Wazoo and has consistently asserted in recent months that the long-term goal is to eliminate all terrorist and myrmidon sanctuaries on Pak soil. As ever, the truth lies somewhere in between American petulance and Pak prickliness.First, the basic facts. The report in question, Progress Towards Security and Stability in Afghanistan, is a biannual one compiled by the Pentagon after consultation with other senior US officials, including the secretary of state, director of National Intelligence and the administrator for USAID. The last report, published in April 2014, had much the same language on Pakistain, but did not have a reference to "proxy forces", ie non-state actors/militants, or "India's military superiority". Clearly, whoever inserted the newer language meant to send a stronger message. At the same time, the last report, in March, before the launch of Operation Zarb-e-Azb
..the Pak offensive against Qaeda in Pakistain and the Pak Taliban in North Wazoo. The name refers to the sword of the Prophet (PTUI!)...
, contained the following comment, "Pakistain did not take significant action against Afghan or India-focused myrmidon groups". So while the language has somewhat hardened in the current report, the overall sentiment is the same: Islamabad is not doing enough to promote regional stability. That is, the threat of militancy and terrorism emanating from here towards Afghanistan and India is not diminishing, even as the country is progressively taking on turbans and Death Eaters focused on attacking Pak state and society.
Even if true, and arguably the Pentagon's characterisation has some truth to it, it is only part of the story. A more balanced view would have taken into consideration Islamabad's legitimate security concerns, not least the issue of reverse sanctuaries, ie Pakistain-centric Death Eaters finding refuge in Afghanistan and launching attacks inside Pakistain from across the border. In addition, the issue of Afghan forces firing into Pakistain has become one of the main concerns in the military-to-military relationship in recent months. The "irritants" in the Afghan-Pakistain bilateral relations are bidirectional, rather than the unidirectional as the Pentagon report has suggested. On the Pakistain-India relationship too it is worth asking why a US report on the situation in Afghanistan has throwaway comments on "India's military superiority" and proxies that are "India-focused". In 13 years of seeking, needing and enjoying Pakistain's cooperation on certain issues in Afghanistan, the US foreign policy establishment still does not appear to have much a clue of when it comes to broaching difficult subjects with Islamabad.