Seema Sirohi
August 12, 2015
When it comes to Pakistan’s army intelligence complex, the sky’s the limit. Even dead men talk, issue fatwas, bless the peace process, name successors and generally conduct business from the dark beyond. When the lies are exposed, the Pakistanis flatly deny everything and start anew. Taliban chief Mullah Omar’s death was hidden by the ISI for more than two years while it created an illusion that Pakistan and only Pakistan could “deliver” the Taliban even as it claimed it was not sheltering the one-eyed leader or others.
Deliver they did and the man chosen as the new Taliban chief, Mullah Akhtar Mansur, has let loose a wave of violence in Afghanistan, forcing President Ashraf Ghani to publicly call out Pakistan. “We can no longer tolerate to see our people bleeding in a war exported and imposed on us from outside,” he said on Monday, adding that the suicide training camps and bomb factories continue to operate in Pakistan just as they have in the past.
With India, the story is equally grim with attacks in Gurdaspur and Udhampur, constant violations on the LoC, heating up of the international border and firing on civilians. It would appear Pakistan is not really interested in talks and is instead upping the ante and pushing the Indian government.
Pakistan’s swagger is unmistakable. Even though its house of cards is dodgy, and its hand repeatedly exposed, but its chief patrons — the US and China — watch quietly. Meanwhile, the Pakistani PR machine is hard at work to cultivate and convince young American opinion makers of its change of heart post-Peshawar and lately of the “trouble” made by Indian intelligence in Baluchistan. It must be said belligerent statements from Indian ministers haven’t helped.
The result is a subtle narrative shift on Pakistan. Two remarkably positive articles about Pakistan’s so-called “strategic shift, ” its economic recovery and a plea for a second look at the country came out last week, creating a bit of a flutter among South Asia watchers.
Sameer Lalwani, a young Indian-American scholar affiliated with the Rand Corp until recently, argued on the conservative website The National Interest that Islamabad had made “striking but underappreciated shifts” in three areas — aggressive behaviour, strategic orientation and self-examination. He claimed that militant groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba had been “temporarily leashed” since there had been no major attack since Mumbai and even the Mumbai attack needed to be “understood in broader historical context.” He urged international security analysts to reexamine their assumptions.
Lalwani also said that based on his reading of Pakistan army’s Green Book, it seemed that colonels and brigadiers are engaged in “a vibrant debate” and appear more concerned about internal threats than the traditional rivalry with India. The article gave little weight to the constants — mainstreaming of terrorist masterminds like Hafiz Saeed in the public square.
Daniel Runde, a former banker, wrote in a similar vein on the Forbes website about the “change in the security dynamic” and how the US should “view Pakistan not as a problem to be solved but as a potential partner.” The articles are important as a good indication of Islamabad’s success in selling its storyline.
The Americans and lately the Chinese have been playing along for their own reasons with few questions asked even as Afghanistan struggles against Taliban “peaceniks,” promoted by Pakistan. When Sirajuddin Haqqani of the infamous Haqqani Network, the terrorist group implicated in many highprofile attacks against US and Indian embassies in Kabul, is named deputy, you know it’s a new level of the macabre.
So why does Washington play this (dumb) charade? The Obama administration is clearly back to the ’90s in terms of outsourcing its Afghan policy to Pakistan. Or there would have been at least a few good leaks in the US press on why its non-NATO ally hid the death of Mullah Omar.
Instead, it’s don’t ask, don’t tell. Pakistan wants US money to continue flowing so it sells its reconciliation-with-the-Taliban pie and Washington buys it because it doesn’t have the stomach to deal with Pakistan in a realistic fashion. And as Pakistan expert Christine Fair has said, the “silver-tongued hustlers” from the ISI and assorted departments are good at their game. They easily impress the non-specialists rotating through the US embassy in Pakistan on short-term assignments whose “underwhelming” reporting back to Washington “feeds into a shambolic process through which policy towards Pakistan churns.” Alas.
