Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Failed Bomb Plot Tests US-Pakistan Ties

The failed Times Square bombing attempt has highlighted the challenges in pressuring Pakistan on anti-terror efforts.

Inter Press Service

Amid mounting evidence that the failed car-bombing in New York's Times Square was linked to violent Islamist groups in Pakistan, observers here are expressing concern that recently enhanced cooperation between Washington and Islamabad could be negatively affected.

Thus far, the two governments appear to be cooperating well in investigating the activities of the alleged terrorist suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after boarding an Emirates Air flight bound for Dubai Monday evening at the JFK International Airport.

U.S. officials have reportedly been permitted to interrogate several men who were detained by Pakistani authorities in the port city of Karachi Tuesday.

Washington is also preparing a list of other individuals they hope to interview in Pakistan where Shahzad, a naturalised U.S. citizen, spent five months last year, according to U.S. officials.

Investigators here have said that Shahzad, who reportedly claimed to have been given explosives and other training from militant groups in "Waziristan", has been providing information about his various contacts in Pakistan since his arrest.

"We are directly looking at who did he have contact with while in Pakistan, what did he do, who is supporting him and why," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley Thursday. "...We are informing Pakistan of what we are learning in this investigation, and then there are steps that Pakistan can take. I think this is a dialogue between the two countries."

Already, however, hawkish voices here have expressed scepticism about the degree to which the Pakistani authorities are willing to cooperate fully in investigating the case, especially if it leads to groups with close ties to the Army's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). They note that Washington has long pressed in vain for a major counterinsurgency offensive in North Waziristan, a redoubt for both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban forces and increasingly for militant Punjabi Islamist groups, as well.

"North Waziristan is the hub of so many terrorist groups and so much terrorist plotting and planning that neither the (Central Intelligence Agency) nor the ISI seems to have much clue about what is going on there," wrote Pakistani analyst Ahmed Rashid, who enjoys considerable influence in policy-making circles here, in the Washington Post last Wednesday.

"If action by the Pakistani army in North Waziristan is not forthcoming, the Obama administration should consider other steps - such as renewed screening of airline passengers from Pakistan," editorialised the Post itself last Thursday, noting that such a step elicited strong protests by Islamabad when it was instituted for several weeks after the attempted bombing by a Nigerian national of a Northwest Airline flight last Christmas.

Similarly, the neo-conservative Wall Street Journal, while praising recent army offensives in the tribal territories along Pakistan's frontier with Afghanistan, called for stronger military action in the region.

Islamabad "still has an obligation to ensure that none of its territory be a safe haven in which the Shahzads of the world can be trained in the use of improvised explosive devices," it wrote, adding that the authorities should also arrest Afghan Taliban leaders based in Quetta in order to restore U.S. confidence in "Pakistani seriousness".

With some of the same demands echoing in Congress, however, some analysts here warned that too much public pressure risked undermining what many observers believe has been unprecedented progress achieved over the last months - especially in counter-terrorism - in fostering U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on a range of fronts, including the disbursement of economic aid and facilitating the flow of support to Pakistan from international financial institutions.

"Such pressure could be disastrous," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council's South Asia Centre here. "It would harken back to the days of (former Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf, and you don't want to put Pakistan in that position."

Nawaz insisted that, contrary to published reports here, the army had already quietly expanded its counterinsurgency efforts from elsewhere in the Federally Administered Territorial Areas (FATA) well into North Waziristan and may now have more troops in that region than in South Waziristan.

"If anything, the (Times Square) attempt should yield much closer cooperation (between both countries) on keeping track of (militant) groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and may well convince (Pakistani forces) to shut off the routes used by these Punjabi groups to move into FATA," he said.

It remains unclear precisely which group or groups may have been behind Shahzad's actions.

According to unnamed U.S. officials quoted in the press, he has told the FBI that he was trained by Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The attack also followed the release of a video last week of TTP leader Hakimullah Mehsud - who was believed to have been killed by a U.S. missile strike earlier this year - that warned that an attack on the U.S. by his group was imminent.

But the TTP's main spokesman denied in an interview with AFP Thursday that the group had anything to do with Shahzad, and the round-ups by Pakistani authorities of suspects linked to Punjabi groups earlier this week suggested that they may have instigated the plot.

At the same time, terrorism analysts here insisted that the Punjabi groups, who were historically more active in Kashmir, and the TTP, as well as a number of other radical movements linked to al Qaeda, are increasingly coordinating their operations as their targets and aspirations - which used to be strictly local or national - have become more global.

Indeed, Shahzad himself has reportedly told interrogators that his motivation for the attempted bombing was to avenge U.S. drone missile strikes against targets in FATA, especially North Waziristan, that have sharply increased over the past year and killed more than 500 people, the vast majority suspected militants, according to the U.S. officials.

Indeed, the intensified drone campaign, which, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, is set to expand further in the coming months, creates a growing risk of blowback of precisely the kind that is being attributed to Shahzad, some analysts have long warned.

"In case after case, when you look at these kinds of terrorist groups - and not just in Pakistan - they realise that fighting on the battleground where they are limits their ability to affect the political decision-making of the people that they're fighting against," said Zia Mian, director of the Project on Peace and Security in South Asia at Princeton University, who cited the decision by the Irish Republican Army to take their fight to England as one example.

"They understand the politics of what they're trying to do. If they're trying to make the U.S., or Dehli, or Islamabad change their political decision-making, they take the fight there," he added.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share