Pakistan & The Dance of Denial

by Damozel | Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world today, according to this source,  this source, this, and many others.  

Your average newspaper reader, or "ignorant layperson" (such as yours truly) could easily miss the key to why the Pakistani government---however much lip service it might pay to the goal of fighting terrorism---isn't really very effective at doing so. 

For example.  On Sunday, Pakistani militants torched 160 military vehicles.  This is the sort of thing you'd think couldn't easily occur under a government friendly to the US. 

Brandon Friedman wrote:

At some point this becomes a problem.  I know that a major military incursion into Pakistan is the Idea Which Cannot Be Spoken, but many of the burned out vehicles in the photos were up-armored humvees.  And the loss of those vehicles directly endangers the lives of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan.  Consequently, we shouldn't be asking men and women to risk their lives in Afghanistan if we're only going to let Pakistani militants to dictate what equipment our troops get to use.

As this is at least the second time something like this has happened in less than a month, I would think that the U.S. military might want to start thinking about alternative supply routes--that is, unless America wants to invade western Pakistan in an effort to seize and hold routes and supply points the Pakistani military is unwilling or incapable of protecting....

These people who don't want us there are very serious about their business.  They don't want us there and they clearly have the will to win.  They've demonstrated it on both sides of the Durand Line for decades.  If we don't match that tenacity soon--or get out completely--then we're fucked.  Because this game of perpetual denial about how bad the situation is in Pakistan just won't cut it. (VetVoice)

In response to the idea of a military incursion,  Cernig bluntly responds.

Peshwar, the capital of the FATA has a population of roughly 3 million people.  Using current US counter-insurgency doctrine to pacify that city requires at least 20 to 25 counter-insurgents per 1,000 people living in the city. The minimum requirement would therefore be close to 60,000 to 75,000 counter-insurgents in a single city on an 1,100 kilometer supply route. 

60,000 US troops would be the entire Surge rotation PLUS any forces that the US could reasonably expect to draw out of Iraq over the next year.  And there might be more National Guard forces needed, but this is a rough estimate....

....Additionally, it would serve as a massive delegitimizer for the civilian government and the Pakistani military to be portrayed as the directionless grunts of American policy. 

Hitchens, also on the theme of denial, considers the media reporting of Pakistan's involvement in the Mumbai bombings and the response of the international community.

[T]he international community is deciding to be, shall we say, nonjudgmental in the matter of Pakistani involvement in the Bombay unpleasantness. Everything from the cell phones to the training appears to be traceable to the aboveground surrogates of an ostensibly banned group known as Lashkar-i-Taiba, which practices what it preaches and preaches holy war against Hindus, as well as Jews, Christians, atheists, and other elements of the "impure." Lashkar is well-known to be a bastard child—and by no means a disowned one, either—of the Pakistani security services. But how inconvenient if this self-evident and obvious fact should have to be faced....

[T]here is a state within the state that exerts the real parallel power and possesses the reserve strength....[O]fficial "secularism" is a mask (as it also was with the Iraqi Baathists) for the state sponsorship of theocratic and cross-border gangster groups like Lashkar and Hezbollah.....[A]n unknown quantity of nuclear assets are at the disposal of the official and banana republic state and also very probably of elements within the unofficial and criminal and terrorist one....Given these grim and worsening states of affairs, perhaps it is only small wonder that we take consolation in our illusions and in comforting doubts....This would all be vaguely funny if it wasn't headed straight toward our own streets.  (Slate; emphasis)

There's certainly a lot of denial in the air.  I'm not entirely sure it's coming from "the media."  Instead, it seems to be emanating from governments that are unwilling to look directly at a problem they don't know how to solve except by means they don't want to---or as a practical matter can't---use. 

It's not just a matter of rounding up the guys who torched the Humvees or the ones in the terrorist organization Lashkar. 

It's a matter of dealing with the "government within a government" issue---the connection between Pakistan's intelligence forces and certain terrorist groups---that seems to be the vacuum round which most of the reporting spins.

As for the media, I think they know which way the wind is blowing, even if for once they're not theorizing in advance of the facts, as Sherlock Holmes would say.

In an editorial on December 6, a New York Times editorial made what one of my friends calls an "If/then" case concerning Pakistan's role in the Mumbai bombings.

