Admiral Mike Mullen, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told Congress that the Haqqani Network, a guerrilla group accused of hitting the US embassy in Kabul, is an “arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) immediately suggested that if the US military wanted to attack Pakistan, it would have support on the Hill.
It has long been apparent that Karzai, a putative American ally, has some sort of mental problem. He has been known to rant that he made a mistake in allying with the US against the Taliban, and should have backed the latter. Last year he told astonished visiting US congressmen that if the US pressured him too much, he would join the Taliban directly.
It would sort of be as though Prime Minister David Cameron, an ally of the US, should occasionally threaten to join al-Qaeda.
But then sometimes he praises the US and lambastes Pakistan for supporting Taliban
One of the big problems with the ‘counter-insurgency’ program of Gen. David Petraeus in Afghanistan is that counter-insurgency requires a reliable local partner. But the US only has Hamid Karzai, who stole his last presidential election and who micro-manages Kabul while letting much of the country go to hell, and he has now pledged a defense pact with Pakistan against his US ally.
It makes a person angry about the idea of US troops losing their lives to defend and stand up the Karzai government.
Below is a transcript of the relevant part of the Karzai interview on Geo, the Pakistani satellite channel, courtesy the USG Open Source Center:
‘ President Kazai Says Afghanistan To Stand by Pakistan in Case of Foreign Attack
Words and sentences in double slantlines in English
Geo News TV
Saturday, October 22, 2011 …
Document Type: OSC Translated Text…
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said that Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of an attack by India, the United States or any country. Talking to senior anchor person of Geo News, he said no country can give dictation to Afghans against Pakistan.
(Begin recording) (Karzai) God forbade, if any war took place between Pakistan and the United States. We will stand by Pakistan.
(Saleem Safi) Well, you will stand by Pakistan.
(Karzai) Yes, definitely. We are your brothers. The way Pakistan provided us shelter and the way Pakistan gave us homes considering us as brothers. And we remained there as refugees with great respect. In the same manner, God forbade if Pakistan is….
(Safi interrupts) This is a big claim. God forbade, if there is a war between Pakistan and India then?
(Karzai) No, if anyone attacked Pakistan. //If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needed Afghanistan’s help, Afghanistan will be there with you. Afghanistan is a brother. But please brother, stop using all methods that hurt us and are now hurting you. Let us engage from a different platform. The platform in which the two brothers only progress towards a better future in peace and harmony, and Afghanistan will be with you. So Afghanistan is not going to be dictated in any way by any country US or India or Russia or China or whoever. Afghanistan has its own policy, its own (word indistinct), its own clear view on things. And from that point of view, from that stance it is dealing with its brothers in Pakistan.// (end recording) ‘
The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases Pakistani Urdu newspaper editorials responding to the US threats against Pakistan should it not curb the Haqqani Network (Pashtun Mujahidin based in North Waziristan). The US is convinced that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence is running the Haqqani Network to project Pakistani power into Afghanistan.
Some newspapers urge that the Pakistani government develop contingency plans for the defense of the country if the United States should attack it (as Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared to call for on Sunday) Other newspapers expressed confidence that the two countries would work out their disputes with wisdom .
Urdu Press Discusses Pakistan Strong Opposition To US Threats
The following is a roundup of excerpts from editorial and articles on the tension between Pakistan and the US over the latter’s insistence that former should take action against the Haqqani network or else it will do it at its own, and need for chalking out strategy to counter the US pressure, published in the 26 September 2011 editions of 7 Urdu dailies.
Pakistan — OSC Summary
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Document Type: OSC Summary…
Nawa-e-Waqt Editorial Terms US Pressure as Opportunity for Nation To Unite
Demanding formulation of a national policy to safeguard the integrity of the country, the editorial states: “It has now become necessary that the joint session of the parliament should be convened to formulate a national policy to defend and protect the integrity of the country. The country should leave the war of the US interests and the Armed Forces of Pakistan should be put on alert to defend the borders of the country on all fronts. That is why, Prime Minister Gilani has perhaps made telephone contacts with the political leaders and decided to convene an all parties conference soon. It is welcoming. Similarly, the decision to recall Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar from the US is also appreciable. At this stage, nothing can be dear to us than the security of the country. We thank the United Sates because its aggressive policies and designs against our integrity have provided an opportunity for us to unite as a nation and concentrate.”
(Description of source: Rawalpindi Nawa-e Waqt in Urdu — Privately owned, widely read, conservative Islamic daily, with circulation around 125,000. Harshly critical of the United States and India.)
