Raging at Rawalpindi

American leaders are furious with Pakistan’s military in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s killing. But twisting arms will only backfire.

BY SHUJA NAWAZ | MAY 13, 2011

The United States has long complained that Pakistan's military and intelligence services are playing a double game when it comes to terrorism and extremism: publicly promising cooperation-and indeed delivering some-while privately supporting America's enemies. They point to Pakistan's apparent reluctance to take on groups like the Haqqaani network, a Taliban affiliate that launches attacks on American soldiers in Afghanistan, and the Quetta Shura, Taliban leaders based in Baluchistan. In the eyes of the United States, the Pakistan army has not been the most dependable international ally, a sentiment that is reciprocated by the Pakistanis. And now, many American officials are hoping that the raid that killed Osama bin Laden will give them the leverage to force the Pakistani security establishment to choose sides once and for all.

If only it were that simple.

Killing bin Laden has indeed succeeded at putting pressure on the Pakistani army, but not to the effect that Washington may have wished. The truth is that Pakistanis are angrier about the United States' ability to launch a special-operations raid right under their noses than they are that bin Laden was found on their soil-and the military is bearing the brunt of the criticism inside Pakistan. Text-message jokes about the army are making the rounds, parliament is angrily voicing embarrassing questions about the military's lack of preparedness, and the chattering classes are tossing ceaseless insults. But it's the United States that now has the most to lose. The Pakistani military is destined to remain an important institution in Pakistan's otherwise dysfunctional polity, and Washington has more to gain by reforming it cooperatively than by casting it aside.

Pakistan's history and geography has always dictated the need for a large military. It is surrounded by multiple major powers and conflict zones: Afghanistan to the west, rising India to the east, and China to the north, making Pakistan a key locus of super power interests and rivalries. It is necessarily wary about its own security. And the army has always seen itself as the national institution par excellence, an organization explicitly of the people and for the people. Indeed, recruitment patterns show that the army is increasingly representative of the country as a whole: in an otherwise fractured country, that is reason enough to justify its outsized presence on the national stage.

For the most part, the Pakistani military has earned its reputation as an effective military force. But it also overreached in trying to take over civil administration under general-cum-president Pervez Musharraf. And it has been poor at political engineering. The army under Musharraf had penetrated the ranks of the civilian bureaucracy, taking over education and training institutions and essentially running certain ministries. After assuming command as army chief, Kayani ordered all army officers serving in government to either resign from the military or to return to it full time.

Ishara S. KODIKARA/AFP/Getty Images

 

Shuja Nawaz is director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington. He is also the author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within.

ZUFADHLI

4:26 AM ET

May 14, 2011

A game that nobody knows who win...

I actually shocked when the news spread that Bin Laden have successfully terminated by US commando... There are many things that seems to be confusing and misled. How that a man who is so hard to kill can be enjoying his retirement in a mansion that is located near the Pakistan military academy? Is it's really him that US have killed or a decoy? Why? because it seems too easy... That is why.. The commando kill him when he is not holding any weapon? That is curious... In a games for example, a small boss is an easy kill. But a boos is really hard to kill.. Is that really him? Although when Al-Qaeda admits that the man that killed is really Bin Laden, it is still many questions to be answered... Is he really died? Nobody can answer that because nobody knows anything from a man who didn't use Internet or Cell Phone... Is it really the end?

 

ALICE858

4:27 AM ET

May 14, 2011

Gianmarco Lorenzi Shoes

Chris, A great way to find and follow your path! I have always found that people who find their passion are happiest in their life/career choices. Thanks for this.
Gianmarco Lorenzi Shoes

 

MARTY MARTEL

5:25 AM ET

May 14, 2011

With a friend like Pakistan, U. S. does NOT need an enemy

Here we go again, to use that Reagan catch phrase.

Now that Osama bin Laden has been found to be being sheltered so close to the heart of Pakistani government (Pakistani Army and ISI are part of government), foreign policy establishment in U. S. is in the full swing to once again rescue Pakistan from getting a black eye over it.

It does NOT matter to these Pakistani apologists that Islamabad has been caught with their pants down umpteen times.

