The U.S. air strikes that killed Pakistani troops near the border with Afghanistan have created yet another in a series of crises in U.S.-Pakistan relations. To his credit, President Obama rejected the State Department’s advice to apologize for the incident. But so far, the United States has focused on tactical responses to reduce tensions. Even if the United States manages this situation, such crises are inevitable as long as Pakistan continues its support for insurgent groups at war with coalition and Afghan forces. What is necessary is a broader plan to change the strategic context and end Pakistani support for the insurgency.
American-Pakistani discussion should focus on two subjects. First, the United States should explain the risks that Pakistan faces if it continues its current policy. Pakistani leaders must appreciate that clashes along the border are inevitable if Pakistan continues training, arming, financing and directing insurgent forces in Afghanistan. In addition, the U.S. Congress will inevitably curtail or condition all military and economic assistance to Pakistan on its cooperation on Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Afghanistan will be pushed to develop a closer security relationship with India, Pakistan’s regional rival.
Second, the United States should offer a package of benefits and rewards if Pakistan cooperates and brings the Taliban and other insurgents to the negotiating table. In these talks, the United States should commit to work for a settlement that will take into account Pakistan’s legitimate interests. The settlement should allow insurgents to join Afghanistan's political process provided that they lay down their arms, break ties with al-Qaeda and accept an Afghan constitution. At the same time, Pakistan should commit to breaking with and targeting insurgents who refuse to pursue a political settlement.
The Obama administration faces a challenge in making both elements credible. Many in the Pakistan military leadership believe that the United States is on its way out of the region. They point to problematic U.S. relations with the Afghan government, which call into question whether the United States can conclude a meaningful, long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan after Afghan forces assume sole responsibility for the country’s security after 2014. They also believe that the growing distance between the Afghan government and its people means the government in Kabul will be a weak player after the U.S. drawdown. In this view, time is on Pakistan’s side.
Should Pakistan nevertheless refuse to cooperate, the United States must be willing to escalate pressure on Pakistan while keeping the door open for future cooperation. So far, the indicators are not good. Pakistanis are projecting defiance. They are refusing to send senior representatives to the Bonn conference to address the problems of Afghanistan. They are trumpeting their rights as a sovereign country. Yet the United States and Afghanistan also have rights. We have the rights of individual and collective self-defense under international law. ISAF forces operate under a U.N. Security Council mandate and at the request of the Afghan government.
If the United States acts with determination, Pakistan might recalculate the risks of its policy, just as Islamabad did in the aftermath of 9/11 when it abandoned the Taliban regime in the face of U.S. pressure.
This is not a time for the United States to lose its nerve. While twenty-four Pakistani troops died in the recent clash, the United States and its other allies have lost more than a thousand troops fighting the insurgents. Many more Afghan military, police and civilians have been killed by those who are given sanctuary and support by the Pakistani military. With calibrated diplomacy, the United States can seize the opportunity inherent in the current crisis.
Zalmay Khalilzad is a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. From 2007 to 2009, he served as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. He has also previously served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, as well as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and also as special presidential envoy to Afghanistan.
