US report says Pakistan unwilling to pursue militants

[karan.1970]

DAWN.COM | World | US report says Pakistan unwilling to pursue militants

WASHINGTON: A new White House assessment concludes that Pakistan has been unwilling to aggressively pursue Al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban militants in a Pakistani tribal region.

The White House assessment, first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday and confirmed by Reuters, faults the Pakistan government and military for lacking the will to take action against the militants in North Waziristan.

“The Pakistan military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in North Waziristan,” the assessment said, according to a US official who has seen the report.

“This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritizing its targets,” the report said.

The assessment comes at a time of heightening tension following a cross-border helicopter strike by Nato-led forces last week that killed three Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan shut a vital supply route for Nato forces fighting in Afghanistan after the strike, officially citing security reasons.

US officials see Pakistan as a frontline state in its war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and have publicly praised Pakistan’s efforts against militants.

The White House assessment of Pakistan was included with a letter US President Barack Obama sent congressional leaders last week saying he had no plans for any major changes in his Afghanistan war strategy.

Many Al-Qaeda members and Taliban fled to northwestern Pakistan’s ungoverned ethnic Pashtun belt after US-led soldiers ousted Afghanistan’s Taliban government in 2001. From their sanctuaries there, the militants have orchestrated insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

US officials say they have been giving Islamabad leeway in the battle against the militants because the Pakistani military has been over-stretched in other operations and by humanitarian missions in the flooding that devastated Pakistan.

The United States, in recent weeks, stepped up drone aircraft attacks against Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Pakistan.

Most of the recent strikes took place in North Waziristan, the only one of seven Pakistani tribal regions where the Pakistani army has not yet launched any major operation against the militants, despite US pressure to do so. —Reuters

 

[jahangeer yousaf]

why should we help nato and americans out in any situation ...... when we get kicked on our *** by helping americans and nato ......i think pakistan should put its money on taliban instead of nato and america if we keep getting rewards in a shape of dronze and choppers attack ........

 

[Awesome]

DAWN.COM | World | US report says Pakistan unwilling to pursue militants

WASHINGTON: A new White House assessment concludes that Pakistan has been unwilling to aggressively pursue Al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban militants in a Pakistani tribal region.

The White House assessment, first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday and confirmed by Reuters, faults the Pakistan government and military for lacking the will to take action against the militants in North Waziristan.

“The Pakistan military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in North Waziristan,” the assessment said, according to a US official who has seen the report.

“This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritizing its targets,” the report said.

The assessment comes at a time of heightening tension following a cross-border helicopter strike by Nato-led forces last week that killed three Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan shut a vital supply route for Nato forces fighting in Afghanistan after the strike, officially citing security reasons.

US officials see Pakistan as a frontline state in its war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and have publicly praised Pakistan’s efforts against militants.

The White House assessment of Pakistan was included with a letter US President Barack Obama sent congressional leaders last week saying he had no plans for any major changes in his Afghanistan war strategy.

Many Al-Qaeda members and Taliban fled to northwestern Pakistan’s ungoverned ethnic Pashtun belt after US-led soldiers ousted Afghanistan’s Taliban government in 2001. From their sanctuaries there, the militants have orchestrated insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

US officials say they have been giving Islamabad leeway in the battle against the militants because the Pakistani military has been over-stretched in other operations and by humanitarian missions in the flooding that devastated Pakistan.

The United States, in recent weeks, stepped up drone aircraft attacks against Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Pakistan.

Most of the recent strikes took place in North Waziristan, the only one of seven Pakistani tribal regions where the Pakistani army has not yet launched any major operation against the militants, despite US pressure to do so. —Reuters

Isn't the US trying to negotiate a truce with the Taliban? Pakistan has launched full on wars against them.

Even the US surge based operations have dried up, we saw a flurry of ops with Moshtarak, Khanjar n all, and now there are no more ops. Southern Afghanistan is under Taliban control, and Nato control is in patches everywhere else. Why is the US unwilling to pursue the militants?

 

[third eye]

why should we help nato and americans out in any situation ...... when we get kicked on our *** by helping americans and nato ......i think pakistan should put its money on taliban instead of nato and america if we keep getting rewards in a shape of dronze and choppers attack ........

This is an interesting option.

But the feeling the world over is that Pak already has its money on both the Taliban & US !

GOP may have its money on US while others loosely called non state actors have their money on Taliban. Collectively ,it all comes to Pak.

To run with the Hare & hunt with the hound in every situation .

 

[jahangeer yousaf]

then i would love to say ... we are playing the same as you tried to play in sri lanka ........... let see what happens ........ in any case we gonna win it ..... INSHALLAH

 

[Awesome]

This is an interesting option.

