Time Is Short as U.S. Presses a Reluctant Pakistan

[jeypore]

WASHINGTON: While US President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy calls for a virtual remaking of state institutions, and even of the national psyche, Pakistan’s politicians and the people appear unprepared for it, the New York Times wrote on Monday.

While officially Islamabad has welcomed Obama’s new strategy, calling it a “positive change”, the paper pointed out that large parts of the public, the political class and the military have brushed off the idea that the threat from Al Qaeda and the Taliban is so urgent.
A shift in the focus in Pakistan from the Indian threat to a fast-expanding insurgency is the challenge facing Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to the region, who have arrived in Islamabad for a fresh round of talks.

Strengthening weak civilian institutions, updating political parties and recasting a military stuck in the traditions of conventional warfare, are generational challenges. But some analysts in Washington are already putting forward apocalyptic timetables for the country. A report by a task force of the Atlantic Council that is led by former senator Chuck Hagel and Senator John Kerry – released in February – gave the Pakistani government 6 to 12 months before things went from bad to dangerous.

David Kilcullen, a specialist in guerrilla warfare who advised Gen David Petraeus in Iraq, offered a more dire assessment. Pakistan could be facing internal collapse within six months, he said.

But it is not clear whether supporting President Zardari, and $1.5 billion in aid for each of the next five years, can change the mood, said former interior minister Aftab Ahmad Sherpao. Fighting the insurgency is commonly seen in Pakistan as an American cause, not a Pakistani one, he said.

It is unclear also whether nearly $3 billion counterinsurgency aid promised by the US can quickly convert the Pakistani military from a force trained to fight India on the plains of Punjab into an outfit that can conquer the mountains of the Tribal Areas.

Former ISI director general Lt Gen Javed Ashraf says the American distrust of Pakistan’s military did not augur well. “You can’t start a successful operation with a trust deficit,” General Ashraf said. “Pakistan is an ally. But then you say we are linked with the Taliban. The serving army people will say, ‘To hell with them if this is what we are going to get after laying down more than 1,500 lives’.”

The lack of trust was evident, military analysts said, in the American refusal to consider a request from the Pakistani military that it operate the remotely piloted aircraft the CIA has been using to hit the militants.

The Americans have been stingy on even more basic tools, like helicopter gunships and night-vision goggles.

Also, the growing Indian presence in Afghanistan convinces Pakistan it is being encircled. “The United States has to get India to back off in Afghanistan,” said former minister Ishaq Khakwani. “That will give confidence to Pakistan.”Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Bane Blade]

How true I must also add that all our representatives in this article have given a fair and reasonable answer to US's complains another thing US should do is get a complete ceasefire pact from India that they won't attack Pakistan till they are fighting the Terrorists it will also help us in the war on terror.

 

[batmannow]

News Analysis

Time Is Short as U.S. Presses a Reluctant Pakistan!

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

By JANE PERLEZ
Published: April 5, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Obama’s strategy of offering Pakistan a partnership to defeat the insurgency here calls for a virtual remaking of this nation’s institutions and even of the national psyche, an ambitious agenda that Pakistan’s politicians and people appear unprepared to take up.
Officially, Pakistan’s government welcomed Mr. Obama’s strategy, with its hefty infusions of American money, hailing it as a “positive change.” But as the Obama administration tries to bring Pakistanis to its side, large parts of the public, the political class and the military have brushed off the plan, rebuffing the idea that the threat from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which Washington calls a common enemy, is so urgent.

Some, including the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the president, Asif Ali Zardari, may be coming around. But for the military, at least, India remains priority No. 1, as it has for the 61 years of Pakistan’s existence.

How to shift that focus in time for Pakistan to defeat a fast-expanding Islamic insurgency that threatens to devour the country is the challenge facing Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to the region, as they arrive in Pakistan for talks early this week.

Strengthening Pakistan’s weak civilian institutions, updating political parties rooted in feudal loyalties and recasting a military fixated on yesterday’s enemy, and stuck in the traditions of conventional warfare, are generational challenges. But Pakistan may not have the luxury of the long term to meet them.

Some analysts here and in Washington are already putting forward apocalyptic timetables for the country. “We are running out of time to help Pakistan change its present course toward increasing economic and political instability, and even ultimate failure,” said a recent report by a task force of the Atlantic Council that was led by former Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The report, released in February, gave the Pakistani government 6 to 12 months before things went from bad to dangerous.
A specialist in guerrilla warfare, David Kilcullen, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when General Petraeus was the American commander in Iraq, offered a more dire assessment. Pakistan could be facing internal collapse within six months, he said.