Comments
With great confidence Mr. Khalilzhad—former DOD planner—takes off here precisely where Mr. McNamara's Whiz-Kids left off in telling us precisely what buttons need pushing, in precisely the right order, with precisely the right force, to totally reorder the thinking and sentiments of not just a whole caste of foreign leaders and elites but of a wide if not totally unified foreign public on issues of fundamental and even profound interest to them. For instance, remember, one thing those Whiz-Kids had figured out was precisely how much tonnage of bomb dropping it would take to get Ho Chi Minh and then his successors to suddenly give up their dream of unifying Vietnam and start behaving. Just somehow didn't work. And boy were they perplexed when, even after upping the tonnage ratchet after ratchet, those North Vietnamese over there still wouldn't behave like we wanted them to. They just weren't as smart as all those Haaarvard-educated kids. Maybe then instead of just jumping assumptions and advising us getting deeply deeply involved in endlessly trying to manipulate Pakistan's leaders and populace this way and that against some of their most profound interests, Khalilzhad should have started at Square One: Just what is our interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan other than making sure they don't become bases from which we are attacked by terrorists a la bin Laden? And how come that interest can't be entirely handled via watching by our spy satellites and drones and spies, and *then* getting Pakistan to stop same, and then and *only* then if that fails put our military fingers into the situation so as to limit the risks to ourselves?But no. Despite our attempts at in-depth meddling so far only destabilizing the hell out of Pakistan, and turning it from a very strong former friend into a now at-best ambivalent country towards us (with huge and clearly hostile populace), Mr. Khalilzhad, with the modesty of a Whiz-Kid, knows different. Boy, he says, if we just meddle a little differently, and meddle just a little more (actually a lot more), and keep meddling just an infinite amount of time more ... well we can of course erect happiness just as if we were dealing not with a complexus of people and their deep interests and values but instead with nuts and bolts and girders as if we were just putting together an Erector-Set.With apologies to Ernest Hemingway, gee, wouldn't it be pretty?
Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad,
with due respect, having read your article, my conviction stands absolutely confirmed that it is because of the intellectuals and strategic advisors like you that US is still involved in an endless war in Afghanistan. Your analysis, despite your impression of being an expert on Afghanistan, was strategically erroneous then and I'm afraid, it is going to be even disastrously wrong now.
Extremely biased, as you Always are against Pakistan, your advice to the US Administration on dealing with Pakistan has even proved that you are not keen to see the US forces wind up the mission in Afghanistan successfully. Your recipes are strategically and operationally faulty, perhaps due to your perceptual biases.
Having known clearly that Pakistani nation has sacrificed more than the entire coalition in terms of military losses alone in supporting and as fallout of your war in Afghanistan, you still do not acknowledge this fact. So callous, you do not feel any remorse for the killing of dozens of Pakistani soldiers.
Keep applying pressure tactics but, dwarf of real strategic thinking, you are not to succeed. Coercion has limits. Power has it's limits too, else you will be out of Afghanistan as a victorious party long time back.
Treat Pakistan as an equal ally and partner. Establish mutual trust and respect and be mindful of Pakistan's sensitivities and legitimate interests in Afghanistan; which, by the way, do not clash with US interests, if you think objectively. Do not try to confront Pakistanwith a two fronts dilemma by pampering India. Realize the horrendous risks involved in this brinkmanship. These are the simple rules for consideration, if you want peace in the region.
Hi Mr Khan,While appreciating your rooting for the rights of Pakistan in this matter, I am troubled that you cannot see that even Afghanistan has every right to its own self-respect and freedom from outside interference. Why would Pakistan wish to deny Afghans their right to peaceful existence? Why would you want them to be part of Pakistan's grand strategy against its other neighbour to the East? When will Pakistan's military lose its fears of Indian attacks sufficiently enough to let the Afghans be? If Pakistan can cease and desist from sponsoring terror in the region through Taliban and other prehistoric groups, Americans and NATO will not have to be present in that vexed country, and Pakinstan's soldiers need not hav to fear being bombed by them, mistakenly or otherwise.
Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad`s each & every golden word reflects honesty and positive towards Afghan crisis but the policy to solve the problem is too old which has failed due to the the indirect sway of power of Military-men over Pakistani politics. "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."....To encounter Pakistani rascists & fascists, who are killing their own people in Balochistan and elsewhere and the innocent people of Afghanistan, really this an opportunity for Coalition forces and Afghan forces to find the real solution amid the crisis with Pakistan. There should be only one option which is Plan "B" i.e. Balkanization of Pakistan which shall provide freedom to the various ethnic groups of Pakistan and the total stabilization of Afghanistan in the future. Afghanistan and Balochistan were not the private properties of Punjabi people of Pakistan who are singing the song of Sovereignity of Pakistan i.e. the indirect claim of Panjabis to enslave Afghanistan and Balochistan. Long live the freedom of Afghanistan and Balochistan. ( Save Balochistan Campaign )http://www.savebalochistancampaign.blogs...
