Haseebullah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,205
- Reaction score
- 0
Jeffrey Souter, a major in the U.S. Army, is a student at the Fort Leavenworth Command and General Staff College. He specializes in Middle Eastern studies. He worked at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan in 2009.
The Pakistani governments decision to halt the flow of NATO supplies into Afghanistan through the Torkham Gate during the first week of October has led many Americans to believe that Pakistan is not fully committed to the fight against militant extremism.
That notion is insulting. Pakistani support of U.S.-led efforts in Afghanistan is complicated. Pakistan has more than 147,800 troops deployed conducting combat operations in the tribal areas along the Afghan border.
The Pakistan army has lost more than 3,200 soldiers in recent fighting against Taliban forces along their border with Afghanistan, with another 6,400 injured. They sustain an average of 10 casualties each day, not counting the Pakistani civilians killed by suicide bombers. Pakistan is committed to this fight, but maybe not fully committed to the United States. It is right to be cautious.
To understand the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, one must look at it from a Pakistani perspective as well. When the Soviet Union was fighting in Afghanistan 25 years ago, the United States hailed the Afghan Mujahedeen as freedom fighters, struggling for the right to practice their faith free of an oppressive atheist government.
The United States provided material support to the Mujahedeen through Pakistan in an attempt to keep the Soviet Union engaged and bleeding. The Pakistani government convinced its populace that the Soviets were a threat, and that the Mujahedeen were worthy of support and admiration. After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the United States also disengaged from the area, setting the conditions we are struggling with today.
Soon after working with Pakistan to fight the Soviets, we passed the Pressler Amendment and cut off all foreign aid to Pakistan. The United States is a fair weather friend to the average Pakistani, interested in engagement when something is to gain. The damage caused by this policy still affects attitudes today.
Why should the average Pakistani citizen reject the former Mujahedeen and support U.S.-led military action against them? The government of Pakistan is making the case that the Taliban are no longer the famed Mujahedeen, that they abandoned their cause and are now a threat.
This war must be a Pakistani war to the Pakistani people, and the wishes of the United States should not factor in. The employment of the Pakistan army against fellow Muslims is sensitive. Any hint of U.S. pressure threatens the legitimacy of Pakistan army operations in the eyes of the Pakistani populace.
It is safe to assume the Torkham Gate border closure was in response to the accidental fratricide incident that occurred Sept. 30.
In an incident barely covered by U.S. media, a U.S. attack helicopter illegally (accidentally or otherwise) crossed into Pakistani airspace and fired on a position thought to be occupied by militants.
The position was actually occupied by six Pakistani soldiers, and U.S. action killed three and wounded three. These men are our allies in the war on terror, and this incident sent shockwaves throughout Pakistan.
A delegation of high-ranking Pakistani officers traveled in late August to meet with officials at U.S. Central Command in Florida. After nearly 24 hours of travel, before boarding their final flight, one of the generals remarked, I am glad this is our last flight, or words to that effect.
A passenger complained about the remark, and the delegation was detained for hours by the TSA. The delegation left the United States in protest despite efforts from the Pentagon, and the Pakistani media ran stories for weeks about the grave insult.
While this issue did not receive attention from the U.S. media, the Pakistani government was once again caught between the emotions of its people and its relationship with the United States.
Combine these Pakistan-specific incidents with recent threats to burn Qurans and the protests against the construction of an Islamic Center in New York City, and you have a relationship that is difficult for the Pakistani government to convince its people to support.
Pakistan remains a key ally, and they remain dedicated to the fight against the Taliban and militant extremism.
Before we criticize Pakistans commitment to the United States, we should ask ourselves how committed we are to Pakistan. What will our relationship be in five years, after we draw down our forces in Afghanistan? We continue to invest heavily in Indias tech and service sectors, so who will we favor in 15 or 25 years? If India invades Pakistan again, who will we support?
From the Pakistani perspective, maybe they arent the ones with commitment issues.