General Petraeus, in Congressional testimony last week, called the insurgency one that could “take down” the country, which is home to Qaeda militants and has nuclear arms.

Even before the insurgency has been fully engaged, however, many Pakistanis have concluded that reaching an accommodation with the militants is preferable to fighting them. Some, including mid-ranking soldiers, choose to see the militants not as the enemy, but as fellow Muslims who are deserving of greater sympathy than are the American aims.

It is problematic whether the backing of Mr. Zardari, and the Obama’s administration’s promise of $1.5 billion in aid for each of the next five years, can change the mood in the country, said a former interior minister, Aftab Ahmad Sherpao, who visited Washington last fall to meet with some of the people who are now officials in the Obama administration.

Fighting the insurgency is commonly seen in Pakistan as an American cause, not a Pakistani one, he said.

There are questions, too, of whether the Obama offer of nearly $3 billion in counterinsurgency aid can quickly convert the Pakistani military from a force trained to fight India on the plains of Punjab into an outfit that can conquer the mountains of the tribal areas, where the militants operate.

“After such a long time of being with the Americans, the country has been through such stress and strain and nothing good has come of it,” Mr. Sherpao said. “A cross-section of people is dead set against the Americans. Another section is not happy but not vocal. About 1 to 2 percent would say this policy of America should continue.”

The distrust has been heightened by charges from American officials, including General Petraeus and Mr. Holbrooke, that Pakistan’s spy agency is still supporting the Islamic militants who pour over the border to fight American troops in Afghanistan.

A former director general of the agency Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt. Gen. Javed Ashraf, said the American opinions — long held but now publicly stated — did not augur well. A spokesman for the Pakistani military called them “baseless” and part of a “malicious campaign.”

“You can’t start a successful operation with a trust deficit,” General Ashraf said. “Pakistan is an ally. But then you say we are linked with the Taliban. The serving army people will say, ‘To hell with them if this is what we are going to get after laying down more than 1,500 lives.’ ” That is the number of soldiers the Pakistani Army says have been killed fighting the militants in the tribal areas.

The lack of trust was evident, military analysts said, in the American refusal to consider a request from the Pakistani military that it operate the remotely piloted aircraft the C.I.A. has been using to hit the militants in the tribal areas.
Although those Predator drones have been successful in killing top Qaeda operatives, a factor acknowledged privately by Pakistani officials, the attacks continued to be criticized even as the new Pakistani-American partnership was supposed to be taking root.

“Predator strikes are not a strategy — not even part of a strategy,” a former army chief of staff and ambassador to Washington, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, said in a front-page article in the newspaper The Nation. “They are tactical actions to ratchet up body counts.”

The Americans have been stingy on even the more basic tools for guerrilla warfare, like helicopter gunships and night-vision goggles, which Pakistan has requested for the past three years, Pakistani military officials say. There are still doubts that Washington will deliver such equipment speedily, they say.
Then there is India. Its growing presence in Afghanistan — the building of roads; the opening since 2001 of two consulates in two cities close to Pakistan — makes Pakistan believe it is being encircled, said Ishaq Khan Khakwani, a former senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Q party.
Pakistanis complain that even though Mr. Obama, during his European trip, called for dialogue between India and Pakistan, his plans fail to address this major strategic concern.
“The United States has to get India to back off in Afghanistan,” said Mr. Khakwani, who is sympathetic to the American position. “Then Pakistan will see Indian interference is diminished and that will give confidence to Pakistan.”[/I]
The deep questioning about why the Pakistani Army should fight the Taliban reaches well down into the ranks of the soldiers and their families. Dissent on that goal has become increasingly prevalent among rank-and-file soldiers, and even in the officer corps, said Riffat Hussain, a professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University here who also lectures to soldiers at the National Defense University.
There have been at least a half-dozen reported courts-martial of soldiers who refused to fight, and the real number was probably larger, Professor Hussain said.

In Jhelum, a town 100 miles south of Islamabad and a place with a proud military history, one village had shown in the boldest terms the anger about the military fighting Muslims on Pakistani soil, said Enver Baig, a former senator with the Pakistan Peoples Party, who considers himself a pro-American politician.

When the body of a soldier killed in the tribal areas was taken home to his family last year, the father refused to accept his son’s coffin, Mr. Baig said.

Instead, the father took off his shoe and used it to slap the army officer who had escorted the body.

A month later, when another soldier’s body was delivered to the same village, the army left the body on the village outskirts, Mr. Baig said.

 

[qsaark]

Interesting article, thanks for posting it here. So did you post it because you agree with it or just to share it with the rest of the members?