Mr. Chidambaram,
I amply understand the point which you intend to make. Regretably, you are intentionally showing ignorance to the ground realities. Please have an honest introspection of the Indian policies towards Pakistan. On one hand, your country shows keen desire to improve relations with Pakistan, on the other, it is leaving no opportunity to destabilize it. I do not want to remind you the contours of the dangerous game, which India is playing, using Afghan soil. I'm certain you are aware of the details.
You are right in saying that Pakistan should not be forcing / dictating it's policies to Afghanistan for its strategic advantages. Afghanistan's soverignty and right to craft its foreign policies is sacrosanct and fully respected. As neighbor of Afghanistan, Pakistan is seriously impacted by the instability in Afghanistan. Hence, the foregone conclusion is that a peaceful, truly independent, prosperous and peaceful Afghanistan is in Pakistan's interest. No qualms about this in Pakistani strategic community. This notwithstanding, an Afghanistan harbouring RAW agents trying to destabilize it day and night is not a harbinger of desired stability and peace in the region. Pakistan has rendered immense sacrifices for their Afghan brothern, supporting them alongwith US and the free world (less India and some W Pact countries) during their occupation by erstwhile USSR. At one point of time, it hosted over 6.5 million Afghan refugees on its soil- not a small feat by any means. Even today, millions of them are still living a peaceful and prosperous life in Pakistan.This is not to remind you that Pakistan wants a return on this favor. We consider Afghans as our brothers and wish them to be masters oftheir destiny.
Let me be very candid. Where narrow - minded American strategists like Zalmay Khalilzad are to be held responsible for the quagmire in Afghanistan, Indian policies to destabilize Pakistan using Afghan soil are the contributory factors to it. Minus Indian interference and anti - Pakistan activities in Afghanistan, the situation for US - led coalition would be much better in all regards today. Remember what Gen Maccrysthal wrote in his initial assessment sent to President Obama in this respect. His. Conclusion was that India's overall role in Afghanistan ran against US interests.
Time has changed. Indian shenengans are being ignored by US today owing its burgeoning economic wherewithal in this global recession era. It is realpoltik; not India's nobility or 'so-called' urge for peace.
Mr Khan,There are many contradictions in your thought process. You say you want Afghans to have freedom and peace but then you will make it conditional on India's behaviour over which poor Afghans have no control! Why make Afghans a hostage to your relationship with another country? In which country does foreign intelligence agents NOT work against another country? Every country has these kind of problems but does that require every country to foster Startegic Depths against its troubled neighbour? Does India need Strategic Depth against China and Pak in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Crazy, man! You say, "Pakistan is seriously impacted by the instability in Afghanistan." Why? Is Pakistan so weak that instability in Afghanistan will tip you over? One cannot choose one's neighbours, but that does not mean you will start interfering in your neighbour's affairs to make them stable to your liking. If you do you will have blow back. And you cannot claim to be the only one having rights to interfere there, even India and USA and Russia and Iran and China and others may want in too, all following your example. You say you supported the US machinations against the Soviets in Afghans. You simply forget that USA simply used your Military as a tool to implement the American foreign policy objectives against their Cold War rival. The Indians were at least a bit clverer than your people, they didn't allow any entanglements with the Soviet or US games at any time. Our leaders focussed on local economic issues all the time. Do you think the Indian Military doesn't want to run away with power and pelf and be a power centre by iteself? Do you know what it took us to control these powerful guys and strap them down under a civilian bureaucracy? You talked approvingly of General McChrystal. Do you know he was sacked? And he didn't get to do a coup against the civilians! You say: " On one hand, your country shows keen desire to improve relations with Pakistan, on the other, it is leaving no opportunity to destabilize it. I do not want to remind you the contours of the dangerous game, which India is playing, using Afghan soil. I'm certain you are aware of the details". My earlier question to you was precisely about when will you start believing that India isnot a threat to any one and when will you stop looking for Strategic Depths and nonsense like that. You still continue to point finger at others