Pakistan’s government has fiercely denied any role in the terrorist attacks on Mumbai that killed more than 160 people. We hope that is true. But there are strong signs that the terrorists were members of the Pakistani-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba, a former proxy of Islamabad’s powerful intelligence service that — despite being officially banned — continues to operate in plain sight in Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have already fought three wars. Both are nuclear armed. It is not hard to imagine that the attackers’ real goal was to disrupt recent efforts to improve relations — and provoke an even greater cataclysm. Everything must be done to avoid that.

India has so far shown extraordinary restraint. It will have to continue to do so as the investigation moves forward. Pakistan, which has bounced between sympathy and bluster, must provide full cooperation — no matter where the investigation leads.

Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, must face up to his country’s involvement — whether official or nearly so.  (NYT)

The same piece concedes that his government is weak and that he might not be able to accede to India's demands.  (NYT)  Why is that? Why?

There are reasons for the Pakistani government's reluctance to draw the "obvious" conclusion that the Mumbai attack originated in Pakistan.  The "fragile" government of Pakistan is fragile because it is a government divided against itself. 

I continue to believe that the Pakistani military are really in charge in that nation and using the civilian democratic government as a convenient front to deflect the West, which wouldn't have accepted another military dictator easily. (Cernig)

It did not necessarily have to be the case that this most recent round of bombings originated in Pakistan.  Cernig pointed out (November 29) that this particular incident could have been the product of homeagrown terrorism---about which India is in denial.   

Blaming Pakistan is...convenient for India's foreign policy goals. It wants to strengthen its opportunities in Afghanistan and Iran while  driving a wedge between the US and Pakistan. All of which is why, while it's still a distinct possibility that Pakistan's ISI provided aid at some level to the Mumbai attackers, Indian finger-pointing alleging Pakistani direction without evidence is to be mistrusted.

A reporter for The Guardian purports to have traced the surviving Mumbai terrorist's home to Pakistan. I, of course, haven't a clue who is to blame.  But I can see a common thread in recent discussions of Pakistan which suggests that the problem is that the US government is involved itself in a spot of denial.

Is the Pakistani defense minister in a state of denial or legitimately uncertain of the "obvious" conclusion?  Having just arrested members of the group which the US and India suspect of orchestrating the Mumbai attacks, the Pakistani defense minister said:

"Both US and India say they have ample proof but why is it hidden from us?"  (BBC News)

The US praised the Pakistani government's "positive steps."  The question is where these steps will lead.

It seems that the government of Pakistan is not prepared to hand over the suspected terrorists to India. (BBC News)  Furthermore, the Pakistani government has been unable or unwilling to prevent the suspected organization from carrying on its operations. Why is that?

Although the authorities in Pakistan formally banned Lashkar six years ago and curbed its activities, its camps were never closed.

Analysts say that as long as the army continues a policy of using proxies to fight regional battles, Pakistan's security establishment will be reluctant to shut Lashkar-e-Taiba down(BBC News)

In its December 6 editorial, The New York Times said:

.We also are waiting for a forceful public repudiation of the militant groups from the Army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and his personal pledge that all ties between Pakistan’s military and the extremists will be severed. His silence is deafening.

What is to be done?  I don't think anyone knows.  I am starting to think the entire international community is in denial---not specifically about the recent Mumbai bombings; I don't know enough to know who the perpetrators were---but the fact that they don't have a clue how to deal with Pakistan.  They seem to be flying at present on a wing and a prayer.

As to the impending or current nuclear stand-off, what is to be done about that?  That is only the most imminent of most of our worries, but obviously that's got to be dealt with NOW.

The New York Times has a theory of how oil might be poured on the waters:

For any lasting peace, India and Pakistan must settle their dispute over Kashmir, the biggest flashpoint. India’s growing investment and intelligence network in Afghanistan also is feeding Islamabad’s insecurity and sense of encirclement. India must be transparent about its involvement in Afghanistan.

If the two countries are going to inch back from the brink, they will need strong support from the United States, China and others powers. These countries also must develop a strategy to strengthen Pakistan’s fragile civilian government and stop the country from becoming even more ungovernable.

