Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pakistani Problematics
We are reaching a point with Pakistan where the alliance is no longer tenable. The relationship is quite strange and based entirely on wink-and-nod diplomacy. The premise has been this: we are supposed to believe that (a) privately Pakistani intelligence and their armed services offer us access to key borderland territory; (b) Pakistan suffers more from al Qaeda-like terrorism than do we; (c) they provide us valuable covert information; (d) they keep their nukes under wraps; (e) they do not openly seek to destroy the Afghan government; (f) they are more duplicitous and two-faced with their Islamist friends than they are with us, their benefactors; and (g) they don’t start a war with India and develop even closer relations with China. All that is supposed to be worth the $3 billion in aid a year, putting up with the obnoxious public anti-American protests, and enduring the moronic lectures from Pakistani diplomats.
But even if all the above were true, it would not excuse Pakistan’s overt anti-American acts. In theory, the two worst things an “ally” could do to the United States, would be to obtain a nuclear weapon and franchise proliferation to others, and allow bin Laden de facto sanctuary in the suburbs of its capital city. Pakistan did both.
Continuance of the present policy of bribing Pakistani officials with foreign aid is based on the proverbial bad/worse choice: the current situation is terrible, the alternative of cutting aid is said to be even scarier—given that an angry Pakistan then might do what?
Hide bin Laden?Develop a nuclear weapon?Sell nuclear expertise abroad?Consort with the Taliban?Try to subvert the Karzai government?Give intelligence to those killing U.S. troops?Give a wink and nod to terrorist operations against India?
They do all that now.
What then might we do? I think the key would be to smile and praise Pakistani cooperation and then begin cutting U.S. aid by about 10% a month, without fanfare or publicity, until at the end of the year we’re just “friends”. In addition, in matters of trade, immigration to the U.S., and diplomatic relations Pakistan’s status should be roughly equivalent with Syria’s. (But wait, would an enemy like Syria have dared to offer bin Laden a six-year villa on the outskirts of Damascus? Or would Syria have so overtly exported nuclear materials to North Korea or Libya? Dealing with such enemies is much easier when they are enemies and not called allies). In reality, we should simultaneously encourage much closer relations with a democratic, pro-American, English speaking, vibrant India—including a more prominent Indian presence in Afghanistan.
As far as I can tell the only support for continuing the status quo with Pakistan is fear that without the bribery things could get much worse. Perhaps, but reverse that: not giving them aid would be a bad situation, but could giving them aid be worse? As I understand it, the $4-5 billion we gave Pakistan between 1982-1990 was supposed to guarantee that they did not acquire the bomb. They eventually did, and so we imposed sanctions as well—until 9/11. We’ve tried aid, no aid, sanctions, full diplomatic relations, estrangement,etc. At this point, all have failed, and failure without $3 billion a year is better than failure costing $3 billion a year.
| > |
You said it yourself with the phrase “until 9/11.” We needed Pakistan’s intelligence and logistical support to invade Afghanistan — a land-locked Pakistani client state. Ergo if we pull out of Afghanistan we’ll need Pakistan a lot less. Personally, I don’t feel that obligated to a country where apostasy is a capital crime and the leadership robs us blind.
I think I mostly agree. I imagine a stable Afghanistan is not viewed by Pakistan as a favorable outcome considering it would necessarily mean a significant decrease in American ‘aid’, which in turn would mean a significant decrease in their true priority: expansion of military assets directed against their Indian nemesis.
If this shift in policy were to happen, what forms of leverage–if any–could we possibly maintain to mitigate the extent Pakistan would turn toward anti-western Nations to fill the American void ( beyond what they already are of course )?
I agree with everything you say, with the exception of a bigger Indian presence in Afghanistan. It’s long past time to just pull out of there.
Perhaps it’s time to think the unthinkable, which is to leave the countries in this part of the world, with the exception of India and Israel, to fend for themselves. The inevitable would, of course, happen, and these idiots would start tearing each other apart. But once the dust settled, they would be far easier to manage. This part of the world is pig sty of atavism and deserves what its people can manufacture for it, which is to say lots of sand and gravel. Let them hang themselves, I say, and good riddance to the lot of them; they don’t deserve us. Oh, and the next time some sheik needs heart surgery or cancer treatment or a blonde English hooker he can fly his posterior to Islamabad.
Victor, you may be right. I myself would be inclined to go through Osama bin Laden’s Nachlass first, in search of the names of those within Pakistan’s ISI who were his protectors. If we lay our hands on that information, we ought to put up Wanted posters with their photographs, names, addresses, and ranks with some indication of what we would pay for their delivery into our hands.
Then what? Guantanamo? Civilian trials? What are you gonna do with these guys? We don’t do poison-tipped umbrellas, though that would probably be the best idea.
Has anyone asked how announcing the finding of this “treasure trove” of intelligence to the world is wise? Now that the world knows that the US has new intell what are the odds that the terrorists are, at the very least, getting new cellphones and moving to new squats? Can no one in US intelligence keep his mouth shut?
I assumed there would be loads of intel there and I’m sure everyone else did too. If it makes a few people jumpy just vbecause they think they’ll show up in the data, then the publicity can be a good thing.
The terrorists are dumb but not stupid. They would have realized Osama had plenty of intel around his squalid quarters and it fell into American hands right about the time the SEALs drilled him a new hole in his head. As for switching horses, have we forgotten India’s long history of anti-Americanism? If the two went after each other with nuclear weapons how’s that any skin off our nose? We might find it mighty restful on the sidelines for a change.
@ Prof. Rahe and Mr. Hanson: It has been argued that a lack of engagement with the Pakistani military has contributed to their being more anti-American and that a closer relationship would change that. Your opinions?
Jerry, Pres. Bush cultivated Indian-American relations as we are both tolerant, religious capitalist democracies facing common threats from both China and Islamic jihadism, so I wouldn’t blow off India so breezily.
How about a quick Delta-force invasion to go in and roll up Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal? Obama, being a Democrat, could do it with very little political cost at home and earn the silent thanks and respect of the other nations in the region at the same time. Then, cut off the aid spigot followed by the sure and swift abandonment of the Afghanistan misadventure. Win-win-win-win.
It would almost be worth suffering an Obama second term to get all that done. I said almost.
Victor:
if we did decide to cut off funding to Pakistan, how would we ensure that their nuclear weapons don’t go astray? I assume that out $3 billion currently buys us some modicum of direct verification of their safe storage.