But the feeling the world over is that Pak already has its money on both the Taliban & US !

GOP may have its money on US while others loosely called non state actors have their money on Taliban. Collectively ,it all comes to Pak.

To run with the Hare & hunt with the hound in every situation .

Neither is more like it.

Pakistan will favor the solution that ends up in ending all sorts of attacks on Pakistan and both the US and the Taliban can't care less about Pakistan.

 

[third eye]

Neither is more like it.

Pakistan will favor the solution that ends up in ending all sorts of attacks on Pakistan and both the US and the Taliban can't care less about Pakistan.

A terrorist- orgnisation or individual cares not for a country including one that supports it. All that matters is themselves.The country is sucked to death - eg AF & Somaila.

The concern is that Pak forever keeps all options open by appeasing all parties and when cornered makes a U turn. This is because there are ppl whose interests are thus served.

 

[roach]

I think that at some point (sooner rather than later) Pakistan is going to have to make up it's mind about about what it wants to be when it grows up.

> A Progressive Islamic nation OR An Islamic oligarchy
> A Staunch US ally OR a Taliban sympathizer

You are 'marking time' in Afghanistan, Kashmir......covert logistical support, overt ideological support.........

Jeez. Make up your mind already.

 

[Awesome]

Whatever Pakistan has to do is one thing, but Pakistan's problems are emanating from beyond our boundaries. India, Afghanistan and the US needs to stop exporting terrorism to Pakistan as well.

 

[Awesome]

To run with the Hare & hunt with the hound

This is more correct when about other nations compared to Pakistan who is being deceived by multi-pronged strategies against it.

 

[jahangeer yousaf]

i would have gone for ideoligical support if i were the president of pakistan or cheif of army staff rather supporting us or nato

 

[StingRoy]

Whatever Pakistan has to do is one thing, but Pakistan's problems are emanating from beyond our boundaries. India, Afghanistan and the US needs to stop exporting terrorism to Pakistan as well.

Don't derail the topic of discussion here. If India, Afghanistan and US are supposedly "exporting" terrorism into Pakistan, then what is the GoP doing sitting and watching? Why not prevent them by securing your borders?

What would you tell to the people all over the world where almost every "wannabe" terrorist starts a mad rush to Pakistan's camps to train? Are we running these camps inside your territory?

 

[TechLahore]

third eye: Please note that the US has its money on the Northern Alliance, Karzai and some elements of the Taliban simultaneously. Just like the US has its money on Israel and Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, China and Japan, Australia and China etc. simultaneously. By falling for the rhetoric trap and adopting such a naive posture on complex issues such as international relations, you really aren't doing anything for the quality of discussion here.

Anyway, that aside, this report has to be seen in context of the ongoing ISAF/Pakistan badminton contest. DAWN reports this morning that there has been some headway on the ISAF communique. Apparently the two sides are discussing whether to use, "regret and condolence" or "apology" etc. As this lingers, the Chaman route was also blocked earlier today, so if one is to believe the news, all supplies via Pakistan have been halted. Clearly, both sides want to find an acceptable way out of this. For Pakistan, I think that "acceptable way" cannot stop short of a NATO commitment - public or private - that manned aircraft incursions or ground incursions will not occur in future.

Let's see how this ends up. One observation I have is that the Afghan issue is far more important - on an everyday basis - to Pakistanis than it is to the Americans. Thus, the levels to which Pakistanis are willing to go, and the extent of their brinkmanship may be more extreme than what NATO can sign up for. This is simply logical.

While both partners may be frustrated with each other, due consideration has to be given to the fact that Pakistan is protecting what it perceives as really fundamental existential interests. The US, on the other hand, came in to Afghanistan to:

a) Militarily punish the Taliban for hosting OBL
b) Remove the Taliban from government
c) Find Osama
d) Establish a pro-west government

They failed in c & d and succeeded in a & b. However, now the entire enterprise in Afghanistan is held hostage by ISAF's inability to clear the countryside of the Taliban. While one can raise the Tribal Area/Pak-Afghan border specter as often as one likes, the fact is that the Taliban are in Afghanistan in force, they operate across the length and breadth of Afghanistan and are permanently based and located there. Despite the permanence of their location, they have not been routed or ousted by ISAF. There must be something behind this... lack of will, inability to conduct effective COIN ops, massive support for the Taliban outside of Kabul, prevalent distrust of NATO as an occupation force... whatever.

