This Week at War: Pakistan Loses the Upper Hand

With bin Laden dead, Islamabad's leverage over Washington may also be gone.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | MAY 6, 2011

Bin Laden's death will change Washington -- and Pakistan won't like it

The day after U.S. special operations forces dramatically raided Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan seemed to invite an investigation into whether elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in sheltering bin Laden. During a briefing, Brennan asserted, "I think it's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time. I am not going to speculate about what type of support he might have had on an official basis inside of Pakistan ... I think people are raising a number of questions, and understandably so."

But a day later, the administration seemed more eager to limit the damage the raid might cause to its relationship with Islamabad. The Pentagon and the Pakistani military issued a joint statement reaffirming their cooperation against terrorism. And according to the Wall Street Journal, senior administration officials urged restraint in blaming Pakistan's leaders for the embarrassing presence of bin Laden and his family within a few hundred meters of Pakistan's army academy and in the same neighborhood as many retired army officers.

From this perspective, the bin Laden raid is now a matter for historians to ponder: serious policymakers on both sides should focus on the future and on those practical interests shared by the United States and Pakistan. From this point of view, the raid didn't change the interests each side seeks or the leverage each side can deploy against the other and the United States still needs Pakistan's cooperation against terror networks that threaten the West. The U.S. also needs Pakistani support to move supply convoys through Pakistan to its forward operating bases in Afghanistan. For its part, Islamabad still seeks to maintain its connections to the West, to retain its diplomatic options, and to receive financial assistance from Washington and elsewhere. The death of bin Laden hasn't changed any of these facts.

This view may be correct for now but it is not likely to hold. First, with the bin Laden raid such a spectacular success, Obama will likely come under increasing pressure to repeat its success. Previous U.S. direct action incursions into Pakistan were met with harsh reactions from Islamabad, including the temporary shutdown of the supply pipeline through the Khyber Pass. But with the raid's success and the now nearly universal assumption that the Pakistani government is not a trustworthy partner, there will be growing political pressure inside the United States for Obama to treat Pakistan as an "open range" for military operations against terrorist targets.

Second, political pressure will mount on Obama to wind down the war in Afghanistan, something that the president seems willing to accommodate. Bin Laden's death will deliver finality to many in the U.S. electorate. The sense of an end to the 9/11 story will clash with calls to continue the costly counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan's villages. Should Obama accede to an accelerated departure from Afghanistan, it would be another demonstration that the "post-Gates" era has arrived, a point my FP colleague Peter Feaver mentioned this week.

The more forces the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, the more leverage it gains over Pakistan; fewer forces in Afghanistan mean less reliance on the supply line through Pakistan. The bin Laden raid set a precedent for U.S. ground operations inside Pakistan, which Obama will now come under increasing pressure to repeat. It is true that the bin Laden raid didn't change for now the fundamental interests and leverage in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. But the raid did set in motion political forces inside the United States that won't please Pakistan.

Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

FREDDYRICHMOND92285

6:32 PM ET

May 6, 2011

One More Enemy To Count

At the end of the day, the USA has severely peeved off Pakistan by carrying out a military operation on their own soil without permission. Imagine if the UK sent in the SAS to retrieve personnel on US soil without permission. So really I don't think that America is concerned in the slightest about needing Pakistan's help. And the Taliban? Negotiate? Er...yeah - ok!
- Baby Gifts

 

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

9:39 PM ET

May 7, 2011

Not a Good Idea

The more we carry out unilateral operations in Pakistan, the more we will strengthen the anti-American forces likely to cooperate with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Cutting troops in Afghanistan may, at some threashold, weaken Pakistan's leverage through ability to disrupt our supply line, but I don't see how it strengthens our hand in Pakistan very much. The essential social forces will remain the same.

 

MARTY MARTEL

5:14 AM ET

May 8, 2011

Hillary Clinton's U. S. still buys Pakistani malarkey

Contrary to what Robert Haddick fantasizes, Hillary Clinton’s U. S. still buys Pakistan’s malarkey even after Osama‘s death. Witness how Hillary is defending U. S. alliance with Pakistan in public forums.

Pakistani government 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.

Furthermore Pakistan has spread a biggest malarkey with U. S. connivance that ’nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists if Pakistani government collapses’.

How can Pakistan be in danger of falling to the Islamic fundamentalists if Pakistani Army and ISI are SPONSORING those very Islamic fundamentalists led by Osama bin Laden, Haqqani, Mullah Omar and Hafiz Saeed as reported by ambassador Patterson?

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘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.

US just keeps deliberately ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

Let us see if U. S. once again allows Pakistan to get away with a whitewash and a wink and a nod with few more billions in aid to boot after finding out that Osama bin Laden was sheltered so close to the heart of Pakistani government.

 

ZUFADHLI

7:55 AM ET

May 8, 2011

A very unsuspected turn over

After the death of Osama bin Laden, all the camera and lenses are focusing on the effects of the raid at Pakistan.

Everyone thinks that after his deaths, the world will be overjoyed and prosper. But right now, it's not happening at Pakistan...

Now, Pakistani seems to hate US much more because of the incident... This is not suspected by all the people around the world... What did US make mistake this time?

 

REM686

2:56 AM ET

June 4, 2011

The Upper Hand

How can Pakistan be in danger of falling to the Islamic fundamentalists if Pakistani Army and ISI are SPONSORING those very Islamic fundamentalists led by Osama bin Laden, Haqqani, Mullah Omar and Hafiz Saeed as reported by ambassador Patterson? online schools US just keeps deliberately ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

 

ADALINE PORTWOOD

3:07 AM ET

June 4, 2011

This Week at War

Cutting troops in Afghanistan may, at some threashold, weaken Pakistan's leverage through ability to disrupt our supply line, but I don't see how it strengthens our hand in Pakistan very much. The essential social forces will remain the same. hair removal Pakistani government 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.