Pervez Musharraf: How Good Of An Ally Is He Really?
July 17th, 2007 by JEB KOOGLER
Pervez Musharraf is often touted as an important ally in the war on terrorism. With his strong control over the military, he has cracked down on Islamic militants operating in Waziristan and other parts of Pakistan.
Or so we’ve heard.
Frederic Grare, in a new report from the Carnegie Center for International Peace, thinks that we’re being duped. He suggests that Musharraf is not so useful of an ally and that the billions of dollars of American aid since 9/11 have not been nearly as effective as many had thought.
While Pakistan may have cut ties with groups like al-Qaeda (more of a liability than an asset), Musharraf has been quite lenient with regional groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Taliban that are useful to his regional goals in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Put simply, maintaining ties to these local militant organizations helps Musharraf to check the power of India.
In its dealings with Afghanistan, for instance, Pakistan has deliberately allowed militants to operate in FATA and even facilitates their efforts, Grare argues. The reason? Musharraf hopes to weaken the Afghani government to ensure that they’d don’t become a strong ally of India, thereby undermining the power of Islamabad.
Grare suggests that the Pakistani government is complicit in allowing Taliban militants to use the region of Waziristan as a base for attacks against the Karzai government. During the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, for example, Pakistan deliberately left the Waziristan-Afghani border unsecured. Quoting the magazine “Newsline,” Grare notes that even after US pressure forced Pakistan to “do something” about Waziristan, “the [local Pakistani] administration was under clear instructions not to impede the movements of the local Taliban who remained unchecked and continued to consolidate their position in the area.”
Musharraf’s government has gone farther than just to turn a blind eye to the actions of militant groups; indeed, Grare believes that the Pakistani military has deliberately not taken down key Taliban leaders. According to one analyst quoted in the report, “the current [military] operation is only directed against Taliban foot soldiers of local origin, led by insignificant leaders, whereas places like Shawal [where key Taliban leaders operate]…remain calm and quiet.”
So, while Pakistan may have cracked down on al-Qaeda, Musharraf has likely turned a blind eye (or, at worst, is actively aiding) local militant groups within Pakistan’s borders. The Taliban has been allowed to operate, as have other groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba. This has dramatically undermined our efforts in Afghanistan and in the region at-large.
To be successful in Afghanistan, as well as in our broader regional objectives, we need Pakistan to take a tougher stance towards radical groups. At this point, however, Islamabad’s help is sketchy at best.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 at 6:41 am and is filed under Pakistan. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:48 am
[…] (more…) […]
July 17th, 2007 at 7:07 am
If you think Pakistan is an iffy ally, take a good look at Saudi Arabia:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/07/killers-in-iraq-saudi-connection.html
July 17th, 2007 at 7:38 am
[…] (more…) […]
July 17th, 2007 at 7:51 am
What would happen if any Senator or Congressman brought this up as an issue? Almost no one in the “bubble headed bleach blonds” 24 hous vable news would go with it, to complicated and doesn’t fit with the missing blond housewife story line. If the Congress passed a resolution removing any aid to Pakistan without benchmarks the Bushinistas would claim foreign policy interference.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Jeb - Two issues come to mind regarding Pakistan. First, I believe that Musharraf is deliberately keeping Afganistan and the Waziristan on a low boil. He knows that as long as both areas are simmering with terrorism, the US will have to stay around and continue to bribe him with billions to keep him on our “side”. If he is successful against terrorism in his area of control, we won’t need him anymore. He certainly remembers how we dumped Pakistan after the Soviets left Afganistan.
Secondly, if the US really wants a partner against Islamic terrorism in the Pakistan/Afganistan areas it will require the indiginous people to make it happen. We have been paying lip service to “soft power” while pursuing a primarily military solution, by NATO/US and the Pakistan military in the tribal areas. A return to democratic/civilian control of Pakistan has a chance of rallying the people behind an effort to control Islamic militants.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Nice post, Jeb. I couldn’t agree more and would go further. Jane’s Intelligence review last year described the Taliban as the deliberate proxy of the Pakistani ISI. NATO allies see the situation likewise and have added that Mullah Omar is being sheltered at an ISI compound in Quetta.
Yet the Pakistani government periodically turns up “Taliban leaders” who have always, co-incidentally, also been implicated in attacks on Musharaff. That’s the entire extent of their co-operation in the wider war on terror.
So Pakistan gets billions in aid, which then gets spent on arms from GOP-donating firms. And you wonder why Republican leaders refuse to see what’s staring them in their faces…
Regards, C
July 17th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Isn’t Musharaf trying to hold on to his precarious position, despite tremendous political opposition within his own country? OSB is much more popular in Pakistan than he is, and as others have mentioned his security services are full of Taliban sympathizers. He is a weak dictator warding off oppositions with repressive tactics. Anything he could do that would really help the US would probably cause a coup or get him assasinated.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:58 am
How Good Of An Ally?
Jeb Koogler @ The Moderate Voice takes a look at Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf….
July 17th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I totally agree that Musharaff Is just using US money to stay in power. He is a very suspect person in a myriad of ways.
I’m not sure at all, however, that his fall from power would be followed by a more reliable government. The commentary I’ve read always refers to a return to a civil government in rather vague terms and takes for granted the ability to control the army, the IDF and the Islamists. Cirruption, too. seems to be a persistent part of governing in much of the ME. Given the very complex and volatile situation, I think a high degree of turbulence, unrest and unreliability is a more likely alternative to Mushafaff. There is always the risk that the Islamists would come out gaining.
Like in Iraq, the US is in a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if -you-don’t situation re Pakistan, IMO.
The Saudis are equally suspect allies Like Musharaff, the royal family just wants to stay in power, They’re off limits, of course, because of oil
While I agree with everything that’s said to be wrong, I don’t see any way out while Iraq is in chaos. It all comes back to Iraq and how that ties our hands in all other areas. It would be just plain catastrophic if Afghan fell as a result.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Wouldn’t it be like removing Saddam? You’d get chaos, with the added bonus of Islamic extremists (Taliban) fighting for control with the more secular moderates. Plus they already have nukes, which without Musharaf, might easily land in the hands of al queda, the Taliban and OBL.
I agree with Doma, that we are held back from dealing with this and other situations because of Iraq. But, I have often posted that I don’t understand why we view Iran as an existential threat while ignoring the even more dangerous Pakistan, and the disaffected extremists coming to Iraq from Saudi Arabia.