When it comes to Pakistan’s army intelligence complex, the sky’s the limit. Even dead men talk, issue fatwas, bless the peace process, name successors and generally conduct business from the dark beyond. When the lies are exposed, the Pakistanis flatly deny everything and start anew. Taliban chief Mullah Omar’s death was hidden by the ISI for more than two years while it created an illusion that Pakistan and only Pakistan could “deliver” the Taliban even as it claimed it was not sheltering the one-eyed leader or others.
Deliver they did and the man chosen as the new Taliban chief, Mullah Akhtar Mansur, has let loose a wave of violence in Afghanistan, forcing President Ashraf Ghani to publicly call out Pakistan. “We can no longer tolerate to see our people bleeding in a war exported and imposed on us from outside,” he said on Monday, adding that the suicide training camps and bomb factories continue to operate in Pakistan just as they have in the past.
With India, the story is equally grim with attacks in Gurdaspur and Udhampur, constant violations on the LoC, heating up of the international border and firing on civilians. It would appear Pakistan is not really interested in talks and is instead upping the ante and pushing the Indian government.
Pakistan’s swagger is unmistakable. Even though its house of cards is dodgy, and its hand repeatedly exposed, but its chief patrons — the US and China — watch quietly. Meanwhile, the Pakistani PR machine is hard at work to cultivate and convince young American opinion makers of its change of heart post-Peshawar and lately of the “trouble” made by Indian intelligence in Baluchistan. It must be said belligerent statements from Indian ministers haven’t helped.
The result is a subtle narrative shift on Pakistan. Two remarkably positive articles about Pakistan’s so-called “strategic shift, ” its economic recovery and a plea for a second look at the country came out last week, creating a bit of a flutter among South Asia watchers.
Sameer Lalwani, a young Indian-American scholar affiliated with the Rand Corp until recently, argued on the conservative website The National Interest that Islamabad had made “striking but underappreciated shifts” in three areas — aggressive behaviour, strategic orientation and self-examination. He claimed that militant groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba had been “temporarily leashed” since there had been no major attack since Mumbai and even the Mumbai attack needed to be “understood in broader historical context.” He urged international security analysts to reexamine their assumptions.
Lalwani also said that based on his reading of Pakistan army’s Green Book, it seemed that colonels and brigadiers are engaged in “a vibrant debate” and appear more concerned about internal threats than the traditional rivalry with India. The article gave little weight to the constants — mainstreaming of terrorist masterminds like Hafiz Saeed in the public square.
Daniel Runde, a former banker, wrote in a similar vein on the Forbes website about the “change in the security dynamic” and how the US should “view Pakistan not as a problem to be solved but as a potential partner.” The articles are important as a good indication of Islamabad’s success in selling its storyline.
The Americans and lately the Chinese have been playing along for their own reasons with few questions asked even as Afghanistan struggles against Taliban “peaceniks,” promoted by Pakistan. When Sirajuddin Haqqani of the infamous Haqqani Network, the terrorist group implicated in many highprofile attacks against US and Indian embassies in Kabul, is named deputy, you know it’s a new level of the macabre.
So why does Washington play this (dumb) charade? The Obama administration is clearly back to the ’90s in terms of outsourcing its Afghan policy to Pakistan. Or there would have been at least a few good leaks in the US press on why its non-NATO ally hid the death of Mullah Omar.
Instead, it’s don’t ask, don’t tell. Pakistan wants US money to continue flowing so it sells its reconciliation-with-the-Taliban pie and Washington buys it because it doesn’t have the stomach to deal with Pakistan in a realistic fashion. And as Pakistan expert Christine Fair has said, the “silver-tongued hustlers” from the ISI and assorted departments are good at their game. They easily impress the non-specialists rotating through the US embassy in Pakistan on short-term assignments whose “underwhelming” reporting back to Washington “feeds into a shambolic process through which policy towards Pakistan churns.” Alas.
No comments:
Post a Comment