When journalists write about the "porous" Pak Afghan border or the Taliban seeking refuge in the tribal areas they make it seem that the entire Taliban force is following a hit-and-run incursion strategy. That all of them live in the tribal areas and venture into Afghanistan to fire a few shots only to come back before lunch. This is ridiculous. The vast, vast majority of the resistance to ISAF is within Afghanistan. Yet no one seems to be talking loudly and frequently about the utter failure of the ISAF even within the Afghan theatre of operations and the Afghan socio-political context.

Secondly, if one is to believe that some Taliban groups seek refuge in the tribal areas and then cross into Afghanistan, why not augment the 120,000+ Pakistani troops on the border with some NATO/ISAF/Afghan troops on the other side? I would hazard a guess that the reasons for this are: a) where NATO has failed in fighting the Taliban, it has also failed in training the local Afghans. There is no Afghan civil defence, military or police force that can be trusted with effective border security and b) NATO/ISAF are not committed enough to the Afghan conflict to staff and man the war effort properly. They will not send the numbers required to properly manage Afghanistan.

The lack of NATO/ISAF will again begs the question, "Who is Afghanistan most important to?" To the Europeans it is possibly not at all important. And even to the US, it is more about Afghanistan being a political challenge domestically than a serious area of strategic interest. They could park a few ships in the Arabian sea, have drones circling overhead and a few spy satellites watching... perhaps even retain some quick reaction troops in Kabul (or at their CAR bases). Whenever there is word of Taliban collecting in numbers, or starting a training camp etc. they can simply bomb it and call it a day. The US project in Afghanistan - at least its amorphous, Bush-era, "freedom and democracy" contours - cannot succeed.

When you think about Pakistan's perspective and interests in Afghanistan, among other things, you have to look at it the same way the US looked at the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was unacceptable for the US to have its avowed enemy base strategic assets in a neighboring country, thus endangering the US' fundamental security interests. When faced with an identical situation, i.e. a neighbour being used by an avowed enemy, America was willing to enter a nuclear Third World War to protect its interests. Note that Cuba was an independent country allied with the USSR. None of the "independence", "freedom of choice" arguments mattered when it was the US' survival at stake. Why should Pakistan think differently? In fact, we don't. We follow the US example on this matter at least. Afghanistan is potentially far more dangerous to us, if it is leveraged by countries inimical to Pakistan, than Cuba was to the US. The nature of the threat from Afghanistan can be complex and multi-dimensional, whereas the threat from Cuban missiles was fairly binary. No sane-minded individual can fault Pakistan for seeking to protect its regional and existential interests.

So, while one watches both sides play Badminton, one does have to acknowledge that the complete lack of headway in Afghanistan has to do with faulty western strategy and the several about-turns during this painful 9 year process. You can blame it all on Pakistan, but that won't solve a damn thing. The best solution is to call it a day, hand over control to Karzai, give him some money to buy as much support as he can and invest 1/20th of what is currently going into the war effort, into allowing the Afghan government (corrupt as it is) to at least attempt to rebuild the country.

 

[third eye]

third eye: Please note that the US has its money on the Northern Alliance, Karzai and some elements of the Taliban simultaneously. Just like the US has its money on Israel and Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, China and Japan, Australia and China etc. simultaneously. By falling for the rhetoric trap and adopting such a naive posture on complex issues such as international relations, you really aren't doing anything for the quality of discussion here.

.

I wonder if it was observed that my comments in post No 4 was in reference to post # 2 wherein the poster had suggested that Pak should put its money elsewhere.

Issues are only as complex as they are made.

 

[StingRoy]

So, while one watches both sides play Badminton, one does have to acknowledge that the complete lack of headway in Afghanistan has to do with faulty western strategy and the several about-turns during this painful 9 year process. You can blame it all on Pakistan, but that won't solve a damn thing. The best solution is to call it a day, hand over control to Karzai, give him some money to buy as much support as he can and invest 1/20th of what is currently going into the war effort, into allowing the Afghan government (corrupt as it is) to at least attempt to rebuild the country.

Good thorough analysis.
Do you honestly believe that giving control to Karzai can be a possible solution to this without any help from outside? As is the Afghan govt is weak... there are too many players and corruption and favoritism is rampant.
A negative fallout from this is that Taliban starts making inroads into the rural areas where its has historically had its stronghold causing the whole effort of nation building to collapse.

I agree that the US strategy in Afghan hasn't worked as well as it has in Iraq. They need to come up with a different strategy altogether, something which will involve reaching out to the rural areas and give them a share in the governance. Without their participation, the Afghan govt will only be restricted in the cities which would render the whole arrangement ineffective with the Taliban regrouping and trying to destabilize the govt slowly but surely.