Jang Editorial Emphasizes Need For Formulating Strategy to Deal With Possible US Action
Maintaining that Pakistan should formulate its strategy by keeping all eventualities in view, the editorial says: “The nation will stand with the rulers like a strong fortress provided that they show steadfastness, because the people of Pakistan are no more ready to accept any policy contrary to the national dignity. Similarly, it is the responsibility of our political parties to unite to back the national stance. There is likelihood in the prevailing situation lest the United States should take some dangerous action against us. We should chalk out our strategy by keeping all these possibilities in mind. It is hoped that the commanders’ conference would have taken stock of all these important aspects.”
(Description of source: Rawalpindi Jang in Urdu – “The War,” an influential, largest circulation newspaper in Pakistan, circulation of 300,000. One of the moderate Urdu newspapers, pro-free enterprise, politically neutral, supports improvement in Pakistan-India relations.)
Express Article by Zamrud Naqvi Highlights Army Chief’s Statement
Referring to the reaction expressed by Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kyani over the allegations leveled by Admiral Mike Mullen, the article states: “Kayani said that the US admiral knows well ‘which counties’ have links with the Haqqani network. It is unjust and unproductive to single out Pakistan for blame. The Army Chief said that Admiral Mullen fully knows that which countries are in contact with the Haqqani network. The allegations are troublesome because recent meeting held with Admiral Mullen in Spain was very constructive. However, we have deep concern about such statements. The Army Chief emphatically turned down the allegations of proxy war against Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) saying that the blame game should come to an end now. Pakistan is not part of any proxy war.”
(Description of source: Islamabad Daily Express in Urdu — Daily owned by Century Publications of the Lakson Business Group. The second largest daily after the Jang newspaper with a circulation of over 120,000. Provides good coverage of national and international issues and follows moderate and neutral editorial policy.)
Jinnah Article by Khushnood Ali Khan Believes Pakistan Conveyed Strong Message To US
Discussing reports that Islamabad has told Washington to produce evidence of its involvement in Kabul attack or else stop the blame game, the article says: “The truth is that the Americans have been told that they should talk in an honorable way if they want to talk. No pressure will work now and we shall not hear calls to do more. It has also been told to the US and Afghanistan that if any attack is launched from Afghanistan, it will fully be retaliated. The Pakistani Army, air force, and the navy are on high alert. Pakistan has made it clear to the United States that it should produce evidence if it has any about attack on the US Embassy in Kabul otherwise it should stop the blame game and hostile statements.”
(Description of source: Islamabad Jinnah in Urdu — Daily owned by a prominent businessman who is mainly involved in real estate business and said to be close to military high-ups. Carries good investigative reports and conducts surveys on relevant issues. Editorials are harshly critical of US policies. Recently it has adopted sensationalist reporting and tends to splash corruption stories out of proportion. Editor Khushnood Ali Khan strongly criticizes Musharraf in his daily columns.)
Jinnah Editorial Calls for Chalking Out Policy to Counter US Plan
Commenting that the US blame game is part of its strategy for the period after its post withdrawal from Afghanistan, the editorial states: “The current US behavior and its planning ahead of its withdrawal from Afghanistan demands that Pakistan’s political and military leadership should join heads together and think, by keeping in view the broader national interests, independence, security, and sovereignty, as to what strategy we are required to adopt in this situation. Our trustworthy friendly countries like China and Iran have fully backed our stance and acknowledged our role in war on terror. We should be ready to counter the plan that the United States has made after its withdrawal from Afghanistan. We should also take stock of the situation and happenings with full seriousness and in light of ground realities and realize that we cannot counter some eventuality or extraordinary situation by blame game only. Our military leadership has taken right decision in view of the national interests.”
Mashriq Editorial Terms Unity Prerequisite for Success
Advising the rulers to focus on uniting and strengthening the nation to counter the external challenges, the editorial says: “Responsibilities should be assigned to intellectuals and honorable people to end ethnic and sectarian differences. The political leadership should leave the job of challenging the United States to the concerned people and focus on resolution of the people’s problems. We do not say that the government should accept the US as master and bow before it but we can make preparedness after overcoming the challenges faced on the internal front that may enable us to give befitting response to any hostile power of the world. A divided nation cannot achieve success.”
(Description of source: Peshawar Mashriq in Urdu – “The East,” a prominent daily newspaper published by Mashriq Group of Newspapers. Provides good coverage of events in Peshawar as well as tribal areas along the Afghan border. The Statesman in English is a sister publication from the same group.)
