Has Pakistan become the central front?

March 4, 2009

In a report released late last month, the U.S. Atlantic Council think tank warned that the ramifications of state failure in Pakistan would be far graver than those in Afghanistan, with regional and global impact. “With nuclear weapons and a huge army, a population over five times that of Afghanistan and with an influential diaspora, Pakistan now seems less able, without outside help, to muddle through its challenges than at any time since its war with India in 1971.”

The report, co-sponsored by Senator John Kerry and urging greater U.S. aid, said time was running out to stabilise Pakistan, with action required within months. It’s not even been two weeks since that report was released, and already events in Pakistan have taken a dramatic turn for the worse – from the confrontation between President Asif Ali Zardari and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to Tuesday’s attack on the Sri Lanka cricket team in Lahore.

“Pakistan’s disintegration, if that is what is now being witnessed, is a tragedy of Shakespearean dimensions, a riveting spectacle, and a clear and present danger to international security,” said a comment piece in Britain’s Guardian newspaper. ”But who in the world can stop it?”

The first question to ask is whether Pakistan has now become the central front in the battle against al Qaeda and its Islamist allies in the Taliban and other militant groups. During his election campaign, President Barack Obama said the central front was Afghanistan rather than Iraq. After he took office he shifted this to “Af/Pak” with the appointment of Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. With turmoil now reaching Punjab, the heartland of Pakistan, he might need to shift his focus even further east.

The Atlantic Council report said the United States faced challenges in three separate but related contexts: Afghanistan, the Afghan/Pakistan tribal belt, and Pakistan. “In the present conjucture, Pakistan is arguably the most important of the three.” (my italics)

A second question is whether Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, has been the primary target of al Qaeda all along. After last November’s attack on Mumbai, many analysts assumed that whoever was behind it intended to draw the Pakistan Army into a confrontation with India on Pakistan’s eastern border, making it easier for Islamist militants holed up on the country’s western border to launch attacks in Afghanistan.  What if the end-game of the confrontation, had it materialised, been Pakistan rather than Afghanistan?

The third question, of course, is what the international community will do. The United States has already pledged financial and diplomatic support for the country’s struggling civilian government; invited Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani to Washington last week for talks; dispatched Holbrooke on a tour of the regionstepped up drone missile attacks on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, and promised to send an extra 17,000 troops to stabilise Afghanistan. It has also promised a wide-ranging review of strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although with events moving so fast — particularly in Pakistan – it’s hard to see how this re-examination can keep pace.

The Washington Note, in a post this weekend, floated the idea that the United States might give up on Afghanistan and opt instead for a strong alliance with Pakistan.  It quotes a former top strategic adviser to an American president as saying that ”ultimately the U.S. has a very, very difficult choice to make in Pakistan regarding Afghanistan, its regional neighbors, and our other allies. He said that one possible way to stabilize both countries is to make a deal with the devil and engineer a very strong, close military alliance with the Pakistan military and its intelligence operation. That means we choose Pakistan over its other regional rivals — and that we cede Afghanistan to satellite status under Pakistan.”

The writer admits he does not know whether such a plan would work – it would certainly alienate India and would possibly find few takers even in Pakistan, where anti-American sentiment is strong. But that the idea should be floated at all, more than seven years after the United States overthrew the Pakistan-backed Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, highlights quite how serious the challenges are in the region.

The aim would presumably be to reach a deal with the Afghan Taliban, allowing the United States to focus its energies in targetting al Qaeda and helping Pakistan defeat the Pakistani Taliban, who appear bent on overthrowing the government in Islamabad. In doing so, the United States would face a deterioration in its relationship with India – cultivated by the Bush administration as a counterweight to China.

Retired Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar picked up a similar theme in an analysis of China’s attitude to the deepening crisis in South Asia. He writes that China would be willing to see the Taliban accommodated in Afghanistan while also backing efforts to stabilise Pakistan, its traditional ally, in a realignment which would clip Indian power in the region. 

There will no doubt be more ideas in the days and weeks ahead on how to stabilise Pakistan. What is clear is that a shift in thinking has begun in which Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is the centre of attention. So to return to my original question. Has Pakistan become the central front in the battle against al Qaeda and Islamist militants? And if so, what are the implications?

(Photos: Marriott hotel in Islamabad/Sept 2008 and Taj hotel in Mumbai/Nov 2008)

Comments

@But entering into a deal with Good Taliban(?) is dangerous, as witnessed in Osama promotion and also in Vietnam.
The clear option is to have an international force to strike terrorists’ hideout wherever they are.Other ptions shall fail.

- Posted by S.V.Ramanan
–This brings us back full cirle. international force-strike terrorists’–that;s the toughest part. Or the lack of sincerity?

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

There is no such thing as the ‘good Taliban’.This is a state which bred,nutured,armed these thugs.A close reading of the book,’three cups of tea’will give an insight into the saudi-wahabi plan for Pakistan.They have spawned a generation of children who are uneducated,jobless as they have no work skills,brainwashed in the madrassas,with a will to become suicide bombers for their controllers.They are bought over for a paltry sum of$2000/-to be given to their mothers.This is a gist of the inputs received from the thugs captured in Mumbai.If not checked this monster will devour the Saudi state as well in the near future too.The fat will really be in the fire then!Democracies are now faced with a situation as posed by the Nazis in 1933/34.The economic downturn has one benficial fact.The source of funding through oil sales is falling sharply.More needs to be done in that field by all of us.Pakistan is a basket case&the US must not fund this nation. Better to spend the money on US army.

Posted by devindra sethi | Report as abusive
 

devindra sethi,

A Good Taliban is a DEAD Taliban…

…No more and no less. I do not see the point in splitting hairs to decide who is a good Taliban or a Bad Taliban…

…end of story.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

@ S V Ramanan
International force against terrorism will be easy to make. However sho to strike will be much more difficult to fix.
For India and Afghanistan Pakistan is the center of Terrorism (with proofs) but for US its an ally in war against terror.
For US Iran is an axis of evil but for India its an old ally.

Each country has to look after herself. If India looks to US to sort out Paki terrorism we are kidding ourselves.

Posted by chirkut | Report as abusive
 

Yes Pakistan is the central front. Please send money and latest weapons to help us.

Thank you.

 

@Yes Pakistan is the central front. Please send money and latest weapons to help us.
Thank you.
- Posted by Aamir Ali

–Beggers will remain beggers

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •