By M K Bhadrakumar <http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/author/bhadrakumaranrediffmailcom/> - June 16, 2011
The unthinkable is happening. The United States is confronting the Pakistani military leadership of General Parvez Kayani. An extremely dangerous course to destabilise Pakistan is commencing. Can the outcome be any different than in Iran in 1979? But then, the Americans are like Bourbons; they never learn from their mistakes.
The NYT report today is unprecedented. The report quotes US officials not less than 7 times <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/world/asia/16pakistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print> , which is extraordinary, including "an American military official involved with Pakistan for many years"; "a senior American official", etc. The dispatch is cleverly drafted to convey the impression that a number of Pakistanis have been spoken to, but reading between the lines, conceivably, these could also probably have been indirect attribution by the American sources. A careful reading, in fact, suggests that the dispatch is almost entirely based on deep briefing by some top US intelligence official with great access to records relating to the most highly sensitive US interactions with the Pak army leadership and who was briefing on the basis of instructions from the highest level of the US intelligence apparatus.
The report no doubt underscores that the US intelligence penetration of the Pak defence forces goes very deep. It is no joke to get a Pakistani officer taking part in an exclusive briefing by Kayani at the National Defence University to share his notes with the US interlocutors - unless he is their "mole". This is like a morality play for we Indians, too, where the US intelligence penetration is ever broadening and deepening. Quite obviously, the birds are coming to roost. Pakistani military is paying the price for the big access it provided to the US to interact with its officer corps within the framework of their so-called "strategic partnership". The Americans are now literally holding the Pakistani army by its jugular veins. This should serve as a big warning for all militaries of developing countries like India (which is also developing intensive "mil-to-mil" ties with the US). In our country at least, it is even terribly unfashionable to speak anymore of CIA activities. The NYT story flags in no uncertain terms that although Cold War is over, history has not ended.
What are the objectives behind the NYT story? In sum, any whichever way we look at it, they all are highly diabolic. One, US is rubbishing army chief Parvez Kayani and ISI head Shuja Pasha who at one time were its own blue-eyed boys and whose successful careers and post-retirement extensions in service the Americans carefully choreographed fostered with a pliant civilian leadership in Islamabad, but now when the crunch time comes, the folks are not "delivering". In American culture, as they say, there is nothing like free lunch. The Americans are livid that their hefty "investment" has turned out to be a waste in every sense. And. it was a very painstakingly arranged investment, too. In short, the Americans finally realise that they might have made a miscalculation <
Two, US intelligence estimation is that things can only go from bad to worse in US-Pakistan relations from now onward. All that is possible to slavage the relationship has been attempted. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Mike Mullen - the so-called "friends of Pakistan" in the Barack Obama administration - have all come to Islamabad and turned on the charm offensive. But nothing worked. Then came CIA boss Leon Panetta with a deal that like Marlon Brando said in the movie Godfather, Americans thought the Pakistanis cannot afford to say 'No' to, but to their utter dismay <http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/06/11/uncle-sam-bends-like-beckam/> , Kayani showed him the door.
The Americans realise that Kayani is fighting for his own survival - and so is Pasha - and that makes him jettison his "pro-American" mindset and harmonise quickly with the overwhelming opinion within the army, which is that the Americans pose a danger to Pakistan's national security and it is about time that the military leadership draws a red line. Put simply, Pakistan fears that the Americans are out to grab their nuclear stockpile. Pakistani people and the military expect Kayani to disengage from the US-led Afghan war and instead pursue an independent course in terms of the country's perceived legitimate interests.
Three, there is a US attempt to exploit the growing indiscipline within the Pak army and, if possible, to trigger a mutiny, which will bog down the army leadership in a serious "domestic" crisis that leaves no time for them for the foreseeable future to play any forceful role in Afghanistan. In turn, it leaves the Americans a free hand to pursue their own agenda. Time is of the essence of the matter and the US desperately wants direct access to the Taliban leadership so as to strike a deal with them without the ISI or Hamid Karzai coming in between.
The prime US objective is that Taliban should somehow come to a compromise with them on the single most crucial issue of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan. The negotiations over the strategic partnership agreement with Karzai's government are at a critical point. The Taliban leadership of Mullah Omar robustly opposes the US proposal to set up American and NATO bases on their country. The Americans are willing to take the Taliban off the UN's sanctions list and allow them to be part of mainstream Afghan political life, including in the top echelons of leadership, provided Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura agree to play ball.