Ummat Article by Nadim Mehmood Discusses Meeting Between Pakistan Army Chief, Head of US Central Command
Referring to the complain by Pakistan Army Chief in his meeting with head of the US Central Command that the United States did not act upon the consensus reached at Spain meeting with Admiral Mullen, the article states: “According to the sources, at the meeting General Kayani referred to his recent talks with Admiral Mike Mullen in Spain and made it clear that it was agreed that the top military leadership of the two countries will refrain from issuing strict statements on the Pakistan-US strategic relations but the latter did not act on it. The sources say that Gen Mattis said on the occasion that the US administration is under great pressure from the Congress, Pentagon, and its people that strict steps should be taken in response to Pakistan government’s policy of not taking action against the Haqqani network. However, Gen Kayani did not give any signal to Gen Mattis about launching operation in North Waziristan but clearly stated that Pakistan will launch such action or take any step by keeping in view its own interests. He said that we shall also have to keep the sentiments of our people in view in this connection.”
(Description of source: Karachi Ummat in Urdu — Sensationalist, pro-Usama Bin Ladin Urdu daily. Harshly critical of the US, Israel, and India. Propagates Muslim unity to counter US/Western influence. Circulation 20,000. Editor-publisher Rafiq Afghan is an Afghan war veteran.)
Khabrain Editorial Suggests Resolving Issues Through Diplomacy
Maintaining that reason and diplomacy should go hand in hand to improve the situation, the editorial says: “It is expected that both the countries will give preference to wisdom and sagacity over aggression and resolve the issues through diplomacy, be these diplomatic means or military sources. However, we should brace for the worst while hoping for the best. The political and military leadership of Pakistan should mentally prepare itself for all the possibilities and apprise the nation of all facts. The courage and prudence should go hand in hand.”
(Description of source: Islamabad Khabrain in Urdu – “News,” a sensationalist daily, published by Liberty Papers Ltd., generally critical of the Pakistan People’s Party; known for its access to government and military sources of information. The same group owns The Post in English, Naya Akhbar in Urdu, and Channel 5 TV with a circulation of 30,000.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a major proponent of the idea of a US perpetual war, now wants conflict with Pakistan. He told Fox News Sunday,
“The sovereign nation of Pakistan is engaging in hostile acts against the United States and our ally Afghanistan that must cease. I will leave it up to the experts, but if the experts believe that we need to elevate our response, they will have a lot of bipartisan support on Capitol Hill…”
The comment came after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accused the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence of backing the Haqqani Network, which in turn is accused of having attacked the US embassy in Kabul.
Here are some problems with Graham’s startling suggestion.
The US does not have a prayer of succeeding in Afghanistan without a Pakistani partner. Pakistan is a complex place, and its civilian politicians have a different agenda than its conventional army, which in turn has a different agenda from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Even within the ISI, there appear to be secret rogue cells. Some ISI officers appear to be hooked up with the Haqqani Network and with terrorist organizations such as the Lashkar-i Tayyiba. But Pakistan has lost thousands of troops fighting the more militant Afghan and Pakistani-Pashtun fundamentalist groups, and it is not a task the US could take on by itself.
Pakistan is a nuclear state. The United States has never fought a major military engagement with a nuclear-armed country, and it would be unwise to begin now. Would you really want to take the risk that they might feel cornered and find a way to deliver a warhead against an American target? In the Cold War, the nuclear standoff was called ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ (MAD). There is no reason to think that such considerations have lapsed or do not obtain when the US is facing a state with a smaller nuclear arsenal.
Pakistan is a close ally of China as well as trying to keep an alliance with the US. Graham’s sort of talk will have the effect of pushing Islamabad further into the arms of Beijing. China is unlikely to stand idly by as one of its major geopolitical assets in its contest with India is taken out by the United States. That is, US-Pakistan war would very likely become US-China war.
Pakistan has a regular army of 610,000 men, and can call up about 500,000 reserves if it needs to. Some 15,000 Taliban in Afghanistan have been pinning down tens of thousands of US troops, so what would happen if they faced over a million?
Pakistan’s population is at least 170 million. The US was defeated by an Iraqi insurgency in a small country of 25 million; imagine how a country 7 times more populous could tie it down.