 

[Omar1984]

Time is short for what?

U.S. plans to stay in Afghanistan forever because they know the center of the world will soon be Asia and they want a permanent prescence in Asia.

 

[niaz]

US Aid gives the impression that Pakistan is fighting US’s war. It would probably be better if no aid is given at all. All this aid is doing is strengthening the hands of anti Pakistan forces. I remember Musharraf declaring that biggest threat to Pakistan is from within, he was right. We are now witnessing the birth of a new independent State in Swat and Malakand. The question whether Pakistan will remain or not, Pakistanis should decide by themselves without interference from abroad.

Last night I heard Arbab Rahim, former CM of Sindh openly saying that he supported the Nizam e Adal, currently in Swat to apply to Pakistan in the program Alim on Line, with no one to rebut his arguments. This is clear propaganda for the Islamic extremist lobby. When we have such supporters in Sindh, what to say about NWFP and Punjab? In the same program I heard the deputy Taliban commander declaring that Taliban aim to create an Islamic Emirate comprising Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is out and out propaganda for the Taliban. Every thing should have limits and propagating treason cannot be allowed in the name of freedom of speech. What is the use of all this economic or military aid, if there is no longer any PA, PAF or PN?
Despite this, Pakistan polity at large and Urdu media pundits in particular, continue to remain pro Taliban to the nth degree.

IMO the Geo TV and Dr Amir Liaqat Hussain should be tried for treason for helping to propagate anti state views. Some body is openly declaring his aim to finish off Pakistan and there is not a whimper in the Pakistan media. Instead there are voices in Karachi University asking Sufi Mohammed to come that IJT are with him.

It is a pity that while every one is worried about drone attacks and collateral damage, no voices in the support of innocents butchered in the name of Islam by Taliban. I must be one of the most unfortunate generation ever. I have seen country that I love divided in two, 38 years ago and now writing is on the wall for the remainder. Is there no one left but a few overseas Pakistani idiots such as myself who continue to harbor undying love for their motherland?

 

[Munir]

If it that dangerous.. Why did they only offer 1,5 billion usd with for to many restrictions? Double faces...

 

[niaz]

Yes IMO the aid is very dangerous. The question is survival of Pakistan state. Many Pakistanis are saying that we are fighting America's war. The aid simply reinforces this view.


Irfan Hussain has said what I feel in Dawn as under:

IMAGINE that a neighbouring country had killed a leading Pakistani politician, blown up a popular hotel in the middle of Islamabad and killed thousands of security personnel and innocent civilians in a series of bombing raids.

Imagine too that the enemy’s stated goal is nothing short of the capture of state power. Surely these acts would have constituted a declaration of war.

In this scenario, all political parties would have united to face this aggression. The media would have been full of patriotic songs and messages to urge the nation to support the government and the military in defending Pakistan. And above all, the armed forces would not have hesitated in playing their role.

Anybody suggesting a dialogue with the invader, or justifying the attack, would be denounced as a traitor and a defeatist.

So my question is why isn’t all this happening now? True, the aggressors are mostly home-grown terrorists, but the damage they have been inflicting is just as lethal as any bombs dropped from the skies. Their acts must, under any definition, count as an open declaration of civil war. And yet, wide sections of public opinion and the media are sitting on the fence. Many leading politicians have yet to publicly denounce the Taliban as enemies of the state. And the army has yet to demonstrate that it is serious about fighting this war.

Talking about the situation in Lahore last week, Aitzaz Ahsan came up with a unique solution. He cited an incident from Mughal history where the emperor had his elephant tethered to the ground to send out a signal to his forces that he would not retreat. His wavering army rallied to protect him and won the day.

According to Aitzaz, this is what the president should do: instead of staying in his bunker in Islamabad, he should set up his office in Fata, as these are federally administered territories, and he is the symbol of the federation. Simultaneously, the chief minister of the NWFP should shift his office to Swat.

According to Aitzaz, the army would then be forced to protect them and move forces to the battle zone.

Aitzaz is an old friend, and I respect his intellect and his integrity. However, I pointed out a fatal flaw in his proposal: it presupposes that the army would want to take the fight to the Taliban and protect political leaders. Thus far, our armed forces have not shown that they take the extremist threat seriously. According to a recent article in Der Spiegel, the respected German daily:

‘The (Pakistan) military avoids serious confrontation with the extremists. Many officers still do not see the Taliban as their enemy. Pakistan’s true enemy, in their view, is India… Quite a few officers say that the fight against terrorism in the north-western part of the country is being forced upon them by the Americans and that they are fighting the wrong war…. A Pakistani two-star general candidly explained the mindset of his fellow military commanders … noting that although the army is fighting the Taliban at the instructions of politicians, it also supports the militants….’

