Is the U.S. “Relationship” with Pakistan Over?

Despite the rantings of historically and culturally illiterate members Congress that an ungrateful Pakistan – with a military that has received billions from the U.S. over the years – should be deprived of that “aid” because of its duplicitous failure to support our “war on terror” (as they still describe our efforts), that central Asia nation remains an essential ingredient in regional politics. With over one hundred nuclear warheads (locally known as the “Islamic bomb”) and a track record of sharing the underlying technology with others (Pakistan’s father of nuclear weapons research, A.Q. Khan, and his infamous providing nuclear secrets to both Iran and North Korea… and almost Libya), Pakistan can tip the balance of power in the Middle East with one shipment of warheads to a Muslim foe near Israel. Pakistan is also our major supply route in and out of neighboring Afghanistan. This central Asian Islamic nation is the result of the blood-soaked 1947 partition of post-British India into mostly Hindu India in the south, and mostly Muslim Pakistan in the north.

Pakistanis are pretty strongly anti-American these days. They view the relationship that Washington wants as not based on mutual respect, but instead crassly transactional: “we pay you, and you do what we want.” They see drone attacks across Pakistani territory, albeit in the terrorist sanctuary in the Western Tribal District, their own forces cut to ribbons by NATO air strikes gone awry (24 Pakistani soldiers died this way over Thanksgiving) and clandestine Navy Seal operations which resulted in the killing of bin Laden as violating their border. We see necessity. They see arrogance in ignoring their territorial integrity and betrayal by Washington. But the Pakistanis seem to be in constant communication with (if not in direct support of) powerful anti-American militants, including the dreaded Haqqani network that has mounted attacks on U.S. forces across the Pakistani border into Afghanistan.

There’s another very public matter screaming before the Pakistani press, and the huge undercurrent of a military that actually runs the country and an elected government that pretends it does: “Pushed by the army, a Pakistani Supreme Court hearing [that began on December 19^th to] investigate whether [President Asif Ali] Zardari’s government was behind an unsigned memorandum that surfaced in October, purportedly asking the Obama administration’s help to curb the military’s influence and avert a possible coup in the wake of the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May… Soon after the memo became public, the army demanded that the government investigate allegations that the memo was orchestrated by Husain Haqqani, then Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States and a close aide to Mr. Zardari — a charge Mr. Haqqani denied as he was recalled from his post. Opposition lawmakers quickly joined the chorus calling for action, and message records appearing to implicate the ambassador were leaked to the news media.” New York Times, December 18^th.

It seems that there was truth to that memo, as military leaders were just chastised by the civilian leadership: “Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani warned [December 22^nd] of a conspiracy to oust the government, signaling that tension between his civilian administration and the country’s powerful army might be close to a breaking point.” Washington Post, December 22^nd. Gilani asked the big question: who issued the visa that allowed bin Laden to live in Pakistan undisturbed for six years? Trust me, the army is charge, whether they mount a coup… or not.

Oh, did I mention that they don’t exactly have warm fuzzy feelings for Afghanistan either, whether out of tribal animosity or the fact that Afghanistan was the only country to vote against Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations. And they see the unresolved issue of India’s continuous hold on mostly Muslim Kashmir and the rather large gathering of Indian forces at their border as a constant provocation by India, still considered their greatest enemy. India, which has fought Pakistan (successfully) on several occasions, clearly does not want another conflict but also seriously does not trust Pakistan, which it believes has fomented more than one bloody terrorist attack within India.

The Pakistani military still has a chokehold on most serious policy decisions which appear to be within the ambit of elected politicians. With strong recruiting from impoverished neighborhoods where Muslim extremism grows like weeds, the military is anything but ambiguous these days in its pro-radical roots, even as local Taliban mount attacks against targets within Pakistan itself. The government is wildly corrupt – a regional plague – with a general feeling among the people that the dirty leadership they elected keeps the majority of their purloined wealth “somewhere else,” and that such elected leaders have less at stake within Pakistan’s borders.

It is a nation constantly on the edge of unraveling. And right now, the military, the people and the Pakistani government are brimming with anger over American “incursions” into Pakistan, even to the extent of stopping the flow of American supplies into Afghanistan. “As America settles onto the long path toward withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan has considerable power to determine whether the end of our longest war is seen as a plausible success or a calamitous failure. [Hard to picture U.S. success there under any view, in my opinion.]

“There are, of course, other reasons that Pakistan deserves our attention. It has a fast-growing population approaching 190 million, and it hosts a loose conglomerate of terrorist franchises that offer young Pakistanis employment and purpose unavailable in the suffering feudal economy. It has 100-plus nuclear weapons (Americans who monitor the program don’t know the exact number or the exact location) and a tense, heavily armed border with nuclear India. And its president, Asif Ali Zardari, oversees a ruinous kleptocracy that is spiraling deeper into economic crisis.” Ben Keller writing for the New York Times, December 18^th. Pakistanis increasingly view America’s military presence in the Muslim world as part of a greater war on Islam itself. The footage generated from American missteps has provided essential recruiting tools for further radicalization.

“If you survey informed Americans, you will hear Pakistanis described as duplicitous, paranoid, self-pitying and generally infuriating. In turn, Pakistanis describe us as fickle, arrogant, shortsighted and chronically unreliable… Neither country’s caricature of the other is entirely wrong, and it makes for a relationship that is less in need of diplomacy than couples therapy, which customarily starts by trying to see things from the other point of view. While the Pakistanis have hardly been innocent, they have a point when they say America has not been the easiest of partners.” NY Times. “‘You have the United States tying future assistance to conditions like the secretary of state certifying that Islamabad is cooperating fully on counter-terrorism measures,’ said the Pakistani minister… ‘We have lost about 40,000 people in our decade-old war on terror which we began when the U.S. attacked Afghanistan. The Americans still want us to prove that we are genuine in our efforts. What could be bigger nonsense than this?’ asked the Pakistani minister.” CBSnews.com, December 22^nd.

President Obama sent his condolences to Pakistan over the Thanksgiving incident noted above but not his apologies; there is an election in the United States where American “apologies” have become an issue. Pakistan responded that it is not remotely interested in the NATO investigation over how such a travesty occurred. Our report of why this happened isn’t exactly going to patch things over: “A report about the Nov. 25 incident found that ‘inadequate coordination by U.S. and Pakistani military officers,’ and erroneous map information provided by NATO to Pakistani authorities, were to blame for the battlefield blunder, which has added enormous strain to the already fraught relationship between Washington and Islamabad.” Washington Post, December 22^nd. The border shipments to supply NATO forces were briefly halted, and Pakistan is considering another anti-American policy: “Pakistan is considering plans to slap millions of dollars in new charges [taxes] on future supplies taken through the country’s land route for U.S.-backed Western troops in Afghanistan.” CBSnews.com.

We’ve come to a place where no viable Pakistani politician could ever remain in office by building appeasement bridges to the United States, even to preserve military aid. And yet if nothing more than a “transactional” bribe, we do need to keep Pakistan’s nukes under relative control. The road to rebuilding even a viable détente between our nations will long and tattered and may require that our military is long gone from Afghanistan even to have a chance. And please don’t forget, it is Pakistan and not Afghanistan that has those nuclear weapons.

I’m Peter Dekom, and our failure to understand the complexity of regional politics combined with down and dirty American arrogance have not served us well in Central Asia.