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...

Print Friendly

(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:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share