Pakistan has been able to get away with all the crimes against U. S. and still come out smelling roses because
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.

Coming back to possible Army-ISI-Osama connections, current Army chief Kayani was in charge of ISI when Osama’s abode was built in Abottabad and so Kayani is as much guilty as current ISI chief Pasha. That is why Kayani was present when Pasha recently testified at parliamentary hearing after Osama’s death. Army is as much in cahoot with ISI to shelter Osama so close to Pakistani Army base.

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.

No matter how Hillary Clinton spins it, ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

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.

With a friend like Pakistan, U. S. does NOT need an enemy.

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.

 

ADAM CLAYTON

10:10 PM ET

May 15, 2011

marty pakistan suffer the

marty pakistan suffer the most 35000 losses theior lives ,60 billion loss in trade and american aid is 20 billion what they shouting in town ,same we can say too with a friend like us pakistan does not need a enemy .

 

SHAH RUKH KAHN

11:30 AM ET

May 14, 2011

Stop aplogizing for Pakistan

It is very important that Pakistani apologist policy makers in America continue to pull over the world's eyes on the nature of the terrorist army of Pakistan. Al-Qaieda, Tabliban (the good or the bad) are creations of the Pakistani Army. PA is the face of global jehad. Dismember it, and much of what SN scares us about will simply dissolve. NS's suggestions for continued feeding this terrorist PA beast has been tried before. It has failed everytime. When will Americans learn? As for Afghanis, they do not recognize the Durand line and are looking forward to the day Americans. They will then be free to wage jehad against the PA to regain land under illegal occupation of Pakistan. Pakistan's evil game to control Afghanistan will fail.

 

ADAM CLAYTON

9:39 PM ET

May 15, 2011

Shah rukh kahn go dance in

Shah rukh kahn go dance in the movie ,wrote what u know otahrwise keep ur mouth shut

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:11 PM ET

May 14, 2011

U. S. has allies other than Pakistan in the region

As far as U. S. Afghan war is concerned, U. S. has allies other than Pakistan to depend on in South Asia, contrary to what Shuja Nawaz observes.

Russia does NOT want U. S. to fail and has facilitated the transit routes for materials transport to Afghanistan. So has Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. And then there is India. Even Iran will be more than willing to help U. S. succeed in Afghanistan if U. S. stretches its hand. Afghanistan itself will be more than willing to sign a permanent security arrangement with U. S., similar to the one U. S. has with South Korea and Japan.

Except for China and duplicitous Pakistan, U. S. has quite a few possible allies in the region, Mr. Nawaz.

 

ADAM CLAYTON

9:35 PM ET

May 15, 2011

Marty its just hypothesis

Marty its just hypothesis what u thinking india is no way around help u in afghanistan,u think current iranian regime gonna help u the sinking ship the name us,all the central asiain states r more under influnce of china and russia the u guys so bottom line is what shuja wrote u need pakistan i know its painful to u guys hey its reality 80% suppy pass through pakistan and most important Qatary oil u know oil is important thing to run military mechine from where u gonna get anothar route see turkey then caspian sea then turkmanistan then northen afgnaistan to all the way south imagine long raod with no money in kerrys pocket he is broke my two cents things will better again and this time america has to give in they have no choice ,cheers

 

COUNTRY BUMPKIN

4:30 PM ET

May 14, 2011

Didn't realize this guy gets his talking points from the ISI

Isn't this a case of the mouse threatening the elephant? OK, not quite, but close enough.

Pakistan depends on the US not just for the $3Billion in unaccounted for aid every year. It also depends on the US's goodwill to get low-interest loans from the IMF, the World Bank and other such agencies. Without such help, its economy would have completely collapsed a long time ago.

It also depends on the US for a lot of its weapons systems, and spare parts for those systems. Without them, Pakistan's security situation becomes pretty vulnerable.

And very importantly, Its ability to do business internationally depends on a large part on US not declaring it a terrorist state. Perhaps, it should take a look at North Korea.

 

ADAM CLAYTON

9:36 PM ET

May 15, 2011

Excellent article by shuja

Excellent article by shuja shahib let the yank to suffer this time .

