed to present those proofs in the UN against the countries which are involved in subversive terrorist’s activities on the soil of Pakistan? Can it be allowed to raise the issue of illegal murder of thousands of its innocent citizens through drone strikes in International Court of Justice? Drone strikes which are illegal under international laws.

How would you feel if you find your innocent wife and children are blown to small pieces by a remote controlled plane, just because they were living peacefully in the area, where their forefathers were living for centuries?

Pakistan should leave this sham war on terror. We all know who brought this war on Muslims by deception and planning.

 

VICTOR_47

5:04 AM ET

April 24, 2011

Good Terrorism vs Bad Terrorism

It amazes me that almost a decade after 9/11 Mr. Lievin is still peddling the Cold-War rhetoric of how the US should focus ONLY on terrorism directed against the West while being agnostic towards terrorism not directed against the West.

In the current context of Pakistan, any terrorism not directed against the West implicitly implies terrorism against India. However,if history is any guide, whenever the West has tolerated terror against India, the same snake has snapped back to bite the West hard.

The IC-814 hijacking, was the first to use knives as the primary weapon in the initial period of the drama. It led to the release of Sheikh Omar, who apart from being a close associate of the 9/11 plotter-in-chief, Khalid Sheikh Md., was also the murder of Daniel Pearl. Of course we all know what weapons were used to hijack the planes on 9/11.

The people (David Headley, Rana) who help plot the Mumbai 26/11 killings were also planning to attack the Danish newspaper involved in the Md. cartoon controversy.

The problem Anatol is that you can not permit good terrorism (i.e. the one not aimed at the West) and then hope the appeasement will be sufficient to prevent bad terrorism (the one directed against the West). The ideology which sustains terrorism, sees the West as much as an enemy, as it sees India. India might be an easier target, but if history is any guide, not the only target; or for that matter the most prestigious target.

There is a need for fresh thinking on the Pakistan issue. Pakistan is a country created to serve Anglo interests; in return the Pakistani establishment has been rewarded with billions in financial aid, fancy weapons while we condoned her pursuit of the nuclear bomb.

However, Pakistan no longer serves the purpose of the West. It is time that the West rethinks the basic premise in the creation of that state. A balkanized Pakistan will serve Western interests better, and be a lot more manageable, than the nuclear armed Jehad factory we pour billions into.

No amount of protection money can guarantee our safety as long as the ideology of terrorism is kept alive.

 

JAMES143

9:44 AM ET

April 24, 2011

Big Power

All are about the Power.
All wars are the big waste of the raw materials and the waste of money.
Be Peace.
Pdf to epub conversion

 

SHIVAJI

10:32 AM ET

April 24, 2011

Compassion

Is it not a shame that there are such divergent views. we are slaves to the one sided brainwashing of our respective masters. On the day of resurrection lets be kind to each other?

 

SUBAIRMI

10:40 PM ET

April 24, 2011

'More importantly, the

'More importantly, the Pakistani government and military know that a successful terrorist attack on the United States by a Pakistan-based group would inevitably lead to a U.S. response that would be extremely damaging to Pakistan. If the attack were carried out by members of one of the groups linked to the Pakistani military, such a response could be on a scale that would lead to the collapse of the Pakistani state'.

Well, the author and his apostles should know well that if the US or any of its satellites 'retaliate' against Pakistan in case some lunatic claiming origin from there unleashes 'terrorist attack' in the west, that will spell the end of their neo-colonialism and global hegemonism for ever. Pakistan is NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC and their all-out retaliation(since they have an assured second strike capability) in turn will probabaly, lead to some reduction of the maps of the western 'empire' as well. Pakistani nuclear weapons are not just effective against India, but the US and its stooges as well. Let them try and see for themselves!

 

WEI LARK

11:11 AM ET

May 21, 2011

Hard Power

Pak-US relationship of some sort can and will continue. But nothing you say or do will deter Pakistanis from demanding an exit from America's failed Afghan war, for which the US bears full responsibility. The US is also responsible for any radicalized American or western citizens who are now flocking to the Pakistani tribal belt for training with TTP using routes that pass through American and western airports all the way into US-controlled Afghanistan before reaching their destination on the border. human resources In the current context of Pakistan, any terrorism not directed against the West implicitly implies terrorism against India. However,if history is any guide, whenever the West has tolerated terror against India, the same snake has snapped back to bite the West hard.