You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
Real cause of US anger
2012-06-12
[Dawn] SAFE havens are back. For a while it seemed as if the Pakistain-US relationship was being defined by decidedly small-bore issues: apologies, transit fees and the release of monies. However,
some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them...
as the relationship between the nominal allies has gone from awkward to virtually dysfunctional, US officials have turned once again to that perennial thorn in the American side -- safe havens along Pakistain's border with Afghanistan which allow the Afghan Taliban to regroup, avoid American fire and plan attacks inside Afghanistan. The North Wazoo Agency in particular is the source of much anger on the American side, there seemingly being a consensus that the Haqqani network is behind some of the most damaging attacks in Afghanistan. There appears, then, more than meets the eye in the latest stand-off between Pakistain and the US: are the interminable negotiations over the normalisation of ties really about the mechanics of an apology, transit fees and the like or is there a behind-the-scenes showdown over to what extent Pakistain should turn on the Afghan Taliban/ Haqqani network even as the international war effort in Afghanistan heads to a close?

Two points need to be made. One, American frustration with Pakistain on the issue of safe havens is more likely to be counterproductive than not. The more US officials go public with their anger and concerns, the more the security establishment here may have to dig in its heels. With anti-Americanism in the public and the army rank and file at a historic high, military action inside Pakistain at the behest of the US will be difficult to sell. The outgoing US ambassador to Pakistain Cameron Munter had the right approach: don't expect miracles; keep expectations and demands firmly in check; and work with Pakistain to find the spaces in which incremental progress can be made. Unfortunately, the Pakistain hawks in American policy circles appear to be winning the argument at the moment -- though they too are unlikely to win the argument with Pakistain through their approach.

Two, Pakistain needs to take a hard look at North Waziristan Agency for its own sake. Left to their own devices -- some in return for not attacking Pakistain proper; others because the state doesn't have the capacity or will to take them on -- the dozens of beturbanned goon groups and offshoots gathered in North Waziristan are a long-term threat to Pakistain. A policy of zero tolerance towards militancy -- something yet to become evident -- is the only way to Pakistain's long-term stabilisation and security. Moreover, tackling the North Waziristan threat would diminish the Americans' case for the much-maligned drone strikes.
Posted by:Fred

#8  There is a difference between trying to win and trying not to lose. The latter is generally a political maneuver where one disengages, while hopefully, or lately, supposedly leaving the political entity one had been supporting in a position to take care of itself.

It almost worked in Vietnam. It's a toss-up leaning toward failure in Iraq. It looks akin to failure in Afghanistan.

Another thing about trying not to lose: the fallout is generally years down the road; the culprits are politically safe by then.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-06-12 22:09  

#7  What makes you think Bambi's administration is trying not to lose, Pappy?
Posted by: Barbara   2012-06-12 18:18  

#6  The outgoing US ambassador to Pakistain Cameron Munter had the right approach: don't expect miracles; keep expectations and demands firmly in check; and work with Pakistain to find the spaces in which incremental progress can be made

Such an approach is great for the striped-pants set or the Commerce Department.

Not such a good thing when one is trying to not lose a war.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-06-12 12:06  

#5  The monies were for ensuring their Nukes don't end up in the wrong hands and allowing US to monitor them.
Posted by: newc   2012-06-12 10:36  

#4  Supporting politicians and buying guns and ammunition.
Posted by: Fred   2012-06-12 09:24  

#3  Seriously, we withheld some small % of funds, but what is the rest of the money we send to them used for?
Posted by: Vespasian Prince of the Geats3632   2012-06-12 05:31  

#2  The Pak military wants an anti Nato/US/Indian Western border for their own security/paranoia hence supporting the Taliban and Haqqani clan.
Posted by: Fester Clunter7205   2012-06-12 03:16  

#1  Reading their comments with rating (+-) is interesting. Seems like a lot of Dawn reading folks get it. Likely the ISI doesn't care and should be lumped in with Hak...
Posted by: Water Modem   2012-06-12 03:03  

00:01