Rhetoric, interests strain Pakistan-US alliance
Reuters.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
======================================================
* Washington’s growing impatience with Pakistan’s perceived foot-dragging against Taliban hiding in its borderlands putting heavy strain on an alliance critical to winning Afghan war
* Robert Gibbs says status quo not acceptable
* Congressional aide says Pentagon, chain of command under pressure to show progress
* Robert Gibbs says status quo not acceptable
* Congressional aide says Pentagon, chain of command under pressure to show progress
ISLAMABAD: Washington’s growing impatience with Pakistan’s perceived foot-dragging against Taliban hiding in its borderlands is putting heavy strain on an alliance critical to winning the war in Afghanistan.
Since September, Pakistan has seen a surge in drone attacks as well as a cascade of leaks, criticisms and border incursions on the part of NATO forces in Afghanistan, one of which killed three Pakistani troops. Citing security reasons, it closed vital coalition supply routes to Afghanistan and wrung an apology from US Ambassador Anne Patterson for the three deaths.
Washington is concerned that some elements of the Inter-Services Intelligence had interactions with the insurgents that “may be seen as supporting terrorist groups rather than going after them”, said Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan on Thursday.
The White House also sent an assessment of the Afghanistan war to US Congress this week that said Pakistani forces had avoided direct conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban this spring, in part for political reasons.
Status quo: White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Thursday that the status quo was not acceptable, which had been underscored in the report to Congress. The crux of the issue is that Pakistan and the US do not have the same interests in the region.
According to Stratfor, a private intelligence firm, Pakistan wants to regain influence in post-invasion Afghanistan by using Afghan Taliban taking shelter in Pakistan. The US needs to eliminate them and their sanctuaries so it could withdraw from Afghanistan.
“It’s clear the Pakistanis are frustrated with the US,” said Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Centre for a New American Security and former adviser on General Stanley McChrystal’s assessment team in Afghanistan. “What I don’t think the Pakistanis understand is how frustrated the Americans and the American public are with the Pakistanis.”
The recent assessment was especially damaging, because it could fuel concerns in Congress over continued aid to Pakistan, currently set at $7.5 billion in civilian and development aid over the next five years.
“There could be a little bit of poker playing of (the) US military basically saying, ‘We’ll take the risk of humiliating the Pakistani military, let’s see if that prompts them to take some action on their own’,” a congressional aide said.
“You know, they don’t like us doing drone attacks and sending helicopters over. ‘OK, step up and do it yourself’.”
Progress: The reason for the stepped up pressure could be a strategy review on Afghanistan due in December. “The Pentagon and the chain of command are under real pressure to show progress in Afghanistan,” the aide said.
The aide said US generals believed they were unlikely to make enough progress by July 2011 – when US President Barack Obama has said he will start to withdraw forces – as long as the Hamid Karzai government lacks credibility and militants find sanctuary in Pakistan.
“They can’t really do anything to make the Karzai government more credible. So they are trying to go after the sanctuary issue and I think they realise, and I think (General David) Petraeus realises, that the status quo has very little chance of success for them (in the timeframe they’ve been given),” said the aide.
How might these diplomatic spats affect the Afghan war effort?
Although army chief General Ashfaq Kayani is believed to have good ties with the US, other senior officers may grow tired of US doubts over Islamabad’s commitment to fighting militancy.
Hardliners in the army could argue Pakistan had lost thousands of soldiers supporting the war on militancy and is getting little in return except pressure to do more.
“At some stage, they could prevail or would at least be able to influence policy. You can’t totally disregard them,” said Imtiaz Gul, author of ‘The Most Dangerous Place’, a book about Pakistan’s Tribal Areas.
Still, neither side can afford to walk away from the other. Pakistan receives $2 billion a year in military aid and the US needs it to keep the Afghan supply lines open and fight its own militants who are supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan.
Strategic dialogue: Overcoming these disagreements is crucial if the next round of strategic dialogue — scheduled for October 22 in Washington — is going to be successful, said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Centre at the Atlantic Council. “I think it’s going to be critical in the next few weeks that they don’t have any flare-ups, neither do they have any lingering doubts about each other’s intentions,” he said. (daily times)
Since September, Pakistan has seen a surge in drone attacks as well as a cascade of leaks, criticisms and border incursions on the part of NATO forces in Afghanistan, one of which killed three Pakistani troops. Citing security reasons, it closed vital coalition supply routes to Afghanistan and wrung an apology from US Ambassador Anne Patterson for the three deaths.
Washington is concerned that some elements of the Inter-Services Intelligence had interactions with the insurgents that “may be seen as supporting terrorist groups rather than going after them”, said Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan on Thursday.
The White House also sent an assessment of the Afghanistan war to US Congress this week that said Pakistani forces had avoided direct conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban this spring, in part for political reasons.
Status quo: White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Thursday that the status quo was not acceptable, which had been underscored in the report to Congress. The crux of the issue is that Pakistan and the US do not have the same interests in the region.
According to Stratfor, a private intelligence firm, Pakistan wants to regain influence in post-invasion Afghanistan by using Afghan Taliban taking shelter in Pakistan. The US needs to eliminate them and their sanctuaries so it could withdraw from Afghanistan.
“It’s clear the Pakistanis are frustrated with the US,” said Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Centre for a New American Security and former adviser on General Stanley McChrystal’s assessment team in Afghanistan. “What I don’t think the Pakistanis understand is how frustrated the Americans and the American public are with the Pakistanis.”
The recent assessment was especially damaging, because it could fuel concerns in Congress over continued aid to Pakistan, currently set at $7.5 billion in civilian and development aid over the next five years.
“There could be a little bit of poker playing of (the) US military basically saying, ‘We’ll take the risk of humiliating the Pakistani military, let’s see if that prompts them to take some action on their own’,” a congressional aide said.
“You know, they don’t like us doing drone attacks and sending helicopters over. ‘OK, step up and do it yourself’.”
Progress: The reason for the stepped up pressure could be a strategy review on Afghanistan due in December. “The Pentagon and the chain of command are under real pressure to show progress in Afghanistan,” the aide said.
The aide said US generals believed they were unlikely to make enough progress by July 2011 – when US President Barack Obama has said he will start to withdraw forces – as long as the Hamid Karzai government lacks credibility and militants find sanctuary in Pakistan.
“They can’t really do anything to make the Karzai government more credible. So they are trying to go after the sanctuary issue and I think they realise, and I think (General David) Petraeus realises, that the status quo has very little chance of success for them (in the timeframe they’ve been given),” said the aide.
How might these diplomatic spats affect the Afghan war effort?
Although army chief General Ashfaq Kayani is believed to have good ties with the US, other senior officers may grow tired of US doubts over Islamabad’s commitment to fighting militancy.
Hardliners in the army could argue Pakistan had lost thousands of soldiers supporting the war on militancy and is getting little in return except pressure to do more.
“At some stage, they could prevail or would at least be able to influence policy. You can’t totally disregard them,” said Imtiaz Gul, author of ‘The Most Dangerous Place’, a book about Pakistan’s Tribal Areas.
Still, neither side can afford to walk away from the other. Pakistan receives $2 billion a year in military aid and the US needs it to keep the Afghan supply lines open and fight its own militants who are supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan.
Strategic dialogue: Overcoming these disagreements is crucial if the next round of strategic dialogue — scheduled for October 22 in Washington — is going to be successful, said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Centre at the Atlantic Council. “I think it’s going to be critical in the next few weeks that they don’t have any flare-ups, neither do they have any lingering doubts about each other’s intentions,” he said. (daily times)
No comments:
Post a Comment