Mullen ‘overstated’

Tempers came down a few notches and relations between Pakistan and the United States headed towards normal – though certainly not as robust as they were a year ago – as the Pentagon said on Wednesday that Admiral Mike Mullen overstated the case and the White House declined to reinforce the top US military officer’s warning that the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network was a ‘veritable arm’ of Pakistani intelligence.
“US Admiral Mike Mullen’s assertion last week that an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s intelligence service was overstated,” The Washington Post quoted US military officials as saying. The Post suggested in a report published on Wednesday that Mullen’s statement contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington.
It said the internal criticism by US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to challenge Mullen openly, reflected concern over the accuracy of his characterisations at a time when Obama administration officials had been frustrated in their efforts to persuade Pakistan to break its ties to Afghan insurgent groups.
“Mullen’s language overstates the case,” the report quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying. The report said Mullen’s pointed message and the difficulty in matching his words to the underlying intelligence underscored the suspicion and distrust that had plagued the US and Pakistan since their counterterrorism partnership after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Earlier, amid signs that key members of the US administration were troubled by the frank nature of Mullen’s remarks, the Pentagon said Defence Secretary Leon Panetta shared the broad implication of the top officer’s views. “The secretary and the chairman both agree that there are unacceptable links between elements of the Pakistani government and the Haqqanis,” press secretary George Little told reporters.
BROAD ASSISTANCE: According to the report, the US military officials said Mullen’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee had been misinterpreted and that his remark that the Haqqani network had carried out the recent truck-bomb and embassy attacks “with ISI support” was meant to imply broad assistance, but not necessarily direction by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s premier spy agency, and that nuance escaped many in Congress and even some in the Obama administration, who voiced concern that the escalation in rhetoric had inflamed anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.
The US officials were quoted as saying that even evidence that had surfaced since Mullen’s testimony was open to differences in interpretation, including cell-phones recovered from gunmen who were killed during the assault on the US embassy. The report said the Obama administration had long sought to pressure Pakistan, but to do so in a nuanced way that did not sever the US relationship with a country that American officials saw as crucial to winning the war in Afghanistan and maintaining long-term stability in the region.
Mullen’s testimony was widely interpreted as an accusation that Pakistan’s military and espionage agencies sanctioned and directed bloody attacks against the US troops and targets in Afghanistan. “Such interpretations prompted new levels of indignation among senior officials in both the US and Pakistan,” the report said.
WHITE HOUSE BACKS AWAY: The White House also sought to distance itself from Mullen’s explosive remarks, but a senior official again candidly said Washington was still concerned about links between the Haqqani network and the ISI. “It is not language I would use,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, when questioned whether the president shared the views Mullen expressed last week. “It’s a matter of semantics,” said Carney, seeking to ease the row over the comments by noting Pakistan’s close cooperation in the past in the US struggle against al Qaeda.
“The administration’s view… is that the continuing safe havens that the Haqqani network enjoys in Pakistan and the links between the Pakistani military and the Haqqani network are troubling, and we want action taken against them,” he said. “What we have said and what is our policy, is that there are links. I think that is irrefutable,” he added, but declined to say whether the views expressed by Mullen were approved by the White House in advance.
NO THIRD-COUNTRY MEDIATION: Similarly, the US State Department also ruled out any third-country mediation between Washington and Islamabad to resurrect their bilateral relations. “I don’t think that the US and Pakistan need a third country to mediate between them. We are working directly,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters when asked about media reports that other countries were being brought in to help in the negotiations between the two to ease the situation.
“The US and Pakistan have a very clear and direct relationship. All of these principals have strong relationships with their counterparts,” she said, but added that the US was making a strong case before other nations about the dangers being posed by the Haqqani network.
TALKS ON RIGHT TRACK: The Foreign Office in Islamabad also claimed on Wednesday that talks with Washington were moving in the right direction. “The diplomatic channels are open with the US and the talks are on the right track,” Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told reporters on Wednesday at a book launch. He said Pakistan wanted positive and constructive relations with the US and the foreign minister had made that clear in her policy statement (in the UN General Assembly while representing Pakistan).
The foreign secretary said Pakistan was a responsible state. “We are fully cognizant of our responsibilities… we want peace and stability in all neighboring countries as well as in the region,” he added. Asked if the country was reviewing the Afghan situation, Bashir said Pakistan’s contribution to the war on terrorism was not a secret. “Pakistan would keep playing its due role for peace and stability in Afghanistan,” he said.
TOUGHER LINE: However, Mullen, who is retiring in a few days, said in an interview that what prompted him to review his perspective on Pakistan, and how his “partnership approach” had “fallen short and would be difficult to revive” was, like many other US officials, that the Americans were now going to have to take a tougher line in demanding Pakistan rein in militant groups.
“I am losing people, and I am just not going to stand for that,” he said. “I have been Pakistan’s best friend. What does it say when I am at that point? What does it say about where we are?” “It is very clear they (the ISI) have supported them,” Mullen said. “I don’t think the Haqqanis can be turned on and off like a light switch. But there are steps that could be taken to impact the Haqqanis over time,” he added.
Mullen acknowledges his approach did not yield the results he wanted. “Each time I go I learn more,” Mullen said. “But one of the things I learn is I have a lot more to learn.” The Pakistani view of Mullen has also dimmed somewhat, particularly after last week’s remarks. Mullen acknowledged that the tattered relationship with Pakistan was at a low point, and that the strategic partnership he championed would now be a harder sell in Washington.
“My view is long term we need to have that strategic relationship,” he said. “But it’s long term and it is longer term now than it was just a few months ago.”