">

Right Web

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

Missing the Point in Pakistan

A missile strike on March 16 by an unmanned U.S. drone inside Pakistan’s terrorist-infested tribal areas shows Washington’s increasing frustration...

A missile strike on March 16 by an unmanned U.S. drone inside Pakistan’s terrorist-infested tribal areas shows Washington’s increasing frustration with the growing clout of pro-Al Qaeda Taliban in the border region and Pakistan’s inability to crush or contain them. 1 The unilateral, unacknowledged aerial attack, which killed 20 people, some of them suspected militants, came a day after four Islamabad-based FBI agents were injured in an explosion in a restaurant. 2

Both incidents indicate an all-round failure of the Bush administration’s post-9/11 counterterrorism policy, an immutable tenet of which has been to rely on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and beef up the Pakistani military’s capacity to curb terrorism. After the political party backed by Musharraf overwhelmingly lost in Pakistan’s February general election, Washington declared itself prepared to work with whatever government emerges. That does not, however, mean any change in the Bush administration’s agenda. Lip service to “democracy promotion” in the country will continue apace, while millions more dollars in U.S. military aid will still flow into the South Asian nation, despite the fact that billions so far have done nothing to stop the spread of terrorism.

In fact, security in Pakistan seems today to be worse than it was before the events of 9/11. According to a report by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, "Pakistan is next to Iraq in terms of casualties of terrorism." In 2007, the Institute recorded 1,442 terrorism-related violent incidents, causing nearly 9,000 casualties—3,448 of them fatal, a 492 percent increase from 2005. 3

This year has been equally violent with rocket and suicide attacks against military and civilian targets happening with frightening frequency. On the same day that Musharraf met with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen in Islamabad in order to discuss matters of counterterrorism, two suicide bombers killed at least four people by detonating explosives in front of the Pakistan Navy War College in Lahore. 4 Instead of bringing peace, the many years of Pakistani military operations have yielded a spiraling instability in the region.

Ironically, the recent surge in attacks and counter-attacks has come precisely when Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was envisioning new methods of minimizing U.S. engagement. “In mid-March,” Negroponte said in his written testimony before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee last month, “we and our Afghan, Pakistani, and Coalition partners will open the first of six planned Border Coordination Centers at Torkham, Khyber Agency [in Pakistan’s tribal area]. The Centers will make it possible … to coordinate more effectively to stop the enemy from skirting both sides of the rugged border to avoid engagement.” 5

Although the United States continues to pour funds into improving Pakistan’s security situation in order to stabilize the region, at the February 5 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on the Annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, it seemed clear that such efforts have failed. Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) said: “Al Qaeda operates in a terrorist safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border from which it trains and directs terrorist cells, perhaps with more confidence than ever. Al Qaeda has used this border safe haven to reconstitute itself and launch offensive operations that threaten to undo the stability of Afghanistan and undermine, if not overthrow, the Pakistan government. And tragically, like before 9/11, al Qaeda was once again secured a base of operation from which to plot and direct attacks against the United States.” 6

Director of National Intelligence Adm. Michael McConnell, who is responsible for the assessment, testified that, “Al Qaeda remains the preeminent terror threat against the United States, both here at home and abroad. Despite our successes over the years, the group has retained or regenerated key elements of its capability, including its top leadership, operational lieutenants and a de facto safe haven, as was mentioned by the chairman, in the Pakistani border area with Afghanistan known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA.” 7

Speaking at the same hearing was Randall Fort, the assistant secretary of state for intelligence who heads the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). Concurring with McConnell’s testimony, he reaffirmed the commitment of Condoleezza Rice’s State Department to pursuing non-military measures. “It is because of our firm belief in the potential of diplomacy that we strive to achieve peace in the Middle East, that we can imagine a better relationship with a nuclear-free North Korea, that we envision stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we aid Pakistan in its struggles to root out extremism,” he said.

As part of those efforts to “aid Pakistan in its struggles,” it was disclosed in early March that the U.S. Army is “developing a plan to send about 100 American trainers to work with a Pakistani paramilitary force that is the vanguard in the fight against Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas.” 8

One of the nightmare scenarios the U.S. aid is designed to prevent is Al Qaeda acquiring a nuclear weapon. Such alarmist concerns have helped spur some writers, in particular those at the neoconservative think tanks whose scholars have helped shape many of the Bush administration’s security policies, to push for U.S. military intervention in Pakistan. Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute recently wrote, “If Washington is reluctant to launch paramilitary strikes into northwestern Pakistan to kill members of Al Qaeda, it definitely isn’t going to launch covert operations to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event the Pakistani army becomes too Islamic.” 9 What “too Islamic” means exactly, Gerecht fails to explain.

Despite the backdrop of an all-time high of incidents of terrorism in Pakistan, promoting the improbable terrorist-with-nuke scenario merely distracts from the real and present dangers in Pakistan. The policy pushed by rightist think-tanks and adopted by the Bush administration to assist the army to ensure safety and security of Pakistani nuclear weapons goes not only against the goal of nonproliferation, but also amounts to rewarding a nuclear proliferator. (The Bush administration has similarly rewarded two other nuclear powers that are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, India and Israel.)

A case in point is the recently revealed U.S. program to secure Pakistan’s nuclear materials and facilities at the cost of nearly $100 million over the course of six years. According to the New York Times, “The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.” 10

Such a program was promoted by one scholar at the rightist Heritage Foundation. Lisa Curtis wrote in a July 2007 policy brief, "The U.S. should seek to implement programs that help improve safety and security at [Pakistani] nuclear facilities." 11

But aid aimed merely at securing nuclear materials seems to miss the point. Instead of spending millions of dollars and many years of effort on Pakistan’s nuclear safekeeping, Washington’s time and money would be better used to persuade Pakistan’s entrenched nuclear-military establishment to let go of its nuclear weapons entirely and concentrate on fighting terrorism. Clearly, the best way to keep Pakistan’s nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists is to rollback the nuclear weapons program. Given the nature of threat to Pakistan and its economic woes, the sheer financial cost of the weapons project, not counting the U.S. money, is a burden on the country’s impoverished people. Rather than trying to prevent theft of these weapons, the focus should be on nuclear disarmament, leaving resources free to deal with other causes of extremism and militancy. Going nuclear-free would also help to build Pakistan’s tarnished image in the international community.

Najum Mushtaq is a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org)

1 Bashirullah Khan, “Missiles Strike Pakistan Tribal Area,” Associated Press, March 16, 2008. 2 Richard Esposito, Brian Ross, and Gretchen Peters, “Four FBI Agents Hurt in Pakistan Bombing,” ABC News, March 16, 2008.

3 “Rising Terror Wave,” Dawn, January 7, 2008, http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/07/ed.htm.

4 Associated Press, “Pakistan: 4 Killed in Attack on Naval College,” March 4, 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-04-pakistan-blast_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip.

5 John Negroponte, Testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Policy Options in Post-Election Pakistan, February 28, 2008. http://www.state.gov/s/d/2008/101616.htm

6 Hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, February 5, 2008, http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080205_transcript.pdf.

7 Ibid.

8 Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, “U.S. Plans Widen Role in Traning Pakistani Forces in Qaeda Battle,” New York Times, March 2, 2008.

9 Reuel Marc Gerecht, “A New Middle East, After All,” American Enterprise Institute, February 11, 2008.

10 David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, “U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms,” New York Times, November 18, 2008.

11 Lisa Curtis, “U.S. Policy and Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Containing Threats and Encouraging Regional Security,” July 6, 1007,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/tst062707.cfm.

 

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

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.


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.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

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.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share