Given this ambiguity and duplicity, the success of Baitullah Mehsud and his fellow terrorists should come as no surprise. In fact, this military mindset mirrors what we see in the media, and reflects the confusion that has characterised and dogged our efforts to combat the extremist threat. In this, Aitzaz Ahsan is right: our security forces have a bunker mentality that has them cowering in their barracks while the jihadis mount a series of attacks. If we are to save Pakistan, the army will have to take the fight to the Taliban, and not simply wait for the next attack.

So far, with the exception of the PPP and the MQM, most political parties have avoided taking a clear position. While they may occasionally condemn individual atrocities, they fall short of openly identifying the enemy. One senior journalist in Islamabad told me that when reporters seek an interview with Nawaz Sharif, they must first agree not to ask any direct questions about the Taliban. If this is true, it shows that the PML-N leader does not want to either condemn or support the jihadis openly. Being a canny politician, he does not wish to alienate his core support among reactionary elements. Nor does he want to upset Washington. But wars are not won through such tactical hedging.

While this jockeying for advantage goes on among politicians, millions of Pakistanis are paying the price for this procrastination. Thousands have died in terrorist attacks because the state has failed in its duty to protect its citizens. If somebody wants to know the cost of defeat, he has only to view the video of the 17-year old girl being flogged in Swat. Many have questioned the timing of the video’s release, claiming that it is an attempt to sabotage the ‘peace deal’ between the NWFP government and the Taliban. If it is, I would be happy to see this disgraceful instrument of surrender torn up.

One positive outcome of this atrocity coming to public knowledge is that it has opened many eyes to the reality of the Taliban, and what they represent. The flogging has ignited protests across the country. I participated in one in Lahore last week. I was glad to see that apart from many old friends, a large number of young people and students also took part in the march. One popular slogan was: ‘Pakistan kay do shaitan: fauj aur uskay Taliban’ (‘Pakistan’s two demons: the army and its Taliban’). My favourite banner at the rally asked: ‘$12 billion in aid to fight terrorism. Where is it?’ Where indeed?

During Richard Holbrooke’s recent visit to Pakistan, our government responded to the new Obama plan to fight the Taliban with an ill-concealed resentment.

Clearly, the establishment is not enjoying having its reluctance to fight held up under a spotlight. As in the past, it wants the promised flow of dollars to remain unimpeded by any serious questions about its will to carry the fight to the Taliban. Our television warriors echo this sentiment, and demand that the country should not follow ‘American dictates’.

But as we are about to discover, there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

DAWN.COM | Columnists |
The high cost of surrender

I ask my fellow compatriots, pray tell me is US aid helping Pakistan or anti Pakistan forces?
I rest my case.

 

[S-2]

"Why did they only offer 1,5 billion usd with for to many restrictions? Double faces... "

ONLY!? You really are ungrateful barstards. Restrictions? Because it might be used for other than it's intended purpose or stolen. Why do you think?

Please, please, oh please turn down our aid.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Watch your language S-2 ur a forum member only abide by the rules i've been seeing your crap all over this forum for sometime its about time Mods take notice this S-2 is way over the fence crapping about Muslims and Islam on this forum while non of the Mods are taking any action i demand an immediate action there was no need to call "bastards" and is an Insult..and needs a warning along with a touch of ban for a few days Mods i have been demanding ban for few members in past that've been really abusing Islam and Muslim on this forum while u've not taken any notice about time now...

S-2 you know who you are get my point old fart.

 

[niaz]

"Why did they only offer 1,5 billion usd with for to many restrictions? Double faces... "

ONLY!? You really are ungrateful barstards. Restrictions? Because it might be used for other than it's intended purpose or stolen. Why do you think?

Please, please, oh please turn down our aid.

I would if I had any say in places where it really matters. Why does'nt US grant free access to Pakistani goods to her markets instead of this aid?

IMO US Aid at this particular time is a poison chalice. I would rather that US stops drone attacks instead. US attacks inside Pakistan have done more damage to Pakistan state than three wars with India.

These attacks give ordinary Joe public the impression that Pakistan Gov't is impotent and thus helps Taliban and extremists to no end. When our so called allies don't give a fig for our sovereignty, why should Taliban.

 

[araz]

"Why did they only offer 1,5 billion usd with for to many restrictions? Double faces... "

ONLY!? You really are ungrateful barstards. Restrictions? Because it might be used for other than it's intended purpose or stolen. Why do you think?