Jeffrey Souter, a major in the U.S. Army, is a student at the Fort Leavenworth Command and General Staff College who specializes in Middle Eastern studies. He worked at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan in 2009.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/26/2543471/is-pakistan-an-ally-in-the-war.html
This was also published in the monthly publication of ISPR-Hilal Magazine
The Pakistani governments decision to halt the flow of NATO supplies into Afghanistan through the Torkham Gate during the first week of October has led many Americans to believe that Pakistan is not fully committed to the fight against militant extremism.
That notion is insulting. Pakistani support of U.S.-led efforts in Afghanistan is complicated. Pakistan has more than 147,800 troops deployed conducting combat operations in the tribal areas along the Afghan border.
The Pakistan army has lost more than 3,200 soldiers in recent fighting against Taliban forces along their border with Afghanistan, with another 6,400 injured. They sustain an average of 10 casualties each day, not counting the Pakistani civilians killed by suicide bombers. Pakistan is committed to this fight, but maybe not fully committed to the United States. It is right to be cautious.
To understand the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, one must look at it from a Pakistani perspective as well. When the Soviet Union was fighting in Afghanistan 25 years ago, the United States hailed the Afghan Mujahedeen as freedom fighters, struggling for the right to practice their faith free of an oppressive atheist government.
The United States provided material support to the Mujahedeen through Pakistan in an attempt to keep the Soviet Union engaged and bleeding. The Pakistani government convinced its populace that the Soviets were a threat, and that the Mujahedeen were worthy of support and admiration. After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the United States also disengaged from the area, setting the conditions we are struggling with today.
Soon after working with Pakistan to fight the Soviets, we passed the Pressler Amendment and cut off all foreign aid to Pakistan. The United States is a fair weather friend to the average Pakistani, interested in engagement when something is to gain. The damage caused by this policy still affects attitudes today.
Why should the average Pakistani citizen reject the former Mujahedeen and support U.S.-led military action against them? The government of Pakistan is making the case that the Taliban are no longer the famed Mujahedeen, that they abandoned their cause and are now a threat.
This war must be a Pakistani war to the Pakistani people, and the wishes of the United States should not factor in. The employment of the Pakistan army against fellow Muslims is sensitive. Any hint of U.S. pressure threatens the legitimacy of Pakistan army operations in the eyes of the Pakistani populace.
It is safe to assume the Torkham Gate border closure was in response to the accidental fratricide incident that occurred Sept. 30.
In an incident barely covered by U.S. media, a U.S. attack helicopter illegally (accidentally or otherwise) crossed into Pakistani airspace and fired on a position thought to be occupied by militants.
The position was actually occupied by six Pakistani soldiers, and U.S. action killed three and wounded three. These men are our allies in the war on terror, and this incident sent shockwaves throughout Pakistan.
A delegation of high-ranking Pakistani officers traveled in late August to meet with officials at U.S. Central Command in Florida. After nearly 24 hours of travel, before boarding their final flight, one of the generals remarked, I am glad this is our last flight, or words to that effect.
A passenger complained about the remark, and the delegation was detained for hours by the TSA. The delegation left the United States in protest despite efforts from the Pentagon, and the Pakistani media ran stories for weeks about the grave insult.
While this issue did not receive attention from the U.S. media, the Pakistani government was once again caught between the emotions of its people and its relationship with the United States.
Combine these Pakistan-specific incidents with recent threats to burn Qurans and the protests against the construction of an Islamic Center in New York City, and you have a relationship that is difficult for the Pakistani government to convince its people to support.
Pakistan remains a key ally, and they remain dedicated to the fight against the Taliban and militant extremism.
Before we criticize Pakistans commitment to the United States, we should ask ourselves how committed we are to Pakistan. What will our relationship be in five years, after we draw down our forces in Afghanistan? We continue to invest heavily in Indias tech and service sectors, so who will we favor in 15 or 25 years? If India invades Pakistan again, who will we support?
From the Pakistani perspective, maybe they arent the ones with commitment issues.
Jeffrey Souter, a major in the U.S. Army, is a student at the Fort Leavenworth Command and General Staff College who specializes in Middle Eastern studies. He worked at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan in 2009.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/26/2543471/is-pakistan-an-ally-in-the-war.html
This was also published in the monthly publication of ISPR-Hilal Magazine
