AskCherlock » Blog Archive » Pakistan: An Unwilling Strategic Partner

Politics-Opinions-Life Issues-Impact!

Pakistan: An Unwilling Strategic Partner

4 December 2009 11 Comments

In his speech to the West Point cadets, President Obama stated that he sees Pakistan as inextricably linked to Afghanistan. In fact, the President’s chief military and diplomatic advisers have said that the new strategy to win the war in Afghanistan will require a “strategic relationship” with Pakistan in order to have any chance of success. What a “strategic relationship” means is that Pakistan will do everything it can to drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban from their safe havens in the mountainous border regions, and that the government would crack down on the terrorist networks hiding within its borders. U.S military experts realize that if Pakistan were to return to the old habits of supporting the Afghan Taliban, the war will be almost impossible to win.

Unfortunately, the Pakistanis do not want a strategic relationship with the U.S. government. What they do want to do is to play both sides against each other for their own benefit. Most Pakistanis are convinced that the U.S. government is trying to bully the government into accepting an all-out war against their Islamic brothers in Afghanistan, and also trying to take control of their nuclear weapons. Although the U.S. is willing to provide them with billions of dollars in financial aid, the Pakistani people do not believe for a moment that the U.S. is interested in a long-term partnership with them. To the contrary, the Pakistani people see the U.S. government as far more closely aligned with their arch-enemy, India. Because of these deep-seated suspicions, the Pakistani government has not yet endorsed President Obama’s plan, nor have they endorsed an increase in U.S. troop strength within the region.

It is highly doubtful that the Pakistani government will ever co-operate fully with the U.S. strategy regarding Afghanistan, and highly likely that any increase in U.S. military forces will only drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban further within Pakistan’s borders. Likewise, a domestic crackdown on these terrorist groups would most likely result in further instability of the fragile Zardari government, possibly ending up with a military coup-de-etat. In essence, the Obama plan relies heavily on an predominantly Muslim country that has proven time and time again to be highly unreliable.

The risks of going ahead with the Obama plan for Afghanistan go well beyond the potential loss of American lives on the battlefield. In fact, the greatest risk is that Pakistan will be forced to move further and further into making political concessions to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as these groups stream into the country and intensify terrorist activities. The greatest unknown consequence of all is that the government of Pakistan could come under Taliban control; nuclear weapons and all. For these reasons alone, the most prudent U.S. policy for Afghanistan would be to leave the country all together. Even if Afghanistan once again falls to the Taliban, at least they will only gain control of lots and lots of opium, and not control of nuclear weapons.

—Rich

11 Comments »

Project Savior said:

One of Obama’s real weaknesses seems to be he thinks everyone will work for their self-benefit. So if they better off working together they will.
Unfortunately, both in this country and to the more extreme in Afghanistan a lot of “leaders” prefer to be “Big fish in small ponds” and resist efforts to make the ponds bigger.
Some people would prefer to have a large disparity between themselves and others so they have a visible sign of “Superiority” than everyone being lifted up including themselves.

# 5 December 2009 at 9:22 am

WillOaks Studio said:

What a choice–control tons of opium or nuclear weapons…your outline of this terrible situation is well stated and it’s so true that the Pakistan has used this military situation just to enrich it’s own pockets for such a long time now, were we to just pull out and go away, I wonder if the government there would fall (‘cuz it’s not about ‘governing’ so much as outright corruption–with U.S. taxpayers money.) Maybe, if we stick to our goal, take the worst of the bad guys out (who are all hiding in either extremely difficult terrain OR, I read, moving into Karachi, a city with 3.5 million) and get the h___ out of Dodge, we can end our part in this horrible situation?? I cannot picture what “victory” here would look like, realistically….

# 5 December 2009 at 10:17 am

ChrisJ said:

I’m not sure if I agree with your prognosis for Pakistan if Nato and U.S. troops prevail in Afghanistan, but totally agree that Pakistan is probably the most dangerous and ultimately unstable region right now.

On the other hand, maybe control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons is the endgame Al Quaeda/Taliban have planned all along.

# 5 December 2009 at 11:29 am

Tina T said:

I like what you say about it being a bigger threat for the terrorists to gain control of nuclear weapons rather than the opium fields. The nuclear countries are the ones we need to focus on. While we’re busy worrying about what to do in Afghanistan we’re risking a very shaky relationship with Pakistan, not to mention taking away time and energy that we also need to devote to how we will deal with Iran and North Korea and their nuclear ambitions.

# 5 December 2009 at 11:39 am

admin (author) said:

Project Savior,
Well put! There seems to be no logic in what’s going on in Pakistan. But then, where’s the logic in strapping on an explosive vest to kill dozens of people in the name of Allah? As Pakistan drifts further and further into the “Islamic Fundamentalist” way of thinking, all U.S. efforts in Afghanistan will be thwarted. We need get out of Dodge (i.e. Afghanistan) before we make things worse.

# 5 December 2009 at 1:58 pm

admin (author) said:

WillOaks,
Somehow, I do not think that the government of Pakistan will fall if the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan, because if that happened the politicians would be free to make deals with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their own military. They will simply find an equilibrium of corruption that suits everybody.
However, the presence of U.S. military forces in the region (i.e. the Obama Plan) may force the government to take sides, which would be much less profitable than the middle ground.

# 5 December 2009 at 2:10 pm

admin (author) said:

Chris J.,
One of the big differences between the Taliban and the U.S. is that the Taliban want to take control of the nukes through a campaign of terror, and the U.S. wants to take control of the nukes through buying the allegiance of the Pakistani government with multi-billion dollar aid packages.

# 5 December 2009 at 2:18 pm

admin (author) said:

Tina T.,
You are absolutely right. U.S. resources are being wasted in Afghanistan, which poses no threat to the U.S. It’s the nuclear powers that we should be concerned about. I would actually support the Obama Plan if I thought that beefing up forces in Afghanistan would make Pakistan more stable. My fear is that it will make Pakistan less stable; it already has!

# 5 December 2009 at 2:23 pm

ONE of THE GUYS said:

We’re kind of damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Obama was left with a mess that may be too big to clean up in four years or eight years. Or for that matter, ever!

I think all of these countries are playing both sides. In some ways they have to. Aligning with the US will always alienate some of their own. Not an easy situation for a government to be in.

OK, I have no idea what to do. But I feel that at least we have someone in charge who’s smart, and is trying to see all sides before he acts.

# 6 December 2009 at 7:03 am

Dorothy Stahlnecker said:

It appears we are in a no win position as usual and there is little support for the US with most countries. However, I wonder what the alternative is I’m sending your link to my dear friend who is a ranking assemblyman in NY State and his understanding is more then mine and I’m hoping he’ll help me understand more of what you write.

Regards, Dorothy from grammology
grammology.com

# 6 December 2009 at 11:02 am

Simon Holmes said:

In the time of the Raj before partition, this area was known as the Northwest Frontier, probably the most lawless and difficult area to control in the whole of the British Empire.Pakistan since General Zia ul Haq has had Sharia law which can overturn legislation instituted by it’s Parliament.Persecutions of the Christian minority continue.The government does not really have the power to implement what America wants.It’s huge civil service and military are riddled with Islamist spies.A strategic alliance in my view should also include China,Russia and India who all have a vested interest in the stabilisation of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

# 8 December 2009 at 8:30 am