Lindsey’s way of speaking shows how wars benefit hawks and beget more wars. He is reluctant to see the US withdraw from Iraq because, he says, Iraq might then fall into the hands of Iran. But Iraq was a bulwark against Iran in 2002 and was only made open to Iranian influence by the unprovoked US aggression against Baghdad in the first place.
So now Iraq has been devastated and made supine and the US has to be on a war footing with Iran in order to “protect” Iraq from the latter. But Iraq’s Shiite government likes Iran and doesn’t see it as a threat, so Graham would be “protecting” Iraq against the will of Iraqis. Moreover, Graham doesn’t seem to think he needs to ask the Iraqi parliament whether it will permit any US troops to remain in Iraq at all.
Just as Graham wants to keep a division in Iraq because of Iran, he wants permanent bases in Afghanistan. And now he is looking for a fight with Pakistan, representing himself as “protecting” the US-installed Afghan government from Islamabad. But most Pashtuns would choose Pakistan over Graham any day of the week.
Pakistan’s alliance with the US is a marriage of convenience. Pakistan wants to see some groups, such as the Old Taliban and the Hikmatyar Hizb-i Islami, much weakened. But cells within the Inter-Serices Intelligence appear determined to retain the Haqqani Network, based in North Waziristan, as a means of projecting authority into Afghanistan. That emphasis makes Pakistan both an ally to the US in fighting some Taliban, but makes it only a partial ally, since it has its own reasons to use some of those Taliban to project its own authority and prepare for the peace after the US leaves. This difficult kind of alliance is nothing new in US history. Abruptly turning on such a complex ally and starting yet another war is madness.
From an American point of view, that Pakistan arrested the informants rather than giving them medals suggests perfidy. But from a Pakistani point of view, they can’t be having nationals working for a foreign intelligence agency and enabling foreign special operations raids into the country from outside.
The security relationship between the US and Pakistan is breaking down in 2011 in alarming ways. The Raymond Davis case, in which a CIA operative shot down two Pakistani men in broad daylight at a roundabout in Lahore last January, and then the consulate extraction team failed to get to him in time and ran over a third man on the way, had soured relations. Ironically, the US government sprang Davis by appealing to sharia or Islamic law, arranging for the relatives of the slain men to be paid blood money. Oklahoma, which has banned sharia, should be advised.
Then the US mission into Islamabad that ended with the death of Bin Laden came as a shock to the Pakistani elite, both because it looked as though some elements in Pakistan may have been sheltering the terrorist and mass murderer and because the US had so blithely ignored Pakistani sovereignty in not telling Islamabad about the operation.
The arrest of the informants, however, is less dire than and has fewer clear lessons than US politicians such as Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan suggest.
First of all, if the ISI had been actively sheltering Bin Laden, it would have been apparent in the computer files and papers the SEALs carried off from his compound. In reality, what has so far leaked from the US government in this regard is that there is no such evidence in that material. That Bin Laden had some sort of ‘support network’ in Pakistan is clear; that Gen. Shuja Pasha of the ISI or army chief of staff Pervez Kayani were part of it seems incredible. If the US had evidence to that effect, it surely would have deployed it by now.
Second, the US covert activities in Pakistan have become public and are unpopular among the public, just as the US would not react positively to being spied on, bombed and having rogue operations go bad on city streets– all by even a close ally. Pakistan’s democracy is fragile, but it does have parliamentary elections and parties can win or lose on public opinion, and the ruling Pakistan People’s Party has suffered in the public eye by its complaisance toward US interference in the country. Moreover, the powerful military establishment in Islamabad is furious at US high-handedness. The British ruled what is now Pakistan from the 1840s until 1947, and Pakistan was supposed to be about South Asian Muslim independence and self-reliance, so that having a super-power’s deputy commissioners reinserted into the country is most unwelcome to a lot of Pakistanis.
The United States needs to put things like drone attacks in the hands of the Department of Defense rather than in those of the CIA, so that they are not covert operations but rather elements of war-fighting. The US needs a Status of Forces Agreement with the Pakistani government laying out the terms of legitimate US actions in that country. And the Obama administration needs to come to Congress for authorization to bomb Pakistan (just as it should have gone to Congress with regard to Libya).
US bad relations with Pakistan at the moment derive from using the CIA in paramilitary ways in a no-man’s land of covert action that lacks any framework of international or bilateral law. If Washington goes on like this, it will push Pakistan altogether into the arms of the Chinese and it will set up a negative situation for its likely withdrawal from Afghanistan, in which Islamabad has powerful perceived interests that the US has not respected.
The US-Pakistan relationship is important and can be repaired, but it must be by the two countries acting like democracies, not cartoon spies.
