Pakistan, United States: Brink of War?
http://www.truthout.org/article/mustafa-qadri-pakistan-united-states-brink-war
The US steps up border raids into Pakistan, creating a game of
brinkmanship between troops from both countries. (Photo: Anjum
Naveed / AP)
As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan, troops
from both countries have commenced a deadly game of brinksmanship.
Although aimed at asserting each other's military presence along the
Pakistan-Afghan border, the skirmishes risk outright hostilities.
U.S. strikes in Pakistan are nothing new. Washington has conducted
unilateral missile strikes since soon after its invasion of
Afghanistan in October 2001. American pilotless surveillance planes
have been flying over the restive border with near impunity for much
the same time.
From Air to Ground
But the tone of the U.S. presence changed this year. In July,
President George W. Bush approved covert ground raids into suspected
militant hideouts in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, much of which
is a Taliban stronghold. Militants use the region as a sanctuary from
which to strike foreign and Afghan troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Thus far, U.S. forces attempted at least three ground assaults. The
only confirmed ground invasion of Pakistan, on September 3, led to the
deaths of around 20 civilians, including women and children. No
militant leaders were believed captured or killed in the raid.
This ground assault led to unprecedented rhetoric from Pakistan
condemning the United States. Even Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq
Kayani, normally quite evasive with the media, said that the Army
would defend Pakistan's territory. The Pakistani government summoned
the U.S. ambassador to the foreign office and blocked NATO supplies
vital to the multinational force's continued operation in Afghanistan.
Pakistan averted two other attempted ground raids when its border
forces fired warning shots at U.S. helicopters ferrying commandos into
Waziristan. On the most recent occasion, Pakistan and U.S. troops
exchanged fire for five minutes. Pakistanís government later claimed
that its army fired flares, not bullets, at the helicopters, but this
explanation did not sound very convincing.
Ostensibly, Washington fears that Waziristan - and other tribal
regions - could become a staging area for further attacks on the
United States if the Pakistani army doesnít root out pro-Taliban
forces. But Washington doubts whether Islamabad is capable of doing
the job.
More broadly, U.S. policy in the region is increasingly shaped by
its failure to establish unequivocal dominance in Iraq. With the War
on Terror overshadowing U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable
future, the next U.S. president will have to deliver victory in some
form to a skeptical public. That is the ultimate legacy of the
September 11 hijackers, and the Bush administration.
The Next Target
That victory will most likely not come out of the violence and
political mess of Iraq. Although the Bush administration and both
presidential candidates support a significant, continued military
presence in Iraq, the United States has accepted that it canít control
the entire country by direct military force. It may have had some
success in marginalizing al-Qaeda in Iraq - after initially spurring
its growth - but it has also been forced to accept Shia domination of
domestic politics.
Iran was seriously mooted as the next frontline and even now
experiences tremendous diplomatic pressure from Washington. But itís
difficult for the United States to promote the Shia state as the next
front in the War on Terror, however much Israel or its lobby in the
United States may favor this path. Iran doesnít pose an immediate
threat, nor would it afford a quick and easy military campaign.
Rather, war with Iran would almost certainly lead to a severe
disruption of global energy supplies and the world economy.
Pakistan, in comparison, is an irresistible target. The United
States claims to have evidence that the government supports jihadis
that wage war against the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. Even
a limited, covert war, directed at militants, not the Pakistan Army,
is arguably the easiest sell the United States has ever had to make
since the 1990 war with Iraq. The only factor preventing all-out
conflict is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Escalation
U.S. raids and missile strikes may be an attempt to see how far it
can go with Pakistan. After Pervez Musharraf stepped down as
president, the United States felt uninhibited by the concern that its
Pakistan interventions were impairing a staunch ally. There have been
as many missile strikes this year as in the previous seven.
Pakistan has engaged in loud rhetoric decrying the attacks and
asserted it wonít tolerate intrusions into its territory. Strong
public criticism was inevitable to placate a population deeply
resentful of the U.S. presence in the region. Both civilian and
military leaders have to guard against forces, such as rival
politicians or upstart officers, using the crisis to leverage power.
Even internationally, if Pakistan hadnít condemned the U.S.
attacks, it would have tacitly acknowledged that it canít address the
militant problem on its own. That would be an open invitation to more
interference from foreign armies and, potentially down the road,
international isolation as a failed state.
Pakistan, as it currently exists, relies on U.S. patronage for its
survival. Thereís very little it can do if the United States decides
to step up its military presence in Pakistan. According to the State
Department, the United States has given Pakistan $2.4 billion in
"security assistance" and $3.4 billion in economic assistance over the
past seven years. Pakistan has obtained a raft of loans and credits
from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the
Asian Development Bank since its rehabilitation by the United States
after September 11.
Despite the cold-headed realism, thereís a real danger that future
confrontations between Pakistan and U.S. troops could escalate into
outright hostilities. The Pakistani armyís rank-and-file is deeply
uneasy about military operations that have killed several thousand
fellow citizens and Muslims at the behest of Washington, not
Islamabad. Pakistan border posts may welcome any future U.S. intrusion
into Pakistan as an opportunity to assert their country's
independence.
U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan also resent what they see
as Pakistan's unwillingness to stop militants from attacking their
troops from hideouts in Pakistan. U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright
recently told Congress that 30-40% of the attacks in Afghanistan come
from Pakistan, an increasing proportion. American commanders may not
need much persuasion to fire on Pakistani forces if they are seen to
be getting in the way of militant targets. Even a standoff could
accidentally escalate into all-out hostilities.
If substantial casualties ensue, Islamabad and Washington might be
hard-pressed to soothe popular calls for revenge.
---------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
