If Centcom chief General David Petraeus's media remark at Manama, the other day, is any pointer, one inescapable inference would be that the perceptional mismatch obtaining between the United States and Pakistan on the so-called Quetta Shura continues to persist.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the sixth Manama Dialogue, the US general wanted Pakistan to put pressure on the 'leadership of the Afghan Taliban operating inside its borders if long-term progress was to be made in Afghanistan'. "(To make) the really significant progress in Afghanistan that will be necessary over time...it would be very helpful if additional pressure could be put (by Pakistan) on the leadership of the elements that are causing problems in Afghanistan", he said.
General Petraeus was, in fact, echoing President Obama who in his December 1, Pak-Afghan strategy had underscored the need to disrupt the so-called cross-border safe havens. Of course, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi, also in Manama, promptly responded by asserting 'for us a terrorist is a terrorist, whether he operates on this side of the border or the other side of the border'.
But is that response good enough to placate the American position on the Quetta Shura one would like to wait and see, especially when Pakistani leadership has either not spoken on it with one voice or betrayed divergences - as it becomes evident from Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar's part admission that the Quetta Shura did exist but no more now.
The US-perceived Afghan Taliban's safe haven on Pakistan's western border region, including FATA and Balochistan, is a serious issue and needs to be given matching serious consideration. Do we not know that during the Vietnam War the US conducted devastating bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail, which was a logistical system put in place by North Vietnam to reach men and supplies to Vietcong in South Vietnam through Laos and Cambodia?
While Cambodia was subjected to carpet-bombing by the United States warplanes, by the end of the operation three million tons of bombs had been dropped on Laos. That was the last century's version of American operations against what it perceived to be 'safe havens'. Of course, there is no hint that the United States would bring Balochistan under its drone attacks, but there is no pledge either that this will not happen in the future.
Pakistan has to have a calibrated response, in that it is already seriously engaged in battling the local Taliban in Fata and its capacity is not unlimited, though its understanding remains that a terrorist is a terrorist here or on other side of border.
Given the tough fighting that lies ahead for the coalition forces in Afghanistan, particularly in the southern provinces, the cross-border flow of the Taliban is bound to increase with attending complications for Pakistan.
Pakistan would have liked to appraise the Obama administration of its reservations, but it was ignored. Now that a number of US officials are expected to visit here, it would be in the fitness of things that they succeed in firming up a common perception, particularly on the so-called Quetta Shura.
The fact is that not only Pakistan's hands are full in fighting the Taliban in Fata (and a new operation in Orakzai Agency is likely to begin), it is next to impossible for it to open another front in and around Quetta. More so, for the reason that Pakistan has yet to receive what can be called credible evidence on the presence of the Quetta Shura on its soil.
In the absence of such an evidence a military operation, ground or aerial, against the entity would not be acceptable to the people of Pakistan. But if the Americans come up with such evidence there should be no hesitation on the part of Pakistan to move quickly. It is in our national interest that its soil doesn't become a safe haven for terrorism.