That does not mean impunity for anyone involved in the Mumbai attacks. It means that the leaders of Pakistan’s military and intelligence services must finally realize that the extremists pose a clear and present threat to their own country’s survival.  (NYT)

As Cernig said, any move that would destabilize or discredit Pakistan's fragile government would seemingly be counterproductive.  I would assume that too much direct pressure from the US, and certainly any "military incursion," is likely to further destabilize that government.  

To the ignorant layperson the key words in the above would seem to be "strong support from the United States, China, and other powers."  Neither the US nor India nor the US and India should be responsible for dealing with Pakistan.  It's the world's problem.  And the risk of nonaction does not only threaten US interests and US citizens, though it seems clear that US interests and citizens are most definitely threatened.

Maybe I've got it all wrong:. But at present, it certainly looks to me as if Pakistan can't be our problem to solve, militarily or otherwise.  As it and India both have nuclear weapons, I am wondering where the rest of the world is in all of this.  I can only trust that the answer is "working behind the scenes in the manner suggested by The New York Times."

Or, feel free to thank me for the bleeding obvious. 

RECENT RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Surviving Mumbai Gunman Traced to Pakistan; Increasing Strain In Chronically Strained Relations Between India and Pakistan  

Several Seasoned Doctors Shocked at the Level of Torture Used on Mumbai Terror Victims  

News Round-Up: Mumbai Siege Ends; Intelligence Forces Attempt to Determine Its Origins  

Pakistan: U.S. Stops Ground Raids, Starts Airstrikes  

After Islamabad Bombing, Pakistani President Pledges to End Terrorism  

Bush's Pakistan Plan  

Cross-Border Missile Attack in Pakistan Aimed at Prominent Taliban Family Kills 23 Civilians]

RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

NY Governor Not too Keen on Kennedy's Taking Hillary's Seat?

Tribune Company Actually Has Filed for Bankruptcy Protection

Give Bush Some Credit

Not All Progressives Keen on Caroline Kennedy in Clinton's Senate Seat

Comments

[Chris Smith]

Nice blog, but the point is completely lost towards the end. Pakis are taking money from Arabs for Jihad and also taking money from USA for fighting the same. These guys are crazy and will certainly sell WMD to terrorists for money/idelogy. Within 5 to 10 years Israel and India are going to take a hit and then the shit hits the roof. WE HAVE TO ACT NOW. Pakistan must be split into 4 or 5 countries which are "manageable". USA, NATO and India must combine to put boots and bombs in Jihadi territory. Let's not play chicken here guys. Pakistan scares me and we are living in denial.

[Charles]

Chris, this is exactly the sort of megalomania that got us into trouble in Iraq. The one thing Pakistanis agree on is very similar to the one thing Iraqis agree on: foreign occupiers are not welcome.

Counterinsurgency principles demand that one mobilize those in a society that are allies and provide them with support and supplies to defend themselves. Pakistan is very complicated because of the presence of nuclear weapons, the simultaneous conflict in Afghanistan, and the infiltration of the ISI by extremists. But most of the extremists in ISI are not motivated by religion per se, but by fear of India, which has its own share of Hindu extremists.

What really needs to be done is to negotiate a regional security pact that ensures Pakistan's integrity and puts everyone on the path to peaceful development.

[Chris Smith]

Chuck,
I beg to disagree. Thousands of Jihadi camps sound innocent to you? AQ Khan sound innocent? Failure in Iraq does not automatically make all military action as bad. For every Vietnam - there was a Korea, WW2 and Japan.
We failed in Iraq because we tried to build democracy there. The mission in Pakistan should be simple:
1. Destroy Jihadi camps
2. Destroy their nuclear facilities
3. Dismantle Pakistan into smaller states

I firmly believe that it is impossible to make peace with Jihadis. To think we can is beyond naivete.

[Steve Hynd]

it wasn'y me, it was my co-blogger Fester what wrote it :-)

Warmest Regards, Cernig

[Charles II]

Chris, it is megalomania to imagine that a nation with an army of 1 million can control a nation of 172 million.

Na gah ha pen.

Jihadis are not some alien species. They are people who are pissed off at what they see as occupiers. In other words, of the 171 million Pakistanis who are NOT currently our enemies, it is possible to create jihadis out of them all.

And thanks to ignorant Americans who don't have the slightest %$!#ing clue about the way the world works, that may very well happen. At which point we would definitely have lost the war.