Assuming—as seems overwhelmingly probable—that there was not a secret deal between the U.S. and Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, the question is only between Pakistani military incompetence and complicity when it comes to his location. Incompetence is possible, but in my judgement unlikely. I have visited Abbottabad, and I do not see how Pakistani intelligence can have failed to investigate that house—not to look for Bin Laden, but for Pakistani terrorists who might have targeted the numerous military institutions in the district.
If Pakistan’s argument of incompetence is to receive any credence whatsoever, then as a minimal first step the chiefs of both Pakistan’s military intelligence services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) should draw the logical conclusion from this and resign. Indeed, that is the first thing on which the U.S. should insist as a result of this affair.
That leaves complicity in sheltering Bin Laden, either by a group within the ISI, or by the military leadership itself. The first would demonstrate a criminal failure to exercise discipline over a vital military institution; the second a deeply hostile attitude to the United States and the West.
This would be true even if Bin Laden was being kept on ice to be sacrificed to the United States as a bargaining counter later. If, as the latest statements from the U.S. administration suggest, Bin Laden was exercising a degree of operational control over al-Qaeda from his Abbottabad hideout, then the complicity of the Pakistani military would be a matter so grave that it would cast them in the role of North Korea in terms of international responsibility.
I am not sure that I believe this latest administration line, both because his ability to exercise real control through a tiny number of couriers seems somewhat improbable, and because the administration has an obvious motive to exaggerate the level of their achievement in killing Bin Laden. However, it certainly underlines the crucial importance of establishing what the Pakistani military may have been up to.
If the consensus of U.S. official analysts and intelligence officers is that the Pakistani military was indeed sheltering Bin Laden, what should be the response on the part of the United States and the West? The answers to this are not at all easy, or Washington would have found them in response to the complicity of the ISI in planning (and possibly in ordering, though this is not clear) the terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008 which killed U.S. citizens along with so many Indians.
However, some sort of answer must be found. As I have written, I—like many other observers and, indeed, officials—was prepared to extend a measure of tolerance to the Pakistani military for its shelter to the leadership of the Afghan Taliban and past support for terrorist attacks on India (if only because this so clearly reflected the democratic will of the great majority of Pakistanis), as long—but only as long—as they genuinely and effectively cooperated in preventing terrorist attacks on the West; since after all that is what our soldiers in Afghanistan are supposed to be there to prevent.
My belief was supported by the fact that Pakistani intelligence had in fact given substantial help against international terrorism, including the arrest of a leading Indonesian terrorist in Abbottabad itself in January, and his handing over to the Indonesian authorities. If however the Pakistani military sheltered Bin Laden, then the basis for our tolerance is close to collapse. To reestablish it, Pakistani intelligence will have to do something really significant against the remaining al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and do it quickly. They must also of course give U.S. investigators full access to Bin Laden’s widows who were left behind by the raid.
Failing that, how can we bring pressure to bear on Pakistan? Launching drone attacks against Mullah Omar and other leaders of the Afghan Taliban in Pakistani Balochistan (hitherto an area which deliberately has been spared such attacks at the insistence of the Pakistanis) will solve nothing. On the contrary, we would only kill the very people whom we need to talk to in order to negotiate some kind of orderly and honorable exit from Afghanistan—since it is miserably clear that present U.S. strategy has no chance of bringing this about. Launching drone attacks against militant targets in Pakistan’s urban areas would radicalize the population and vastly increase terrorist recruitment. This should take place if, and only if, such groups have actually launched an attack on the U.S.
Strengthening the Pakistani civilian state so as to increase its control over the military and military intelligence is a good idea in principle, but it runs into two major obstacles. The first is that given the nature of the Pakistani state and the character of its political classes, this requires a process lasting a generation or more, and requiring not a strengthening but a fundamental transformation of Pakistan’s political system and therefore of its society.