instead of taking objective look at your own self. That brings me to another point. Pointing finger at others for our own troubled state of existence and problems displays weakness, not strength. Let anyone do any machination around me, but I will be unflappable and focussed on my developement work: that is the only way to make progress. When elephants stroll by, the dogs bark; the elephants move on, paying no attention! Pakistani leaders have always allowed it to be tempted by Big Power (read US) inducements and blandishments, and distracted itself from self-improvement tasks and gotten into unnecessary entanglements. Macho, yes, but bad for national health in the long run. Your country has time and again showed (during popular election time and during Civilian governerment ruling time) that the common people (civilians!) are not interested in manipulations and war with their neighbours, but your military has ruled your foreign policy and refuses to subject itself to the civil authority. It is like a tail wagging the dog. Your statements above almost entirely displays the thinking of Pak military establishment, hence your repeating ad nauseum their statements of India doing bad things to your country from Afghanistan. Please understand one has no control on what others do but one can only act when tangible evidence is present and accepted by the international community (not everyone of whom is partial to us). You can work yourself up into froth thinking what others are upto in your neigbourhood, but paranoia by any other name still gets you a bad press. If India were your only enemy, I could have understood, but you know that the whole world looks at Pakistan with 'a strange look'. Come, come, Khan. Drop the finger pointing. Let the neighbours be. Catch the Indians doing bad things at home (like they caught the LeT chaps in Mumbai and Kashmir). Don't go overboard with threats and blackmail against outside powers who are in your neighbourhood to fix the mess our military created. Take control of the military, send them to the barracks. You will be alright if you keep your head down and don't let the temptation to display macho too far out of control. Wish you good luck from your neighbors, all of them.
Dear Chidambaram,
Good lecture, but lacking in objectivity and correct environmental - scanning".
The apparent peace - mongering overtures of India notwithstanding, the mere pattern of Indian Army peacetime deployment belies them. Do you have an idea what percentage of your Army is deployed against Pakistan during peacetime ... Close to 80%. For what? To give a goodwill message to Pakistan? Threat analysis is done by professionals based on the 'capabilities' and not 'intentions', since latter can change any time in line with the transforming environment.
Conclusion: India remains an existential and incessant threat for Pakistan; golden gloves handshake does not change this reality. Your military build up and Pakistan -specific Military preparations do not allow Pakistan to keep the guard down.
All terrorism is bad. People in Pakistan hate the individuals who caused
bloodshed in Mumbai.
The focus of the arguments should have stayed on Afghanistan. Unfortunately, your love- last for Pakistan has played a diversionary role. This is just another manifestation of Indians' profound obsession of Pakistan. India is a undoubtedly a major world player now and we expect it to rise above petty things and avoid asserting hegemony over smaller neighbors and qualms now. Pakistan is not seeking strategic, operational orang other genre of depth in any other country. Please stop old Machavillian tactics let us live in peace and harmony with all our neighbors. Bye bye.
Business, as usual.....The syndicate of PakMili Business Corporation is determined to create crisis to their eastern & western borders to loot the entire budget of poor Pakistan and to black mail the whole world community to pick their pockets. They started their game in 1947 by occupying a part of Kashmir and northern area which resulted to the denial of democracy in Pakistan. The Paki civilian Governments have been the show-business which were created by the Syndicate (Generals) of PakMili Business Corporation. Such kosmetic democratic governments were kicked out, as usual, to flourish the business of the Paki Generals. Indian business rotates around the interests of civilians while Paki business rotates around the interests of Generals of Paki Army then how they shall become friends? Both of them are entire selfish because Pakistani Generals reject the interests of Indian Generals,( as regards to salute the civilian Government) while the Indian Civilians ignore the plight, interests and aspirations of their Pakistani counterparts as they close their eyes about the aspiration of freedom of minority ethnic nations and minority religious groups of Pakistan. Good luck both of you to promote your own business.( Save Balochistan Campaign.