Between 70,000 and 100,000 members of the Sadrist Shiite political bloc rallied in Baghdad on Thursday, demanding that the some 47,000 US troops still in Iraq leave altogether. Sadrist leader Muqtada al-Sadr says that if the troops remain, he will reactivate his Mahdi Army militia. It is a powerful threat. But in some ways, his political clout is more important than any such prospect of renewed paramilitary activity. It was Sadr’s support that allowed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form a government late last fall, and the government could easily fall if Sadr pulled out.
Al-Maliki said a couple of weeks ago that he would go to each of the major political blocs for advice on whether to request a new agreement with the US to leave some troops in Iraq. This statement was widely misinterpreted, I think, in the West. What al-Maliki was actually saying was that he refused unilaterally to extend the US troop presence. The main US hope for keeping American soldiers in Iraq is that al-Maliki would ask them to do so unilaterally, acting sort of presidentially. Instead, he has signalled that he will do no such thing, but will act as a prime minister, beholden to his coalition in parliament. I can’t imagine that any of the major blocs in parliament with the possible exception of the Kurds will advise al-Maliki to do a new SOFA that retains American soldiers in his country. And so it seems to me most likely that the US will have to leave, in part because of sheer political inertia in Iraq, as well as because the Sadrists have made it very clear that a US departure is a prerequisite for social peace. The Mahdi Army militia roiled the country in 2004 and could do so again. The US sees them as a proxy for Iran, but this view is largely incorrect. They are Shiite Iraqi nativists and don’t like foreigners in general, sort of an Iraqi Tea Party.
Now Pakistan is kicking out US special forces troops, showing its government’s displeasure with unilateral security operations on Pakistani soil. This move is in part a reaction against the Raymond Davis case, where a CIA operative shot two Pakistanis in broad daylight. But it also responds to the US incursion into Pakistan, when SEALS killed Usamah Bin Laden.
And as Iraqis and Pakistanis sought an end to US troop presence in their countries, the US House of Representatives surprised itself by almost passing a resolution urging a speed-up of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. the measure failed by only 12 votes, garnering 204 votes, 28 from Republicans. This is substantially more than a similar measure gained last summer in a Democratic-controlled House.
President Obama’s plan to begin drawing down US troops in July, 2011, had originally been controversial, opposed by generals like David Petraeus and by most Republicans. There was speculation that the Republican majority that came in last fall would attempt to stop the withdrawal. But the interminable Afghanistan War, the clear unreliability of President Hamid Karzai, and the killing of Usamah Bin Laden have all changed the political landscape so that momentum is building in the House for a quicker withdrawal than Obama initially proposed. Vice President Joe Biden has spoken about 2014 as an end date for the US military effort in Afghanistan, but it is unclear that the electorate will be patient for that long. Nearly 60 percent of Americans want out.
Younger Americans cannot remember when the US was not at war. Could we be seeing the glimmerings of a time, not long into the future, when no US soldiers will be fighting and dying anywhere on the globe? And, how long before a weary public finally demands that the bloated US war department budget finally be reduced, commensurate with the country’s increasingly straitened circumstances? (No other country beggars itself with military spending as the US does, and most do better economically and seem perfectly secure militarily).
Pakistan’s relations with the United States are troubled, and Islamabad may be turning to China as a result. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani just ended a 4-day visit to Beijing, which turned into a love fest. The visit commemorated 60 years of Sino-Pakistan relations. (China has been a key Pakistan ally in the latter’s struggle with India over issues such as Kashmir).
The US incursion against Pakistani sovereignty in the Abbotabad raid on Usama Bin Laden’s compound set off a round of condemnations on both sides. The US charges that Pakistan backs some factions of “Taliban” such as the Haqqani Network based in North Waziristan, which strikes at the Karzai government and US & NATO troops across the border in Afghanistan. There is popular pushback against US drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The relationship was further soured by the Raymond Davis case, in which a CIA operative shot two Pakistanis dead in broad daylight in Lahore and then a US extraction team from the consulate ran over another Pakistani and killed him trying frantically to save Davis from arrest (in which they failed).
Pakistan wants China to build for it a naval base at Gwadar, a deep water port now managed by Singapore, but to which Chinese engineers and Chinese capital made key contributions. (There are 10,000 Chinese working in Pakistan nowadays.) The port was 75% financed by China.