Comments
It is unbelievable to what extent this British author goes on to defend the terrorist thug allies from Pakistan. He comes up with excuse after excuse on why we should hand over Billions and ruffle the feather of our ally whose philosophy is "We will take your money, sponsor terrorism against you, kill you and will sell some non-useful terrorists for a price but keep the rest safely so we can extract more from you and terrorize the world with these spineless terrorists". Unbelievable!Taliban was created by Pakistanis to terrorize and occupy Afghanistan. Every known terrorist in the world has origins in Pakistan. The Pakistani army and AQ Khan sold the nuclear bomb to Iran, N.Korea, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Here is the author falling all over on why we should indulge these terrorists and nuclear sumgglers.This is what the author wrote:"As I have written [3],
I—like many other observers and, indeed, officials—was prepared to
extend a measure of tolerance to the Pakistani military for its shelter
to the leadership of the Afghan Taliban and past support for terrorist attacks on India (if only because this so clearly reflected the
democratic will of the great majority of Pakistanis), as long—but only
as long—as they genuinely and effectively cooperated in preventing
terrorist ... "WHAT! So the terrorist attacks on India and shelter to Terrorist tycoons from Afghanistan is executing the democractic will of the great majority of Pakistanis!! Am I reading it right? Mr. Lieven - Please indulge me! How does this work? The Pakistanis vote every month if they want to bomb India or Afghanistan? How is this vote taken? So the poor army and ISI of Pakistan simply executing the will of Pakistani people!Well... Why the hell then those idiotic Indians or Afghan bastards are complaining? How can they NO to the WILL of great PAKISTANI majority? May be tomorrow the greater majority of Pakistani can vote if they want to nuke New York? Who are to say NO to the great majority of Pakistanis? The pious army of Pakistan and ISI are only doing the job of executing the will of the great civilization. Why should the world be offended?Thanks you Mr. Leiven for clarifying all. I get it now.
Lieven is willing to tolerate - on behalf of the entire West - past terrorist attacks on India. Who is he to speak for the West? Who elected him? For his information, there are two million people of Indian origin in the USA who are not willing to tolerate or forgive it. There are some equally large number in the United Kingdom. Lieven thinks it is the democratic will of the Pakistanis to commit terror attacks against India (who is he to speak for Pakistan? just because he was hosted by Najam and Jugnu Sethi?), and he respects their democratic rights to terrorism. What about the democratic rights of the aforementioned two million? I think Lieven would make a model Pakistani elite - his ignorance, arrogance, support for terrorism as long as it doesn't come his way and willingness to shed other people's blood is a perfect fit.
He is the grandson of some ICS chappie who was probably drummed out of service and the son or nephew of s soldier who probably (not sure) found it easier to pee under fire and ran and had to be rapatriated back with the tag "shell shocked". Good credentials
I must acknowledge Mr. Lieven's candidness that terrorism against India is tolerable to the West, as long as Western interests are not attacked. I hope more Americans become aware of this good terrorist (who only attack India but do not attack the West) and the bad terrorist (those who attack the West) distinction which has guided the US Foreign Policy since the end of the Cold War. However I do want to hold the State Department and these Foreign Policy experts accountable for their performance. Let the US continue supporting the good terrorists. But if they turn in to bad terrorists, then these experts need to be held accountable. My preferred method of accountability would be to fly these experts using the stealth choppers from DevGru into Taleban country, and picking them up once all the bad terrorists are dead.On a serious note, I do wonder why these folks are so fascinated by the Military-Mullah-Feudal alliance which rules Pakistan. 9-11, 7-7, Madrid and now the OBL episode has not shaken their convictions. Has their personal integrity has been compromized by the winng and dining with the Pakistani Elite (very gracious hosts by any measure) to such an extent, that they forget our greater national interest?
