POREG VIEW:Elisabeth Bhumiller’s despatch from Washington in the New York Times, which was widely reproduced, cites two new classified intelligence reports that trot out the same old story –‘There is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border’.
The NYTILEAK, much like the ‘declassified’ Cables from WIKILEAKs makes the usual point that although there have been gains for the United States and NATO in the Afghan war, the unwillingness of Pakistan to shut down militant sanctuaries in its lawless tribal region remains a serious obstacle.
“American military commanders say insurgents freely cross from Pakistan into Afghanistan to plant bombs and fight American troops and then return to Pakistan for rest and resupply”, the latest ‘leaked’ finding says. Its significance is that it represents the consensus view of the United States’ 16 intelligence agencies and is called the National Intelligence Estimates.
Over the years, American officials and military commanders have perfected the art of praising Pakistan and its military chief in public, while conveying concern to Islamabad in private but never reading the riot act. This is molly coddling Pakistan without seeking a return on about $2 billion in military and civilian aid each year.
So much so, the new assessment that has come out on the eve of President Obama’s review of American strategy in Afghanistan brings up the old question: what is wrong with Washington that makes Pakistan to continue to think that ‘bad behaviour brings cash’, to quote former Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh.
The News International, a leading Pak daily, which has a love- hate relationship with the GHQ in Rawalpindi, answered the question on Dec 16 while editorially commenting on the NYTILEAK. “What the US persistently fails to recognise is that for us (Pakistan), today’s naughtiness is tomorrow’s insurance policy. As we have pointed out before, our long-term housekeeping needs are for us to determine, and should not be shaped by American short-term imperatives”, the edit said.
In a manner of speaking the News editorial echoes the thinking of the Pakistani army establishment. And exposed the limits on the ‘strategic impatience’ voiced by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the end of his 21st trip to Rawalpindi for talks with Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.
Like many other American military and intelligence officials and diplomats, Admiral Mullen has no doubt that North Waziristan is the “epicentre” of terrorism. He is also clear about the inevitability of military action in the restive tribal agency. But shying of making a categorical denial ruling out direct military action inside Pakistan, Mullen says “It isn’t a decision for me to make”.
Well, Admiral Mullen is right. It is a decision for Gen Kayani to take. But why should he take a decision to launch military action against militants who are the strategic and diplomatic assets of the state. Also, why should he go to war in his own country to please the Americans when he knows that he has the means to bring an occasional smile to his American interlocutors.
Mullen knows and the entire US establishment knows what Kayani does with the American aid. Reason enough for Kayani, much like his predecessors, to sport a broad smile when India says it wants ‘final solution’ to Pakistan diverting US military aid against it.