 

FP READER

9:13 AM ET

May 16, 2011

"Pakistan's history and

"Pakistan's history and geography has always dictated the need for a large military. It is surrounded by multiple major powers and conflict zones: Afghanistan to the west, rising India to the east, and China to the north, making Pakistan a key locus of super power interests and rivalries."

Mr. Nawaz may be a good lobbyist, but this argument is weak, and disingenuous. But this type of dissembling is consistent with what we are seeing is standard (and socially acceptable) doubletalk from his countrymen.

China is an ally. Pakistan doesn't need to protect tiself from China. It was China that gave it nuclear weapon blueprint after all.

As for India, I doubt it has any interest in attacking a nation of 180 million muslims, as it would only radicalize their increasingly Wahabized society further. It certainly doesn't want to absorb 180 million muslims into its country; who would ??.
India would be more interested in doing business as it has profited from globalziation and trade over the last 20 years and understands the benefits in lifting up its enormous number of poor out of poverty.

With regards to Afghanistan, the vast majority of Afghans would like to have the ISI stop treating their country as an ISI fiefdom. Certainly, they are no military threat to the much larger Pakistan.

 

KASEMAN

9:40 AM ET

May 16, 2011

Facts

1.As mentioned India has no desire to attack P'stan. Not relevant since its all about the trauma of partition in 47 (=partition of Palestine in 47l) and the occupation of Kashmir with 800,000 troops and rough treatment of the Muslim Kashmiris. Again the Palestine-Israel parallel. So no solution

is oit

 

CHOPPY1

3:34 PM ET

May 16, 2011

The U.S. Should Be as Crazy as Pakistan

I agree with people who say that Shuja Nawaz's reasoned approach is in effect letting Pakistan off the hook. If the military is a respected institution in Pakistan, it's because the military and political leaders have crowded out the other institutions. Pakistan spends a quarter of its budget on the military, 0.8% on education. When Pakistan's democratically elected governments become disfunctional, the solution hasn't been to strengthen civic and political institutions but to have the military take over. It's the military that insists on facing down India and supporting "good" terrorists. Pakistan has suffered thousands of deaths from those terrorists, but the military still refuses to go after them. No, the military and the public become angry at the U.S. for stirring them up. A country this disfunctional cannot be trusted to respond properly to reasoned engagement--at least, it hasn't in the past. The solution is to act as crazy toward Pakistan as Pakistan itself acts. Pakistan is convinced that the U.S. can't do without it and therefore Pakistan doesn't need to change its behavior. So the U.S. should do something crazy--like cut off all aid, chase the Taliban across the border into Pakistan, deepen ties with India etc. If Pakistan wants to become a U.S. enemy, fine. At least we'll know where we stand.

 

ONA GILLING

2:24 AM ET

June 11, 2011

Raging at Rawalpindi

American leaders are furious with Pakistans military in the wake of Osama bin Ladens killing. But twisting arms will only backfire. Isn't this a case of the mouse threatening the elephant? OK, not quite, but close enough. Pakistan depends on the US not just for the $3Billion in unaccounted for aid every year. It also depends on the US's goodwill to get low-interest loans from the IMF, the World Bank and other such agencies. Without such help, its economy would have completely collapsed a long time ago. It also depends on the U medical negligence claims It is very important that Pakistani apologist policy makers in America continue to pull over the world's eyes on the nature of the terrorist army of Pakistan. Al-Qaieda, Tabliban (the good or the bad) are creations of the Pakistani Army. PA is the face of global jehad. Dismember it, and much of what SN scares us about will simply dissolve. NS's suggestions for continued feeding this terrorist PA b.

 

MATT PETELICKY

4:38 PM ET

June 12, 2011

Pakistan has been able to get

Pakistan has been able to get away with all the crimes against U. S. and still come out smelling roses becausePakistani government has U. S. by the throat. US stavkove kancelarie 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.Coming back to possible Army-ISI-Osama connections, current Army chief Kayani was in charge of ISI when Osama’s abode was built in Abottabad and so Kayani is as much guilty as current ISI chief Pasha. That is why Kayani was present when Pasha recently testified at parliamentary hearing after Osama’s death. Army is as much in cahoot with ISI to shelter Osama so close to Pakistani Army base.