"However, some sort of answer must be found. As I have written [3], I—like many other observers and, indeed, officials—was prepared to extend a measure of tolerance to the Pakistani military for its shelter to the leadership of the Afghan Taliban and past support for terrorist attacks on India (if only because this so clearly reflected the democratic will of the great majority of Pakistanis), as long—but only as long—as they genuinely and effectively cooperated in preventing terrorist attacks on the West; since after all that is what our soldiers in Afghanistan are supposed to be there to prevent. " So Lieven openly supports Pakistan against India, as long as it is not America. Fair enough, That is honest. But it also means that India should, if necessary support those Pakistanis who are equally "democratically" againt the US and are willing to kill US soldiers and citizens just as democratic Pakis are ready to kill Indians. "Strengthening the Pakistani civilian state so as to increase its control over the military and military intelligence is a good idea in principle, but it runs into two major obstacles. The first is that given the nature of the Pakistani state and the character of its political classes, this requires a process lasting a generation or more, and requiring not a strengthening but a fundamental transformation of Pakistan’s political system and therefore of its society." Lieven is looking for a quick solution -2 for that "That applies with even greater force to another form of pressure widely demanded in the United States, namely a closer U.S. alliance with India openly targeted against Pakistan. This would ensure increased Chinese help to Pakistan, and would absolutely infuriate ordinary Pakistanis. In addition, India is a very dangerous ally in the war on terror. Its main opposition party has structured its whole ideology around hatred of Islam; and with its complicity and that of local Indian police, savage massacres have been carried out against India’s Muslim minority. Those in Gujarat in 2002 claimed around ten times as many victims as the Mumbai terrorist attacks." There is no need to be angry or upset at these statements. Anger is merely cognitive dissonance that we Indians face when we are told that we are savage murderers of Muslims while we are taught to look at ourselves as gentle secularists.It is constantly drilled into secular Indian minds via the secular Indian education system to which all BRFites belong that Indians are secular and do not oppose Islam. It is true that we do not oppose Islam. But it is also true that just Islamic extremism in India that upsets India's pluralistic social equilibrium will be massacres. if others have seen reports of these massacres - they are right in being wary of India. Islamic extremism will not be allowed to survive in India under the hijab of secularism or western style human rights. It is not only true that ten times a many Muslims were massacred in Gujarat than were killed in Mumbai, it is also true that ten times as many Muslims were massacred in Gujarat as Hindus killed on the train by Islamic extremists in the event that sparked the rioting. So yes - there is very little tolerance in Hindu India for Islamic extremism. Let me quote Lieven here "(The US is)...prepared to extend a measure of tolerance to the Pakistani military for its <snip> past support for terrorist attacks on India (if only because this so clearly reflected the democratic will of the great majority of Pakistanis)," Islamic extremism will be stamped out in India by uncontrolled and uncontrollable rioting because that is a democratic will of the Hindu majority. Note that Islam is not being systematically stamped in India, but that is not an indicator of tolerance for forms of extremism that are seen as alien. I think we educated Indians need to understand this basic fact about the behaviour of the Indian "masses". That awareness would be the first seed of political awareness of India in the same way that Lieven shows awareness of the political likes and dislikes of Pakistanis. It is the denial of educated Indians and the belief that the Indian population will tolerate Islamic extremism because the laws call for that which is the problem. The Indian population will find its own way of behaving and we have to reach accommodation with that - just as Lieven and the US are willing to reach accoomodation withe the anti-Indian behavior of the Pakistani population which Lieven judges as "democratic will" "Finally, both Pakistan and China need to be told the following, very firmly indeed: A restrained U.S. response to the location of Bin Laden and the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 has only been possible because no successful terrorist attack based from Pakistan has in fact yet struck the United States. Faisal Shehzad’s attempt in New York was—thank God—amateurish to the point of clownishness. If after what has now been revealed about Bin Laden’s location, the United States does suffer a major Pakistan-based attack, then all the political and moral constraints on U.S. retaliation against Pakistan which I outlined above will fly out of the window. No matter what the risks involved, Pakistan will have to be treated as an open enemy, and punished very severely indeed. So it is not for our sake that the Pakistani military should help to track down the remaining al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan and prevent terrorist plots against the West. It is very much for their own."A veiled warning from Lieven to Pakistan?
