Over the last week, widespread suspicion of Pakistan's complicity with al Qaeda has shined a harsh light on Washington's relationship with Islamabad. The outrage on Capitol Hill is understandable, but it's also a bit strange. After all, except for Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and other tribally based militant groups, for years it's been an open secret that elements within the Pakistani government do not perceive the original Afghan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani Network, and other specific proxy groups as enemies, but as assets to Pakistani policy.
Consider comments made by Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Only two years ago he defended the Taliban and its leader, Mullah Omar, to the German publication Der Spiegel:
"Shouldn't they be allowed to think and say what they please? They believe that jihad is their obligation. Isn't that freedom of opinion?"
Of course, Mullah Omar's "freedom of opinion" exhorts militants to pour over the border into neighboring Afghanistan and kill infidel American troops. Pasha's insistence that such views are defensible encapsulates America's enduring security challenge with Pakistan.
Since 9/11, the Pakistani government has claimed that its military is too ill-equipped and poorly-trained to effectively combat its internal guerrilla insurgency. That may be true, but it's also clear that the militancy plaguing the region is partly a byproduct of the Pakistani military's self-defeating ambition to extend its geopolitical reach into Afghanistan and throughout the region. For this reason, until elements within the Pakistani state make a fundamental shift in their strategic priorities, U.S. and NATO attempts to stabilize Afghanistan remain futile. Moreover, despite what U.S. officials would like to believe, no amount of pressure or persuasion will make Pakistan modify its policies, especially when it comes to reigning in extremists it's been nurturing for more than 30 years.
The core reality of the region is that after 9/11, rather than restructure, Pakistan rebalanced: President and Army General Pervez Musharraf and his army corps commanders decided to ally openly with the United States in the "War on Terror" and preserve their proxy assets as a hedge against Indian influence. As a result, Pakistan is feeling the heat on both sides, with American officials blasting Islamabad for refusing to cooperate fully, while Islamist extremists from inside Pakistan have turned against the government for throwing its support behind the United States.
Under such circumstances, the bilateral relationship has been punctuated by a number of melodramatic sideshows. Remember the recent diplomatic imbroglio over Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor detained in January for shooting and killing two Pakistani citizens? Or when last year Pakistan halted the flow of supply convoys for the NATO mission in Afghanistan? Or when right after President Obama took office U.S. officials began going into convulsions after learning that the Pakistani Taliban was only 60 miles from Islamabad?
Despite all the feel-good talk about partnership and cooperation, the reality is that America and Pakistan have competing strategic interests. Clearly, the two governments are pursuing very different and fundamentally antagonistic definitions of "joint cooperation."
Follow Malou Innocent on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IndianBrownAle
the military, not to mention the government and Pakistanis in general. The surprise is that the American people think that we went in there, thinking that money can buy loyalty and allegiance 100 % without complications,as well as full cooperation in the fight against Al Queda and the Talibans. But, judging from the actions and reactions lately, it is more than likely that our government knew what we are doing and what they are like but we have somehow to come up with an explanation that the American people will buy. We want to be there by all means while they would only let us do what we want to do there if we pay them enough and let them have the appearance that they are still very much in control of their own country. Most Americans, however, don't understand this complex diplomacy and bribery. Well, Pakistanis are not like us for sure.
Pakistan is a Duck !
There is a fourth possibility however the article did not note--namely (4) the Pakistani army and the jihadis are both manipulating the US. This is the most terrifying truth--especially considering the low transparency and lack of accountability of the government. What are these people doing? And how long have they been doing it?
But really the most terrifying truth I ran across today also reported in the Daily Beast was the one "CEO Pay Rose 11 Percent in 2011." The first figure I heard was that it rose 24 percent. So now I'm somewhat less terrified. I'm seeing the country drain away before my eyes. Neither the Pakistani army nor the jihadis are responsible for this.
SHORT TAKES:
The fantasy that other nations would be involved in fighting against Gaddafi instead of the US was just another lie and now the US is sinking into the quaqmire of a civil war in Libya: 4 wars and counting and the war profiteers win and everyone else loses and America sinks deeper into a sea of red ink.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Who in America actually believes that their vote will mean more to those so called representatives in the U.S. Government then those millions in bribe money they are receiving from those Robber Barons???!!!! At this point in US History the American people have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN WHAT ITS GOVERNMENT DOES!!!
*****************************************************************************************************************
Corporations have been ignoring subpoenas from the US Congress which is just another indication of how lawless this country has become.
Bush Administration sees:
Afghanistan = nada mucho.
Pakistan = got nukes; strategically placed.
Ergo: Invade Afghanistan, negotiate with Pakistan.
Still, same policy -- with a little slap on the cheek added.
Then, Pakistan would really have its' hands full with a ruthless country which would not worry about civilian casualties. China, then would become the Great Satan and we could be relieved of that moniker. China would find itself in a mess, Pakistan would be taken to its' knees and the situation would be done without any further expenditures on our behalf in money or troops.
CATO might have had their vision a good deal ago on all of that region, however.
Cato also didn’t speak up when Bush larded Pakistan’s economic picture prior to invading Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly payment for safe passage into Kabul over the mountains.
Off topic but of great concern is that Pakistan is a) a nuclear weapons possessor and b) has fought a low-level civil war for the past several decades.