Despite $2 billion in U.S. military aid for an offensive against militants in North Waziristan, Pakistan claims it's too risky to launch an operation against Taliban and al Qaeda operatives in the remote tribal region, according to Raza Khan in the Washington Times.
For years Pakistan used the excuse that they lacked “resources” to go after the Haqqani Network and other insurgents who made refuge in North Waziristan. But Pakistan officials were forthright about the real reasons for the delay, which consists of: (1) Pakistan’s intelligence agency maintains links with militants in the area, and (2) Islamabad fears the offensive will trigger a backlash of large-scale terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.
Lt. Gen. Asif Yasin Malik, the senior military leader in the region, said Pakistan will mount an anti-Taliban offensive in North Waziristan only when other tribal areas are stabilized, which he said could take six months.
The U.S. has pressured Islamabad for years to launch a major military operation in the area, particularly against the Haqqani Network which has been behind deadly attacks on U.S. and NATO troops across the border in Afghanistan.
The Haqqani Network, headed by the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahedeen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin, operates a large network of fighters in the eastern Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika. They receive support from elements within Pakistani intelligence agencies that view the group as an anti-Indian asset and a vehicle for promoting Islamabad's political and strategic interests in war-ravaged Afghanistan after international forces leave.
Islamabad’s fears grew because a pamphlet distributed by the Mujahedeen Shura of North Waziristan, which cited the militants' "concern" about military action and noted the $2 billion aid package from the United States. The handbill stated that if the Pakistani army launches an offensive in North Waziristan, local residents will migrate to Afghanistan "where President Hamid Karzai is the ruler."
"Then an endless war would begin and we would continue our jihad until the end," the pamphlet stated.
What is unusual about the pamphlet is that Gul Bahadur had been considered pro-Pakistani government and had focused its efforts on sending militants to fight U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Similarly, the Haqqani Network is not known for conducting attacks inside Pakistan’s borders.
A Utmanzai tribal leader believes the Haqqanis are feeling the heat for the first time, and that the Haqqanis warned Islamabad that if an offensive in North Waziristan is launched the militants would shift to Afghanistan and launch huge attacks against Pakistan. Khan explains the interesting dynamics and background in the border region that have shaped Paksitani policy and have led to this current dilemma:
Afghan rulers traditionally have harbored separatist Pakistani Pashtuns and Baluch ethnic groups, including militants. Former Afghan ruler Sardar Daud Khan was the architect of "Pashtunistan Movement" that sought to seize Pashtun areas of Pakistan, such as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), to form "Greater Afghanistan."
Since 1973, Pakistan has pursued a policy of cultivating Afghan mullahs on its soil as a counterweight to hostile Afghan nationalists. As a result, Islamabad has supported the Afghan Taliban, the Hizb-e-Islami of warlord Gulbadin Hikmatyar and the Haqqanis.
"However, this policy has had a huge blowback effect on Pakistan in the shape of a rise of religious extremism and unimaginable proliferation of militant groups in the country," said Ashraf Ali, a Pakistani analyst on the Taliban. Mr. Ali said that "wrong choices" by Islamabad have caused the Haqqanis and other otherwise pro-government Pakistani Taliban groups to begin threatening Pakistan.
The North Waziristan-based militants also signaled to Pakistani authorities through the pamphlet that they would conduct a fundraising effort to collect $2 billion for the Pakistani army to offset U.S. aid.
Comments
Is it logic or Ill-logic
The main problem we have with drones in USA is that the Air Force doesn't want them. To solve that problem, each service (CIA included) should have its own fleet of drones. This always happens with a new master weapon (using J.F.C. Fullers term); reactionary institutions prefer their outdated weapons, and fight against the introduction of the new weapons. You can't get through the reactionary institutions directly, you have to take the indirect approach of giving the new weapons to other branches of the military, after which the reactionaries begin to see the value in the new weapon.
G.W. Bush asked the Pakistanis right after 9/11, "are you with us or against us?" Paksitan said, " we are with you against the terrorists."
In fact, 10 years passed since then, they have never been with us.
Pakistan, does know how to fool a superpower .. they have one hell of manipulative foeign policy and there is nothing we can do.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!