When the lease on the port ends, China is being asked to step in to manage it. Pakistan is offering itself to China, in other words, as Hong Kong West. If China has standing access to the new naval base for its own growing fleet of military vessels, that opening would give it a new position in the Arabian Sea near the strategic Persian Gulf, which has nearly two-thirds of the world’s proven petroleum reserves and a significant amount of natural gas, as well.
China will also give Pakistan 50 JF-17 Thunder fighter jets . China and Pakistan co-produce these jets, but the 50 being proffered have more sophisticated avionics than the co-produced version. China will also provide Pakistan with “J-20 stealth jets and Xiaolong/FC-1 multi-purpose light fighter aircraft”, though talks are in train about how exactly they will be paid for.
Pakistan will thus have some 260 Chinese jets, and these aircraft are the core of its air force.
On August 14, China will launch a satellite into orbit for Pakistan. The two countries are being vague about its use but it can hardly be irrelevant to Pakistan’s military competition with India.
There is also an economic basis, and not just a strategic one, for an increasingly strong Sino-Pakistan alliance that casts the relationship with the US into the shade.
Even the Muslim fundamentalist group, the Jama’at-i Islami, is urging closer ties with Communist China as a way of escaping Pakistan’s dependence on (“slavery to”) the United States.
The main thing the US has going for it in Pakistan is its provision of foreign aid (“strategic rent”). If Congress abolishes that, as some representatives have called for, then the Islamabad-Beijing marriage may become even stronger.
Pakistan’s elected parliament held a 10-hour session on Friday and decided at the end of it that US incursions, including drone strikes, into Pakistan must cease. The American drone strikes in the northwest, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas have long been unpopular in parliament and with the general public (though in some of the FATA administrative divisions as few as 10% say they even care; some are more worried about al-Qaeda spreading local terrorism than about drones).
Parliament said that if the drone strikes do not cease, it will take revenge by impeding the free passage of NATO materiel destined for landlocked Afghanistan.
In an unprecedented move, the Pakistani military allowed itself to be grilled by the civilian parliamentarians. Gen. Shuja Pasha, the current head of Inter-Services Intelligence, took responsibility for two major intelligence errors– failing to find Bin Laden even though he was in Abbotabad near the military academy, and failing to detect US helicopters coming into the country to carry out the mission against Bin Laden. Gen Pasha even offered to resign if the parliament asked that of him. Accountability and contrition and willingness to step down are not generally attributes of the Pakistani officer corps.
Many countries in the greater Middle East are characterized by ‘dual sovereignty.’ That is, there are two major seats of power, authority and legitimacy rather than just one. For decades, in Turkey the civilian, elected government was constrained by the power of the officer corps. The same thing was true in Pakistan. In Iran, the elected parliament and prime minister are constrained by the Supreme Leader, a cleric.
Since 2007, when military dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf made the mistake of sacking the chief justice of the Supreme Court, civilian society has been gradually asserting itself against the military. It has had successes and failures. The Pakistan Spring of 2007-2008 forced Gen. Musharraf from power and returned the country to the civilian political parties such as the Pakistan People’s Part, the Muslim League, the MQM, and so forth. Musharraf ultimately had to step down. But although the army went back to the barracks, and the civilian political parties came to power, the power of the army has been virtually unchecked nevertheless. In the Musharraf period, there was no dual sovereignty, since the army ruled.
We should not overestimate the significance of Friday’s parliamentary session. It is a little unlikely that parliament can effectively stop the drone strikes. And President Asaf Ali Zardari and his prime minister Gilani are both complicit in allowing the US to hit Pakistan, according to state department cables released by Wikileaks.
Still, Friday saw steps forward toward ending dual sovereignty and restoring a rule of law and civilian control over the military in Pakistan.
The US, which has long held that Pakistan should move to a more democratic system, is therefore in a conundrum. If parliament is asserting more prerogatives, this is a good thing from Washington’s point of view. But the assertion of those rights threatens US ability to act with impunity toward Pakistan and toward the Taliban in that country.
The drone strikes have long been questioned by civil libertarians and they should only continue if a) they are carried out by the Department of Defense, not the CIA (government officials cannot even discuss a classified CIA operation); and b) if there is a status of forces agreement between the US and Pakistan governing their use.
The Pakistani parliament will have done us all a great favor if it helped provoke this outcome.
Welcome to Informed Comment, where I do my best to provide an independent and informed perspective on Middle Eastern and American politics.
Informed Comment is made possible by your support. If you value the information and essays, I make available and write here, please take a moment to contribute what you can.
