The search for a mutually face-saving option in the dramatic turn of events in the relations between the US and Pakistan has continued over the week-end.
The dramatic turn came following the testimonies of Admiral Mike Mullen, the outgoing Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr.Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on September 22,2011.
In his testimony, Admiral Mullen not only repeated— in stronger language than in the past— US accusations of links between the Pakistani Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) on the one side and the Haqqani network on the other, but also blamed the Haqqani network for three of the recent terrorist attacks in Afghanistan—two in Kabul and one in the Wardak province. One of the attacks in Kabul was directed at the US Embassy and the Wardak attack was directed at a NATO base in which US troops are stationed.
The strongly-worded allegations about the ISI-aided (according to the US) Haqqani Network’s involvement in attackson US personnel and interests in Afghanistan, gave rise to a brief debate in the Senate Armed Services Committee on the options available to the US in the light of the new accusations against the ISI and the Haqqani network.
When asked about it, Mr.Panetta replied as follows:“I don’t think it would be helpful to describe what those options would look like and talk about what operational steps we may or may not take.”
Pakistan has been repeatedly saying that the successes of the Taliban as a whole and the Haqqani network in Afghanistan were due to weaknesses in the NATOs counter-inurgency measures”¦
Mr.Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Committee, then asked Mr.Panetta: “Are Pakistani leaders aware of what options are open to us so that they’re not caught by any surprise if in fact we take steps against that network?”
Mr.Panetta replied as follows: “I don’t think they would be surprised by the actions that we might or might not take.” In this connection, he referred to recent interactions at high levels with Pakistani officials.
What stood out in the Senate Armed Services Committee was the blunt allegations of Admiral Mullen against Pakistan and the more nuanced remarks of Mr.Panetta who indirectly admitted that weaknesses in physical security in Afghanistan had contributed to the successes of the Haqqani network.
According to agency reports of Mr.Panetta’s testimony,Mr. Panetta said the American military had a difficult job ahead and had to do better in preventing the insurgents from carrying out raids like the one on the Embassy. He added:“While overall violence in Afghanistan is trending down — and down substantially in areas where we concentrated the surge — we must be more effective in stopping these attacks and limiting the ability of insurgents to create perceptions of decreasing security.”
“¦the US has to act against the network in a robust manner if Pakistan does not act and, any action that the US takes should not have an enduring negative effect on the over-all relations between the US and Pakistan.
In this connection, it needs to be noted that Pakistan has been repeatedly saying that the successes of the Taliban as a whole and the Haqqani network in Afghanistan were due to weaknesses in the NATO’s counter-inurgency measures and that, instead of admitting this, the US was trying to shift the entire blame on to Pakistan.
A reference to possible US options also figured in the intervention ofSenator John McCain, the senior Republican member of the committee, who described the Haqqani network’s attacks in Afghanistan as “the fundamental reality from which we must proceed in re-evaluating our policy towards Pakistan”. At the same time, he urged US lawmakers to recognise that abandoning Pakistan was not the answer. He added: “We tried that once. We cut off US assistance to Pakistan in the past and the problem got worse, not better. I say this with all humility, not recognising just yet what a better alternative approach would be.”
In his opening remarks, Mr.Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Committee, also referred to the question of US options. He said:“I was glad to read a few days ago that Pakistan’s leaders have been personally informed that we are in fact going to… act more directly.”
The over-all impression from the discussions in the Senate Armed Services Committee was, firstly, that since there is now evidence of the role of the ISI-supported Haqqani network in direct attacks on US nationals and interests, the US has to act against the network in a robust manner if Pakistan does not act and, secondly, any action that the US takes should not have an enduring negative effect on the over-all relations between the US and Pakistan.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s discussions have not yet been followed by a discussion by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, headed by the more moderate Senator John Kerry, on the US options.
It is interesting to note that the leaders of the civilian Government “”barring President Asif Ali Zardari”” have reacted much more strongly to Admiral Mullens allegations than the Pakistani military leadership.
In the meanwhile, closely following the Senate Armed Services Committee’s debate, US CENTCOM commander General James N. Mattis visited Islamabad on September 24-25 and met, among others, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), and General Khalid ShameemWyne, Chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. It is not yet known whether he met any of the civilian leaders.
His discussions withGen.Kayani and Gen.Wyne were followed by an unscheduled meeting of the Corps Commanders on September 25. The fact that after these meetingsGen.Kayani left for London as scheduled would indicate that in the assessment of the Pakistan Army no imminent new development is likely.
Please wait...
