WASHINGTON (Reuters) ? The United States and Pakistan unleashed a war of words this week as Washington accused Islamabad of involvement in attacks on U.S. targets in Kabul, and Pakistan warned against a rupture in an already strained relationship crucial to U.S. success in Afghanistan.
Years of intermittent feuds between the two countries, nominally united against Islamist extremists, have escalated into an ugly feud over a shockingly blunt U.S accusation.
The top U.S. military officer called the Haqqani network, blamed for the brazen Sept. 13 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency. Haqqani militants are now seen as a chief driver of violence in eastern Afghanistan and serious obstacle to President Barack Obama's plan to wind down a long war.
Pakistan denies the charges and its foreign minister hit back, warning Washington would "lose an ally" if it goes too far.
While the United States cannot afford to walk away from nuclear-armed Pakistan, its priorities clearly do not align with those of officials in Islamabad. As Washington focuses on quashing threats against soldiers in Afghanistan and beyond, Pakistan frets chiefly that India may fill a vacuum that could be created by the gradual U.S. departure from the region.
Here are several scenarios for how U.S.-Pakistani ties could evolve in the coming months:
STATUS QUO
The path of least resistance would be the Obama administration's current path, applying a mix of sticks and carrots in hopes Pakistan will finally crack down on militants such as the Haqqani group and the Afghan Taliban.
American officials would continue pressing Pakistan to get tough in private, high-level discussions, such as the marathon meeting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held with a Pakistani delegation this week in New York. They would repeat long-standing requests -- so far fruitless -- that Pakistani soldiers press into the remote border area of North Waziristan. On rare occasions, they would take their complaints public.
The White House, State Department and Pentagon would defend generous aid to Pakistan to an increasingly hostile Congress, which is already moving to restrict assistance. Economic aid and military support amounting to an approved $20 billion since 2001 would continue to fund Pakistan's military, support economic growth and help Pakistan deal with natural disasters.
The United States would continue drone strikes on militant targets in Pakistan's lawless border areas.
The bottom line: This approach has so far not yielded the results Washington seeks and there is no evidence that would suddenly change.
NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY
In this scenario, the United States would get tough, using diplomacy and other "soft power" tools at its disposal.
It would make its criticism of Pakistan's inaction on the Haqqani group increasingly sharp and public. It would more openly name agencies within the Pakistani government such as the ISI that it believes are linked to militants.
Executive branch officials, perhaps concluding that billions of dollars in aid have failed to buy results, would support moves in Congress to restrict U.S. aid.
The Obama administration would designate the Haqqani network as a foreign terrorist group and might scale back its support for Pakistan in multilateral venues such as the World Trade Organization.
The bottom line: These moves would certainly prompt turmoil in Pakistan's military and might slow development projects supported by U.S. aid funds. But they might also prompt the government of President Asif Ali Zardari to turn its own screws in response, denying Americans visas and further restricting U.S. training and intelligence activities in Pakistan.
INTENSIFYING DRONE ATTACKS
Since taking office, Obama has significantly accelerated the tempo of drone strikes on militants in Pakistan. But those attacks have targeted mostly al Qaeda leaders, rather than Haqqani militants.
In this scenario, U.S. officials would conclude they cannot get the desired results using diplomacy and aid. The CIA would increase the number of drone attacks and -- if it can acquire the right intelligence -- would target senior militants from the Haqqani network.
The bottom line: Such a move could easily bring a backlash. Already, officials say on condition of anonymity, Pakistan has forced the United States to relocate launching of drone strikes to Afghanistan. Flights of surveillance drones are believed to be still launched from within Pakistan.
If extremely sensitive targets were hit, or civilian deaths increased, Pakistan could temporarily clamp down on a key U.S. military supply route into Afghanistan or make life very difficult for U.S. diplomats in Pakistan.
THE (NOT QUITE) NUCLEAR OPTION
As a last resort, the Obama administration could launch a unilateral military operation inside Pakistan, despite the inevitable backlash.
The U.S. special forces raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May provoked anger and anxiety among Pakistan's powerful military, which for the first time faced sharp public criticism.
A new raid -- either a covert airborne assault like the one that killed bin Laden or a ground assault by soldiers darting across the Afghan border -- might be seen by Pakistan as a virtual act of war.
Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said on Friday, "You have to examine every possible option" for dealing with the Haqqanis. But he added: "I cannot imagine American boots on the ground in Pakistan. There's no scenario."
In the aftermath of such an incident, Pakistan might expel remaining U.S. military personnel or diplomats, permanently cut the supply route into Afghanistan, or -- if U.S. suspicions about its link to the Haqqani militants are correct -- Pakistani intelligence operatives might urge militants to increase attacks within Afghanistan.
A cross-border incursion would require solid intelligence and a compelling target such as the head of the Haqqani network -- both of which are difficult to acquire. It would also risk American lives, reviving memories of similar raids gone awry in places like Somalia.
The bottom line: While the success of the bin Laden raid may have put another such operation on the table, there is no sign yet the Obama administration is seriously considering it.
(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball and Susan Cornwell; Editing by Warren Strobel and Peter Cooney)
jane lynch matt ryan matt ryan ricky gervais golden globes real housewives of new york justified mildred pierce
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন