Small Wars Journal

This Week at War: The Pakistan Veto

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:36pm
Islamabad now has final say on U.S. military policy.

Here is the latest edition of my column at Foreign Policy:

Topics include:

1) Pakistan shows who's the boss

2) Can Britain resist becoming an American auxiliary?

Pakistan shows who's the boss

In apparent retaliation for a NATO helicopter attack on a Pakistani border outpost this week, Pakistan has closed the Torkham border crossing into Afghanistan to convoys supplying NATO forces. An International Security Assistance Force statement claimed the helicopter attack was a response to an attempted insurgent attack on a coalition base in Afghanistan. Pakistan claimed that the helicopter strike killed three soldiers in its Frontier Corps.

Trucks and tankers bound for NATO bases in Afghanistan are now stuck on the road outside Peshawar. Although this dispute will likely be resolved quickly, it shows that Pakistan has a veto over President Barack Obama's military strategy in Afghanistan. Specifically, Pakistan has now vetoed the possibility of a U.S. military campaign into the Afghan Taliban's sanctuaries inside Pakistan. Such a veto is understandable from Pakistan's perspective, but not so much from those of the NATO and Afghan soldiers who would like to get at the stubborn enemy finding sanctuary inside Pakistan. In a strange irony, the more the United States has built up its forces in Afghanistan, the stronger Pakistan's veto power over U.S. military decisions has become.

The Sept. 30 helicopter attack that prompted the border closing was the last in a string of such attacks that began a week ago. On Sept. 24, NATO helicopters responded to an attack on a combat outpost near the Pakistan border by firing on insurgents inside Pakistan. Helicopters returned on two following days, were fired on again from Pakistan, and again returned fire.

NATO commanders apparently view these cross-border helicopter strikes as incidents of "hot pursuit" and actions of self-defense while under fire. Pakistani officials, by contrast, no doubt view this string of attacks as a case of NATO probing to see what it can get away with. For Pakistani officials, it became one slice of the salami too much. These officials have accustomed themselves to the CIA's drone campaign inside Pakistan, a campaign that accelerated sharply in September. If U.S. policymakers thought they could get Pakistani officials to get accustomed to ever more aggressive air raids into the sanctuaries, Pakistan's closure of the border is designed to bring those thoughts to an end.

According to Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin, the Obama administration continues to place Pakistan at the center of its Afghan strategy. The issue for U.S. officials is how to persuade Pakistan's government to align its behavior with U.S. interests. According to Rogin, the Obama administration has opted for rewards rather than pressure, rejecting the advice of former National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair to conduct airstrikes and raids inside Pakistan as the United States would see fit.

It is sensible to try a strategy of persuasion and rewards first before resorting to pressure and coercion. However, Pakistan's closure of the Torkham crossing has revealed that the large buildup of U.S. and coalition forces inside Afghanistan has removed the option of applying pressure on Pakistan. Although the United States has negotiated with Russia to obtain an additional supply line into Afghanistan from the north, the tripling of U.S. forces in Afghanistan since Obama took office means that there is no escaping Pakistan's strong leverage, amounting to a veto, over U.S. military operations. Bob Woodward's new book Obama's Wars, describes how National Security Advisor James Jones threatened Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari with a strong military response (airstrikes on 150 suspected terrorist camps inside Pakistan) should there be a spectacular terrorist attack inside the United States sourced from Pakistan. Jones's threat is an empty bluff, or at least it has become one now that there are 100,000 U.S. troops dependent on a fragile supply line through Pakistan.

Pakistan's closure of the Torkham crossing shows that it will allow NATO to execute any military operations it wants just as long as these operations don't serious threaten the Afghan Taliban, Pakistan's invaluable proxy ally. Obama and his generals would no doubt like to wield the leverage that Pakistan wields over them. But creating such a reversal of fortune would require a military strategy that doesn't require endless daily supply convoys snaking through Pakistani territory.

Can Britain resist becoming an American auxiliary?

The British government's drastic spending cuts have created a moment of truth for the country's future strategic role in the world. The new Conservative-Liberal Democrat government that came to power in May ordered a broad strategic defense review. But the country's fiscal crisis has converted that effort into a budget-slashing exercise with a Treasury-imposed 20 percent reduction in defense spending now possible. At stake is whether Britain will be able to exercise an independent foreign and security policy or whether it should instead accept a merger of its foreign and security policy with either the United States or the European Union.

This week, the Daily Telegraph published a previously confidential letter from Defense Secretary Liam Fox to Prime Minister David Cameron. In the letter, Fox warns that the budget cuts the Treasury contemplates will force Britain to withdraw surface naval forces from the Indian Ocean, Caribbean, or Persian Gulf; sharply limit its ability to conduct amphibious operations; and put at risk other maritime operations such as its ability to reinforce the Falkland Islands or conduct some counterterrorism missions. Fox's warning implies that the price of maintaining a British nuclear deterrent (a new generation of nuclear missile submarines) and a British Army able to contribute to missions like Afghanistan is a permanent hollowing-out of Britain's other maritime capabilities and its ability to maintain much of a global military presence.

If the top priority for British policymakers was maintaining Britain's ability to formulate its own policies and resist intimidation from any direction, the top defense priorities would be the nuclear missile submarine deterrent fleet; more naval forces to protect those submarines, British territory and interests, and air power to do the same. British land power, valued by coalition partners like the United States, would be less important if policy independence were key.

U.S. defense officials are growing increasingly alarmed by the developments in London. Washington would no doubt prefer to see the British maintain its army and special operations forces, along with some of its surface warships. British participation in U.S.-led counterinsurgency and stabilization campaigns has added some international legitimacy to those efforts and has spread the burden on ground force deployments. By contrast, U.S. officials (perhaps the Obama administration in particular) might silently prefer the British to scrap its nuclear deterrent. U.S. officials would see such a move as a boost to the cause of nuclear nonproliferation (which favors U.S. conventional military superiority) and would increase Britain's dependence on the United States for its security.

Becoming mostly a land-power auxiliary of the Pentagon would create tremendous savings for the British Treasury; Britain's nuclear missile submarine and aircraft carrier programs are hugely expensive. But it would be very surprising if Cameron and his government went this way. U.S. officials are right to be worried. If, as is likely, Britain opts for austerity and policy independence, that won't leave much left over for more land campaigns alongside the Yanks.

Comments

Adnan Arshad M… (not verified)

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:25pm

Omar -- If you believe anything from main stream TV, then you are living a lie.

Other Side Story:

Afghan CIA-trained "Kill Squads" now busy in Pakistan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UZETu1PSc8&feature=player_embedded

Omar - Mine query to you -- Why didnt you high light the same?

*Khataee = Tartness

*Maqasid = USA, UK & NATO - To implement a Divide & Rule Policy among Pakistanis & simultaneously -- of course among at Muslim Countries thereafter Comprehensive Possession of Caspian Oil Sea, Afghanistan & Baluchistan Minerals & above all -- to keep FAR AWAY to the Muslims from Shariat-e-Muhammadi.

Likh Kur Register Kur-Lo - America Nahee Hamara -- Natural Ally-
Uskay Apnay Chand *Maqasid - Jin Mein ISI Nay Dal Dee *Khataee-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6175338/pakistans-double-game-in…

omarali50

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 5:55pm

Mansoori sahib accurately reflects the beliefs of a good chunk of the high command. The "paknationalists", who are in a majority in the army are dangerous because their short-sighted India obsession makes them easily manipulated by the jihadis (who may be small in number, but who do know what they are doing, unlike the moron faction)

....http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?231678

Adnan Arshad M… (not verified)

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 5:23pm

Robert Haddick - on these two following Urdu Sayings -- How Much you Believe?

1. Hein Kawakib Kuch Aur -- Nazar Aatay Hein Kuch Aur - ! -- ?

2. Hathi Kay Dant Dikhanay Kay Aur --- Khanay Kay Hein Aur - ! -- ?

The above is by mean is Simple English -- Whatever you see & feel with your own eyes it is not Necessary Hundred Percent -- the same is occurred in Real Manner.

RH -- Im as yet to-date ASTONISH upon way of Dealings of the Americans & NATO Countries under their respective Superiority Complex which is on the Road which leads to in totality Declared Defeat ---- Americans & Britishers -- Why arent you READY to believe Me/Adnan Arshad Mansoori -- as the following Registered Remarks -- I myself has been INCORPORATING for the last Ten Years at different Forums -- that --

"Americans & Brits are SMART, FAR-SIGHTED & SENSIBLE only in Jewish Based Hollywood Film Industry - In Real World -- You are the Worst Lethargic Policy Makers in World Politics."

Kindly Register along-with duly dated My above cited Remarks. Thanks well in Advance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwoakFvvLIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYEGWx4lAI

This is something we must watch very carefully. It is not widespread & what weve got to do is continue to partner effectively with security forces out on the front line. Earlier this year, in January, the Taliban said one of its fighters had infiltrated the Afghan Army to carry out an attack which killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan. And in November last year, an Afghan policeman shot dead five British troops in the southern province of Helmand.

It is about time the American & their Pakistani plus Afghan Puppet Political Elite realized the truth, Americans & NATO can never win any conflict at Pakistan & Afghanistan. History tells us this, You Americans left with your tails between your legs previously at Vietnam, dont you REALIZE the Russians left totally defeated, with so called Propagandized Western help -- Whats Wrong with this TIME - ISI is not CONTROLLABLE.

Ander Taliban Aur Samnay Say Pakistan Say -- Moqabla Hoga-
Bharat Kee Arboun $ Kee Afghanistan Mein Investment Ka Kiya Hoga-
Haqiqat: Jaisee Hotee Hay Rooh- Waisay Hee Farishton Say Samna Hoga-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8484212.stm

You Pentagon & CIA Officials cannot really complain now that the Russians etc are helping the Taliban / Mujahedeen - as ISI & Pakistan Army is too HEAVY to Hold as well sufficient to Recognize America & NATO are number ONE enemies of Muslim Ummah. There is no strategic benefit to the WEST in Afghanistan. It is almost certain that there are Taliban sleepers within the Afghan Services / Police just waiting to wreak havoc. The Afghan government is not liked & is in power due to corrupted electoral practices.

Therefore, Time to GO Back home. This is counter-insurgency warfare -- Funded & full supported by ISI as per your Electronic Media CLAIM -- if that so -- I think the ISI is an Extra Ordinary Smart -- Intelligence Agency of the entire globe who is Defeating to world Super Power plus NATO Countries as per your LOUD CLAIM even in Droned Attacks ISI shared with you those people who are Against TALIBAN even Americans are KILLED in your own Droned Attacks even Director of CIA deputed at North Waziristan -- Wow -- What a Conspiracy Game - ! - ? i.e. a standard problem in counter-insurgency warfare. Its nothing new. Mike Mullen may think its special but theres no reason why any properly-trained or experienced American Platoon - IN personnel should think so.

Its just another par-for-the-course, "Pain-in-the-Rear" -- unfortunately, quite literally.

*Dushman Ka Dushman Hota Hay DOST = An established Un-deniable Fact of the Matter - If G.o.Pakistan think -- Presence of Indians, Americans & NATO is harmful at Afghanistan then Taliban & Alqaida are --"Fast Friends"-- of Pakistan on Auto-mated Basis.

America-o-NATO Kee Durgat Pakistan Aur Afghans Nay Ju -- Ba-Naee-
America Cheikh Raha -- Duhaee Hay Duhaee ------ Kahan Jaan Apni Phansaee-
*Dushman Ka Dushman Hota Hay DOST - Yeh Baat America Kee Samjh Mein Na Aaee-
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=double+game+of+ISI&aq=f

omarali50

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 2:32am

It is worthless posturing, but the saddest part is that they have actually killed some poor innocent drivers and truck cleaners in the course of arranging this little show....Very sad.

Armchair Warlord (not verified)

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 10:20pm

Considering that any serious attempt by the Pakistanis to close our supply lines into Afghanistan would constitute an act of war and lead inevitably to an invasion of their country to reopen them, it's pretty obvious this is worthless posturing on their part.

We have all the power here. A Pakistani veto? Please. They will be rolling over shortly.

omarali50

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 3:32pm

Ali, your statement makes no general sense: history of consists of "ground and realities" being changed all the time, for better and for worse. The question is always more specific: can THIS change be effected by THESE means in this time frame? I personally think the US could have achieved a very real change in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, but appears to have made a bit of a hash of things. But "one train may hide another" (sign in a Kenyan Railway station). The fact that the US has made a hash of things does not mean that their departure will lead to rivers of milk and honey. Sometimes, the alternative to a bad situation is a worse situation.
btw, i do still believe that IF the US invests more than it may want to (or more than makes sense in its own calculation of ends and means) and does so under very wise direction, it can achieve a fairly positive outcome even at this stage. What I do NOT foresee is a positive outcome for the people of the region if the ISI-Ahmed Qureshi mindset triumphs in the struggle within the corrupt Pakistani ruling class.

carl (not verified)

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 3:27pm

Omar:

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the "Bangladesh option"?

Ali (not verified)

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 1:43pm

The best things for USA is to understand that ground and its realities can temporarliy be altered but never changed completely.They have tried it in Veitnam, then in Afghanistan and now trying to manipulate the same in Pakistan.The common denominator is all this is only the partial success which must be weighed sensibly against the cost and resources being diverted for such misadventures

omarali50

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 1:05pm

As a Pakistani, I am very fearful of the day when someone calls ISI's bluff and the gravy train is stopped, because it would mean even greater suffering for the people of Pakistan. All the obvious options look bad to me:
1. The US recognizes that positive change CAN come in Pakistan, but it has to be manipulated into place because the Pakistani elite itself does not know what is good for them in the long run. And recognizing this, the US works with its partners to nudge everyone in a direction that is not only in the best interest of teh US, but also happens to be in the best interest of the 200 million people who actually live in Pakistan. That requires a change in mindset not only in Pakistan, but also in the US, which is also stuck in outdated cold war paradigms. My guess is that this is the least likely (though least painful) scenario. Its POSSIBLE but not probable.
2. The US takes a shortcut and tries a "bangladesh option" in Pakistan without changing the india-centric, jihadi mindset of GHQ. This may allow Obama to achieve some semblance of success in Afghanistan and then pull out and leave behind a renewed civil war in Afghanist and western Pakistan and the status quo ante between India and Pakistan. It maybe the most likely scenario. It will postpone the next disaster in the region but not prevent it.
3. Something in between 1 and 3 develops, guided by the invisible hand of fate (which is nothing more than the aggregate of short-sighted decisions by different actors). The Pakistani army does what it has to do, but gracelessly, slowly, always at the last minute, when no other choice remains. America does the same.
4. Things fall apart and Pakistan becomes Somalia X 10. Too terrible to even contemplate.
btw, I agree with anonymous that a deal with IRan would be a very positive development. Its also unlikely.
All this is just amateur theorizing with no inside information. Those in the know will probably chuckle over the whole thing.

carl (not verified)

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 1:28am

There is much recent info in one of the council threads about how we are increasing the capacity of a supply route coming from the north, so maybe there is a partial way around that terrible choice you mention. I don't see any way anything is going to run through Iran.

If Mr. Biden's plan recognized the Pak Army/ISI as being the enemy, that might be useful. It is my understanding that it did not. I thought it was a straight go after AQ only plan and as such would have depended on "help" from the ISI which would not be any help at all.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 12:17am

So Pakistan can actually bite the hand that feeds it with complete immunity. This is perhaps the main reason that the Vice President's plan (reduce forces to approximately 20,000) is better than the President's option of supporting the surge. The more forces we send into Afghanistan, the more dependent we are on the logistic lifelines that run through Pakistan. We can consider the unthinkable, which is working out a deal with Iran and run our supplies through Iran into Afghanistan. That would give us more leverage over Pakistan (by giving Pakistan less leverage over us), and then maybe we can follow up on that threat to bomb the 100 or so terrorist camps in Pakistan. We simply have to pick one state sponsor of terrorism to work with, Iran or Pakistan?

carl (not verified)

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 11:49pm

Pakistan permanently closing our supply line would be the best thing that could happen to us, as Mr. Haddick implies, and the worst thing that could happen to them. We would be forced to reduce our deployed forces in Afghanistan and thereby made to think seriously about what really, really needed to be done. It would concentrate our minds and we would have to get imaginative. It would also relieve us of need to keep trying to square the Pak Army/ISI circle. They would be the sponsor of the enemy and we would no longer have to pretend nor would we have to give them any money.

It would be the worst thing for them because the money would stop, not just the money for the Pak Army/ISI but also all the money that goes to the transport wallahs. A lot of important people in Pakistan would be very unhappy. And the Pak Army/ISI would no longer be able lead the CIA around by the nose and use our drones to kill the "bad" Taliban while never seeming to find important members of the "good" Taliban.

Who knows, maybe that is what we are trying to get them to do.