The endgame is nigh

In the backdrop of a consistent downward slide in US-Pakistan relations, US President Barack Obama’s plain talking while announcing the withdrawal of 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is not at all surprising. Islamabad has clearly been put on notice “to fulfill its promises to counter militants’ sanctuaries on its soil.”

As it is also evident from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tough message, US military assistance for Pakistan has been made contingent on performance. Washington clearly thinks that Pakistan is as much part of the problem as of the solution.

Moreover, Ms Clinton’s disclosure that talks with the Taliban are “not pleasant business but a necessary one”, followed by the Washington Post’s disclosure that US officials already have had three meetings with Mohammad Tayeb al-Agha an aide to Mullah Omar last spring, is another first.

The Pakistani military and its premier intelligence agency, the ISI, have been on the ropes ever since Osama bin Laden was taken out early last month by US Navy SEALs in a fly-by-night operation. The latest disclosure by The New York Times that Osama was using the support base of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a jihadi organisation perceived to be close to the ISI, further erodes Islamabad’s credibility in the eyes of the West.

Safe havens of the militants in the badlands of Pakistan have been the main bone of contention between Washington and Islamabad for some time now. Although President Obama has admitted that Islamabad has broadly cooperated in the war on terror, he wants the Pakistan army to crush the militants holed up in N Waziristan, which – for its own tactical and strategic reasons – the military is not willing to do.

While contacts between the Taliban and the US and UK are no secret now, Islamabad is dismayed that it is being left out and kept away from the ongoing talks. It is also overtly worried about what it terms as increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan.

It is obvious that President Obama has chartered a new course for the US in the region after a lot of introspection and debate with his advisors. Keeping an eye on his re-election bid next year, he is no longer willing to continue with a war which is unpopular at home. Lofty goals like nation building or reforming the Afghan society have been replaced by declaring victory, post-Osama.

The death of Osama and the consequent disruption of Al-Qaeda in Washington’s view are reasons enough to start withdrawing. Essentially, the process started much earlier when it was decided to kick upstairs General David Petraeus, Commander of the US forces in Afghanistan and the architect of the much-touted COIN (counter insurgency) strategy.

Petraeus had consistently opposed withdrawing more than 10,000 troops till 2012 from Afghanistan. But, in the end, Obama’s civilian advisors led by Vice President Joe Biden and outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates prevailed.

This leaves Islamabad in a quandary. If it does not cooperate with Washington, there is a real danger that it can be marginalised in the endgame. If it wholeheartedly becomes part of the US agenda, it will be extremely unpopular domestically where the approval rating of America is perhaps lowest in the world.

As General Kayani once said while briefing media persons that Afghanistan is a reality that Pakistan cannot wish away. Hence, while Washington as part of its global strategy has the option of walking away (like it did after the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in the early eighties), Pakistan cannot afford this luxury.

Despite a litany of complaints against Islamabad, it is however unlikely that the US can entirely quit Afghanistan like it did in the post-Soviet withdrawal. To continue to keep its cities safe, it cannot afford a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in the region. It is precisely for this reason that it will keep on pressing Pakistan to move against their safe havens.

Furthermore, Washington has paid a huge price for abandoning Afghanistan in the past. It cannot afford a nuclear-armed Pakistan to become a hotbed for the Taliban. Hence, despite withdrawing from Afghanistan, its military presence on our western borders will remain a reality in the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, if the US is talking to the Taliban, why should Pakistan abandon them? Even New Delhi, which was opposed to talks with the Taliban, has altered its stance. Thankfully, relations between Kabul and Islamabad have significantly improved in the past year.

In this scenario, Islamabad still has a pivotal role to play in the endgame in Afghanistan. In any future talks with the Taliban, Islamabad will have to be involved provided it plays its cards right.

In this context, meeting of the core group of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US scheduled for next week in Kabul will be crucial. Hopefully by then, Islamabad will have a full time foreign minister to represent the country in the talks.

But more importantly, the need for change of faces in the intelligence apparatus should be deeply looked into. The credibility of its present leadership has been sorely damaged, both at home and abroad. It will be difficult for it to deliver at such a crucial juncture.

The despondency and disappointment expressed by Pakistan on Obama’s drawdown speech is also slightly misplaced. Instead of looking towards Washington to consistently pat our backs, we should be gearing our policies towards our own vital interests. We should ponder how much these interests are served by our policy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

The recently concluded talks of the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan have paved the way for foreign ministers of the two countries to formally meet in the near future. This is a good beginning and augurs well for peace and stability in the region. India has invested billions of dollars in Afghanistan. Hence an inclusive policy, without giving New Delhi veto power on any future talks on Afghanistan, will be more beneficial.

Unfortunately, deep polarisation between the PPP and the main opposition party, the PML(N), has emerged at a time when it is crucial to develop a consensus on vital national issues. Even sadder is the fact that the role of the army is being made a subject of controversy in the process of point scoring.

Ironically, a Sindh-based national party is portraying itself as defending the honour of the armed forces. On the other hand, the PML(N) that draws its support from the Punjab is being portrayed as its main critic.

The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today.