Right Web

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

Pakistan: "Greatest Single Challenge" to Next President

(Inter Press Service) Calling Pakistan the "greatest single challenge" to the next U.S. administration, a bipartisan group of South Asia experts recommends cutting...

(Inter Press Service)

Calling Pakistan the "greatest single challenge" to the next U.S. administration, a bipartisan group of South Asia experts recommends cutting aid to the Pakistani army unless it commits itself to the counterinsurgency struggle against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

"The Pakistan military should understand that its failure to embrace this fundamental shift in outlook will significantly reduce U.S. military assistance," according to the report by the Pakistan Policy Working Group of the government-supported U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) that was released with little fanfare in Washington, D.C., late last week.

"While Washington has muted this warning to Pakistan in the past, the next administration must convey this message explicitly and convincingly and then be prepared to follow through," the 13-member group concluded in its 46-page report, entitled "The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan."

The report, which also endorsed a pending congressional package that would provide Pakistan with $1.5 billion a year in non-military aid, also insisted that Washington is justified in carrying out unilateral cross-border attacks into Pakistan against terrorist targets until Islamabad shows "that it is ready and willing to act aggressively" against them on its own.

At the same time, however, "the U.S. will need to be circumspect on the extent to which it relies on such strikes, recognizing that each strike carries the cost of undermining U.S. long-term objectives of stabilizing Pakistan and preventing radical forces from strengthening in the country," according to the report, which noted that Islamabad halted all fuel shipments to U.S. forces in Afghanistan in the aftermath of a cross-border attack by U.S. Special Forces in South Waziristan last month.

"Any sustained interruption of supplies would seriously hamper our ability to operate in Afghanistan because 80 percent of the logistical support for the U.S. military operating in Afghanistan flows through Pakistan," it said, noting that Washington should explore alternative supply routes into Afghanistan in the event that ties with Islamabad worsen.

The new report, which was endorsed by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and the former cochairman of the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), is the latest in a growing avalanche of "bipartisan" reports being churned out by Washington-based think tanks that are designed to influence the policies of the administration that takes power January 20, whether it is headed by Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama.

Indeed, Armitage, a former senior Pentagon official who served as deputy secretary of state during President George W. Bush’s first term, is known to be advising McCain, while Hamilton, a former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, endorsed Obama as president last April and has close ties to major campaign figures.

The USIP report notes that U.S. interests in Pakistan, including its nuclear arsenal and past proliferation activities, the presence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the war in Afghanistan, "are more threatened now than at any time since the Taliban was driven from Afghanistan in 2001."

"Afghanistan cannot succeed without success in Pakistan, and vice versa," the report stresses in what has increasingly become conventional wisdom among the foreign policy elite in Washington. "Al Qaeda’s growing capabilities and the insurgency in Afghanistan cannot be addressed effectively until the sanctuaries in Pakistan are shut down," it notes.

The report argues that the advent of a civilian-led government in Islamabad during the past year and ultimately the resignation of former President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, combined with the forthcoming change of U.S. administrations, marks an important opportunity for Washington "to rethink its entire approach to Pakistan."

The new U.S. administration, it said, should "exhibit patience with Pakistan’s new democratically elected leaders" and support their efforts assert their control of their military, particularly over the military’s premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, which Washington believes has provided critical assistance to the Taliban and played a key role in the July 7 car-bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

The report says the new U.S. administration should order a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—a product of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies—to "form a common operating picture within the U.S. government" on precisely what Pakistan is doing to both counter and support the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other radical armed groups in the region in order to determine to what extent Islamabad’s intent is consistent with U.S. interests.

That NIE would then become the basis for developing a strategy "that seeks to adjust Pakistan’s cost-benefit calculus of using militants in its foreign policy through close cooperation and by calibrating U.S. military assistance" accordingly.

At the same time, the new administration should appoint a senior official dedicated to improving ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan and intensify its own diplomatic efforts to encourage peace efforts between India and Pakistan.

On the economic front, the report recommends "shifting the center of gravity in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship from military to non-military engagement." In that respect, the administration should support the pending congressional package, provided that Pakistan agrees to use it for projects devoted to basic education, health care, water-resource management, and law enforcement and justice programs that can be closely monitored. "The era of the blank check is over," the report said.

Washington has provided some $11 billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001, almost all of which went to the military, which, in turn, largely failed to use it for the intended purposes of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Future military aid should be conditioned on the army’s adoption of these roles, a shift that, according to the report, "will face bureaucratic opposition."

Group members included more than half a dozen former senior officials and South Asia specialists who served in State Department, the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Council, as well as several independent experts, including Brookings Institution Fellow Stephen Cohen and RAND Corporation analyst Christine Fair. The report was cosponsored by Armitage’s consulting firm, Armitage International; the right-wing Heritage Foundation; and DynCorp International, a consulting firm and major contractor with the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Citations

Jim Lobe, "Pakistan: "Greatest Single Challenge" to Next President" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
/rw/4958.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share