The Americans arent used to hearing no. Specially from the Pakistani military, traditionally its principal partner-in-dialogue throughout Pakistans history, be it a military regime or otherwise. That all has changed, however, yielding a territory previously uncharted by the State Department. With the US now betting more on Pakistans civilian government, coupled with the Pakistani militarys suspicions about the American game plan in Afghanistan, the army has not been as cooperative as the Americans are used to. But the Americans cannot upset the apple cart either because that would be disastrous for the very same political government it is now supportive of.
A Washington Post report about the failure of the American government to convince Gen Kayani to launch an operation into North Waziristan, then, did not spring much surprises. Both sides have their own arguments. And both sets of arguments are flawed in one way or the other. First of all, the Americans are being duplicitous. By showing signs that it is open for dialogue with the Taliban in Afghanistan and prescribing a zero-tolerance policy for the militants in Pakistans tribal areas, it isnt exactly taking a moral high ground. The American withdrawal from Afghanistan is set to begin sometime in the middle of this year. If the Americans cannot hold ground with their full forces in the country, what hope does the Afghan government have without them? If a western failure in the country is imminent, other states, might want to hedge their bets by not crossing the Afghan Taliban too much.
This would, however, be an unacceptable public statement. The Pakistani military, then, can argue that an operation in North Waziristan is impossible because this would entail spreading themselves too thin. To a western lens, this might seem unreasonable given the considerable size of the Pakistani army, but this just might be true considering the Indo-centric paradigm of our military planners. No resources can be shifted away from the flanks that defend us from India. It is an axiomatic truth in our paradigm. Any deviation is bound to be accompanied by cognitive dissonance of immense proportions.
Disagreement with the militarys stance should not centre around how it offends our American allies. States should not be pushovers to whatever their bigger allies demand and focus instead on what their own interests dictate. What is sad, however, is the fact that major decisions are still the army commands call, not the civilian governments.