The US tried its damnest to get Kayani to bring the Taliban to the reconciliation path. When these attempts failed, they tried to establish direct contact with the Taliban leadership. But ISI has been constantly frustrating the US intelligence activities in this direction and reminding the US to stick to earlier pledges that Pakistan would have a key role in the negotiations with the Taliban. The CIA and Pentagon have concluded that so long as the Pakistani military leadership remains stubborn, they cannot advance their agenda <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2107404.ece?homepage=true> in Afghanistan.
Now, how do you get Kayani and the ISI to back off? The US knows the style of functioning of the Pakistani military. The army chief essentially works within a collegium of the 9 corps commanders. Thus, US has concluded that it also has to tackle the collegium <http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/06/10/pakistani-military-tells-off-the-us/> . The only way is to set the army's house on fire so that the generals get distracted by the fire-dousing and the massive repair work and housecleaning that they will be called upon to undertake as top priority for months if not years to come. To rebuild a national institution like the armed forces takes years and decades.
Four, the US won't mind if Kayani is forced to step aside from his position and the Pakistani military leadership breaks up in disarray, as it opens up windows of opportunities to have Kayani and Pasha replaced by more "dependable" people - Uncle Sam's own men. There is every possibility that the US has been grooming its favourites within the Pak army corps for all contingencies. Pakistan is too important as a "key non-NATO ally". The CIA is greatly experienced in masterminding coup d-etat, including "in-house" coup d'etat. Almost all the best and the brightest Pak army officers have passed through the US military academies at one time or another. Given the sub-continent's middle class mindset and post-modern cultural ethos, elites in civil or military life take it for granted that US backing is a useful asset for furthering career. The officers easily succumb to US intelligence entrapment. Many such "sleepers" should be existing there within the Pak army officer corps.
The big question remains: has someone in Washington thought through the game plan to tame the Pakistani military? The heart of the matter is that there is virulent "anti-Americanism" within the Pak armed forces. Very often it overlaps with Islamist sympathies. Old-style left wing "anti-Americanism" is almost non-existent in the Pakistani armed forces - as in Ayaz Amir's time. These tendencies in the military are almost completely in sync with the overwhelming public opinion in the country as well.
Over the past 3 decades at least, Pakistani army officers have come to be recruited almost entirely from the lower middle class - as in our country - and not from the landed aristocracy as in the earlier decades up to the 1970s. These social strata are quintessentially right wing in their ideology, nationalistic, and steeped in religiosity that often becomes indistinguishable from militant religious faith.
Given the overall economic crisis in Pakistan and the utterly discredited Pakistani political class (as a whole) and countless other social inequities and tensions building up in an overall climate of cascading violence and great uncertainties about the future gnawing the mind of the average Pakistani today, a lurch toward extreme right wing Islamist path is quite possible. The ingredients in Pakistan are almost nearing those prevailing in Iran in the Shah's era.
The major difference so far has been that Pakistan has an armed forces "rooted in the soil" as a national institution, which the public respected to the point of revering it, which on its part, sincerely or not, also claimed to be the Praetorian Guards of the Pakistani state. Now, in life, destroying comes very easy. Unless the Americans have some very bright ideas about how to go about nation-building in Pakistan, going by their track record in neighbouring Afghanistan, their present course to discredit the military and incite its disintegration or weakening at the present crisis point, is fraught with immense dangers.
The instability in the region may suit the US' geo-strategy for consolidating its (and NATO's) military presence in the region but it will be a highly self-centred, almost cynical, perspective to take on the problem, which has dangerous, almost explosive, potential for regional security. Also, who it is that is in charge of the Pakistan policy in Washington today, we do not know. To my mind, Obama administration doesn't have a clue since Richard Holbrooke passed away as to how to handle <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/13/raging_at_rawalpindi?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full> Pakistan. The disturbing news in recent weeks has been that all the old "Pakistan hands" in the USG have left the Obama administration. It seems there has been a steady exodus of officials who knew and understood how Pakistan works, and the depletion is almost one hundred percent. That leaves an open field for the CIA to set the policies.
The CIA boss Leon Panetta (who is tipped as defence secretary) is an experienced and ambitious politico who knows how to pull the wires in the Washington jungle - and, to boot it, he has an Italian name. He is unlikely to forgive and forget <http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/06/15/no-limits-when-spooks-have-a-brawl/> the humiliation he suffered in Rawalpindi last Friday. The NYT story suggests that it is not in his blood if he doesn't settle scores with the Rawalpindi crowd. If Marlon Brando were around, he would agree.
N A D E E M M A L I K
N A D E E M M A L I K