Washington is angry at Pakistan’s failure to halt attacks against US forces in Afghanistan by the Haqqani network which is operating from its safe havens in North Waziristan. Americans see the Haqqanis as ISI proxy in the terror theatre. On its part, Pakistan is upset by the civilian deaths in drone attacks and so is demanding a halt to them. Imam’s brief is therefore clear and unambiguous. He will tell his interlocutors that Islamabad will take action against terrorist networks and to "deploy F-16s" in the tribal areas, provided there is greater intelligence sharing.
Highlighting this flip-side of US-Pak relations in the run up to the Imam – Petraeus meeting, the New York Times (July 30) said: “Inside the [Obama] Administration it is a commonly held view that the United States is ‘one major [Haqqani] attack’ away from unilateral action against Pakistan—diplomatically or perhaps even militarily, one senior official said.”
The new envoy to Pakistan, Richard G. Olson, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in confirmation hearings on Tuesday July 31 that he “will certainly, if confirmed, take it as a central responsibility and the most urgent of my responsibilities to continue to press the Pakistani authorities on the Haqqani network in every way possible.”
There is no doubt that the drone warfare is not popular with the people and these attacks have made the US emerge as enemy number one of Pakistan ahead of traditional enemy India. Obama’s America has carried out 262 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009 till date. In contrast there were only 45 drone hits under President Bush during 2004-2008.
The Obama Administration steadily increased the number of drone attacks since May. In the last week-and-a-half alone there were three strikes that killed 21 “suspected militants”.
The US is unlikely to halt the drone attacks since these unmanned aircraft have proved to be effective. There is also the trust deficit owing to the games of deception played by Pakistan. So, it may not accept the alternative plans like Islamabad itself undertaking the attacks with F-16s. There is a view that Pakistan’s army leadership may not pursue the alternative proposals with the US. The missile shower the Americans are regularly carrying out in the tribal areas provides a good setting for forcing the militants to do Rawalpindi’s bidding.
There is no gain in saying the fact that the likes of Taliban and the Haqqani net work are as much a creation of Pakistan as of the United States. Commonality of interest helped the cause when the Soviet Red Army was in Kabul. The war on terrorism is in reality a war of the Americans but it has become a money spinner for Pakistan.
The role reversal in so far the US is concerned is not material to Pakistan which has an agenda in Afghanistan. The Haqqanis and the Afghan Taliban are the instruments helping Islamabad achieve its goals. For Pakistan, the Haqqanis are therefore a strategic asset. And trough them Islamabad hopes to exert influence in Kabul after 2014 when the US and NATO forces are expected to leave Afghanistan.
The New York Times says the present levels of “turmoil” in the Pakistani Army have not been seen since its humiliating defeat in the 1971 war with India. The war resulted in the division of the country and the Commission of Inquiry which severely indicted the army brass of the day has not seen the light of the day still. Activist judiciary is calling for accountability of the secret services which are manned by the army. It is also hauling up the Army and its various wings for their role in Balochistan. Recent days have seen the political cell of ISI itself coming under judicial scrutiny though officially army and ISI as also the government deny the existence of such a cell.
