John Negroponte, US Deputy Secretary of State and a prominent member of the neo-con clique in Washington, has said something for the first time that has found receptive ears in this country.
Speaking in Washington last week in the wake of a ground incursion and repeated missile attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan he said, "Unilateral actions are probably not a durable or a viable solution over a prolonged period of time," and that the best way forward for both the countries is to try to deal with the situation on a co-operative basis.
A day earlier, the US Joint Chiefs Committee Chairman, Admiral Mullen had offered the assurance that Pakistan's sovereignty would be respected. Yet within hours of his assurance US drones fired missiles on a house in South Waziristan, killing three people. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi tried to explain the contradiction between Mullen's word and action as a case of "an institutional disconnect," adding "they will have to sort it out." In this particular case, though, it is hard to see that as an instance of institutional disconnect for both the assurance and the missile attack emanated from the military source.
What Qureshi had in mind probably was, a disconnect between the State and the Defence Departments, as reflected by Negroponte's assertions. But then it could also be a contrived 'good cop, and bad cop' kind of a situation. Or it could simply be a reflection of the turf battles between the two institutions. As a matter of fact, most informed observers of the scene tend to agree on that the US forces in Afghanistan are not about to stop missile attacks on targets in the Fata areas, and things are likely to drag on as they are.
Islamabad, it is suggested, can do little but to issue occasional condemnatory statements. This line of thinking is based on the assumption that Pakistan can ill-afford to do anything else. The country's economy being in dire straits, it needs the US' financial assistance more than ever before. And, of course, it is a small country incapable of standing up to a superpower. Much of this is true. Indeed, the US is history's mightiest and wealthiest power, and has all the necessary material means at its disposal. It is also true, though, that the US needs Pakistan's help to fight the war on terror.
So far as logistics support is concerned, some argue that this can be shifted to another place in the region. That is possible. Nonetheless, considering Russia's new assertiveness in its neighbourhood that option may now be fraught with difficulties. More importantly, it needs to be recognised that what America is faced with cannot be won with weapons alone; it requires reliance on local support structures and human intelligence which can come only from Pakistan.
The drones, for example, can surely track down fighters' movements and fire missiles, but they have no way of tracking the movements of high 'value targets.' For that it must rely on human intelligence, which can come only through co-operative action. Aggressive assaults, like the ones that have been going on, can prove to be counter-productive both in the theatre of operations and on the political front. It is hoped, therefore, that Negroponte did actually mean what he said when he opined, "The best way forward for both our countries is to try to deal with the situation in that border area on a co-operative basis."
Comments
Comments are closed.