I am grateful to Anato Lieven because he has opened my mind and I am not being sarcastic.He has provided justification for Pakistan's anti-India actions because they have "democratic support" among the Pakistani people. To Lieven the constitution, rule of law and human rights are secondary.Lieven's words have allowed me to apply the same standards to India. In some instances - such as the violent killing of Muslim extremists and some innocent bystanders in India the constitution and rule of law do not matter. What matters is the democratic will of the majority who seek disporportionate revenge by massacre. It is fully justified. And if Pakistanis fear that they are justified. After all - India is cleaning out extremism from India. Pakistan that haven of islam is preserving the specie of Islamic extremists who would be endangered in India. Sauce for the Goose, they say, is sauce for the gander.Thank you Anatol bhai. Thank you. Dhanyawad. Any man who gives me gyan is my guru. You are, in a sense, my guru.
"Strengthening the Pakistani civilian state so as to increase its control over the military and military intelligence is a good idea in principle, but it runs into two major obstacles. The first is that given the nature of the Pakistani state and the character of its political classes, this requires a process lasting a generation or more, and requiring not a strengthening but a fundamental transformation of Pakistan’s political system and therefore of its society"Dear Mr.Lieven, If and when America and Saudi stop giving them money, Pakistan will change. It may threaten, to fall into Chinese hands, but they know what Chinese are made of. We Indians know them better and longer. Pak Army, surrendered 90,000 troops in 1971. Its bark is stronger than its bite. Their officers ran away leaving their soldiers to fend for themselves back in the icy heights of Kargil not long ago. When Dacca was falling, Yahya Khan was inaugrating his town house in Peshawar, with a Karachi Femme Fatale called Black Pearl. These are not Uzbeks or Taliban, woodsmen, "the last man last bull types", they have more business investments in USA and UK and within Pakistan than you can imagine. A man who has much to loose, personally is careful and pragmatic. It does not take PhD`s to know that. Then again, sad to hear from you, that since Pakistanis are overwhelmingly in support of terrorism export to India, Americans see it justified. Thanks for being direct. We will bear it in mind.
He is no american do not defame americans in this context. He is a limey grandson of someone who sneaked into ICS.
One of the most blatantly racist, arrogant, and shameful tripe ever published by National Interest. Imagine the chutzpah of this disgraceful author Lieven - who arrogates to himself the right to decide on behalf of the West that Pakistan should have the green light to let loose their terrorist dogs on India, as long as they not allow attacks on the West! These being the wonderful "democratic instincts" in Pakistan at play no less. Dear Sir, are you one of the Washington lobbyists hired by the Government of Pakistan in the aftermath of the sordid Bin Laden "debacle"? Or one of the high priced lawyers hired by Pakistan to defend the ISI and ISI Director Pasha in i) the New York litigation filed by the American survivors of the 2008 Mumbai terror atrocities by your Pakistani friends? Or ii) the Rana criminal trial this week in Chicago where Messrs. Rana and David Headley are professing that they worked for your friends at the ISI in carrying out the Mumbai attacks?
Are you saying SERIOUSLY you advised GOVERNMENTS that it is OK for terrorists to attack India as long as west is spared? How do i class it as? Racism? Arrogance? Ignorance? Follishness? Or all of these and many many other attributes that are not very complimentary? I think this poor caricature of an intellectual is still smarting from the fact that (probably) his grandfather lost his job or was thrown out by Indians (for incompetence maybe?) and so using the name of King's college for revenge. Its OK sunny!! Whatever you do India will progress and overcome terrorism. But i pity the governments that heed your advice!! They should pay for your psychiatrist to treat you properly. We Indians are civilised so we will not declare you wajib-ul-quatl or issue a fatwa against you. Its ok. You cannot understand those two words. its understandable considering your intellectual growth
I forgot to add. maybe the Kings college should pay for a psychiatric evaluation and reconsider this loony's appointment?
Wonder how much was paid by pakistan to this dim wit to write this drivel