Please, please, oh please turn down our aid.

S2
Stop Bullshitting us. Come down to the reality, is this the response we get when we are the sole country to have handed over the most operatives of so called AlQaeeda to you. We have lost 1500 men in the process. The war on terror has cost Pakistan more than $36 Billion in trade lost alone, not to mention the loss of life of hundreds of ordinary civilians.
You have posting previlages here but dont start calling us names, that might be funny to you but are highly objectionable to us.
What the American Government is asking us to do is not something in national interests of pakistan. The handing over of AQ Khan is a mute point. If you are so concerned about the aid going in the wrong hands then, setup projects, and give money for those specific projects rather than handing over money to our corrupt politicians. You are the very ones who have PLANTED these corrupt Politicians over our heads in the first place.
Araz

 

[Luftwaffe]

2 men objection ed to S-2 foul mouth now time Mods to act..thanks..

 

[Omar1984]

I think it'll be best for Pakistan if U.S. didn't give any aid, the aid is only going to go to Zardari, the general public of Pakistan wont receive any benefits from it anyways.

 

[spurdozer]

Holbrooke plus Mullen



Sunday, April 12, 2009
Dr Farrukh Saleem

America's top-most diplomat for the region and America's 17th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never been in Islamabad -- both at the same time. Holbrooke was here to feel Pakistan's political pulse while Mullen tried to twist our military nerve. This is serious business.

Venue: embassy of the United States, the US ambassador's residence. Dinner-table with six seated. Table headed by ambassador Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conversation at the table: ambassador Holbrooke: "Should Mr Zardari be removed?" Athar Minallah, leader of the lawyers' movement and former spokesperson for the chief justice of Pakistan, "This democracy is the consequence of the lawyers' movement. Any unconstitutional act will be resisted. The only route to remove President Zardari is impeachment." Holbrooke: "Should Mr Zardari be impeached?" Minallah: "That's for the democratic forces to decide." Sartaj Aziz: "We want powers back to Pakistan's parliament…" Minallah: "Nawaz Sharif played his cards right." Holbrooke: "I agree with you."

Five thousand and five hundred miles from Islamabad. Venue: the spa resort of Baden-Baden, Germany. The 2009 Strasbourg-Kehl Summit. Hosts: President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel. April 3, the NATO Summit; a total of 3,500 delegates from Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the US (President Clinton, on his first visit to Baden-Baden, said: "Baden-Baden is so nice they had to name it twice"). Just two days before the NATO Summit, Albania and Croatia were accepted as full members.

Venue: Strasbourg, northeastern France. America's NATO allies commit a mere 5,000 additional troops for America's war in Afghanistan -- all to remain outside the main combat zones (3,000 for security duties during the Afghan elections).

Venue: Ankara, Turkey. Summit April 6-7. President Obama, greatly disappointed by his NATO allies, now looks at Turkey for help (Turkey already has the 3rd or the 4th largest military contingent as part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan).

Hundreds of miles away from Baden-Baden and a thousand miles away from media flashes -- and somewhat secretive -- is the Superpower Summit. America wants an alternative supply route through Russian-influenced territory. Russia wants America to halt the expansion of NATO. America wants Russia to pressurise Iran on Iran's nuclear project. Russia wants America to stop the deployment of its Ballistic Missiles Defence on Polish and Czech territories. America wants Russia to pressurise Kyrgyzstan on Manas Air Base (near Bishkek). Russia wants America to leave Georgia and Ukraine under Russian influence.

Now consider this: Russia wants America to halt NATO's expansion. On April 1, Albania and Croatia were accepted as full NATO members. America wants Russia to pressurise Iran. On April 9, Gholam Reza, president of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, said that "7,000 centrifuges have been installed at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility."

America and Russia are at it again: Russia is pumping money into Georgian opposition groups in order to bring down the pro-west President Mikhail Saakashvili. And, 900 miles from Georgia, the CIA is said to be behind a failed coups d'etat against the ruling Communist Party in Moldova.

Conclusion number 1: The 2009 Strasbourg-Kehl Summit didn't go well for America. Turkey, as a consequence, has now become Obama's darling.

Conclusion number 2: The Superpower-America and Russia-Dialogue isn't going well either. Obama, as a consequence, will be more dependent on Pakistan for supply routes as well as HUMINT (human intelligence).

PS: Ms Farahnaz Ispahani, a PPP MNA and at times a spokesperson of the president, told ambassador Holbrooke that President Zardari "will not sign the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation."



Holbrooke plus Mullen