Tweet
It's Time to End Our Relationship With Pakistan
It's Time To End Our Relationship With Pakistan | Fox News
By K.T. McFarland
Published November 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
Our relations with Pakistan are like the battered wife syndrome. The country keeps doing us wrong, but promises that next time things will be different.
We’re desperate for the relationship to work out, so we believe them. We take their excuses at face value, rationalizing away their behavior. We seize on the few moments when things are good, as proof that they will change we just hang on a little longer….or try a little harder. But of course nothing ever changes, and we get in deeper and deeper.
We, like the battered wife, need to face the reality that things are only going to get worse, and it’s time to walk away and make some new friends. But it won’t be easy and it won’t be without major risks.
For ten years we have had a tortured relationship with Pakistan. We’ve needed their help in the Afghan War, and they’ve wanted our money. We’ve needed Pakistani supply routes to get our equipment and material into landlocked, mountainous and roadless Afghanistan. We’ve needed Pakistan to help take out the Taliban safe havens in the tribal areas inside Pakistan. We’ve needed Pakistan to help us find Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda. And we’ve given them some $20 billion in military and economic assistance as an incentive. And they have helped us….just enough…. to string us along and keep the relationship going.
But they’ve never been committed enough to the relationship to go all in. Why?
Because they see things differently than we do, and have different goals. Above all, they want a pro-Pakistan, government in Afghanistan after our inevitable departure, to give them strategic depth against their arch-enemy India. If we leave and the Karzai government stays in power, fine, Pakistan has helped achieve that outcome.
But if we leave and the Karzai government falls, as looks ever more likely, the Pakistanis are hedged because they have given safe haven to the Taliban group most likely to succeed Karzai.
Sound complicated? Not really. They’re just doing what they think is best for them.
They did the same thing with Usama bin Laden. For years the government denied that the terror mastermind was in Pakistan. Yet Bin Laden was found in a safe house near in a military complex in... Pakistan.
Shocking? Hardly.
The Pakistanis were in the "finding" Bin Laden business. Once Bin Laden was found -- dead or alive -- they’d be out of business. So they did the sensible thing -- from their perspective -- and kept him alive and hidden. They pretended to help us look for him and they continued asking us for more aid to do so.
From our viewpoint, they’ve been double dealing. But from Pakistan’s viewpoint, they’re only doing what is in their best interest: hedging their bets against our departure, hedging their bets to get our assistance.
But we’ve got to do what is in our best interests, too. Those in favor of sticking it out with Pakistan cite three reasons:
First, if we don’t Afghanistan will descend into chaos and Al Qaeda will come back. Phooey. Al Qaeda has already moved on….to Yemen….to Somalia…. we don’t have 100,000 troops there. Who needs Afghanistan if they have all of cyberspace?
Second, they point to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal and say if we sever ties with Pakistan those nukes could fall into the hands of terrorists. Yet, by that logic we have just as much to fear from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and from Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Even our most militant neo-cons don’t think we should invade Iran.
To a certain extent, we’ve been Pakistan’s enablers. Hasn’t our military assistance allowed them to devote more of their own resources to their rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal? Wouldn’t it be better for us to take those billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan and put it towards intelligence gathering and covert operations so we can know where those nuclear weapons are and if need be stop them from falling into the hands of terrorists?
Finally, some of the aid we give Pakistan ultimately ends up supporting the Pakistani intelligence services which give safe haven to and work with the Taliban. As former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen said, the Haqqani Taliban network is a virtual arm of the Pakistani intelligence services. -- This is the same group responsible for a number of the recent attacks on NATO military and civilian targets.
Isn’t it unconscionable that we are paying Pakistan to kill our people in Afghanistan? Don’t we owe it to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country and who are still in Afghanistan to walk away from this abusive relationship?
Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3"-- already one of the Web's most watched national security programs.
Pakistanis demand end to US ties
Last Updated: Thursday, December 01, 2011, 23:46
NATO attack: Pakistanis demand end to US ties
Tags: NATO attack, Pakistan, Pakistan protests
Lahore/Islamabad: People across Pakistan, including lawyers and political activists, continued protests on Thursday against the cross-border NATO air strike that killed 24 soldiers over the weekend and demanded that the government should snap ties with the US.
During a huge rally organised in Lahore, lawyers' groups urged the government to stop providing any logistical support to NATO forces in Afghanistan and to reject all financial aid from the US.
They contended that Pakistan's participation in the US-led war on terror had put the country's sovereignty at stake.
Several leaders of lawyers' groups demanded that Pakistan should immediately end its relations with the United States and take back military bases that were being used by American forces.
Lawyers boycotted courts as part of the protest and marched in a rally along the Mall Road, Lahore's main thoroughfare.
Though the Lahore city administration had banned protests on this road, the lawyers obtained special permission for their rally from a court.
They shouted slogans against the US and pledged their support to the military leadership.
Pakistan responded angrily to Saturday's NATO attack on two military border posts by closing all NATO supply routes and asking the US to vacate Shamsi airbase, reportedly used by CIA-operated drones.
In Faisalabad, several organisations and people from different walks of life staged rallies against the NATO attack.
The protesters carried banners and placards and shouted slogans against NATO forces.
Activists of the main opposition PML-N party, Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf and Pakistan Medical Association were among those who joined the protests.
They appreciated the government's decision to stop NATO supplies.
In Karachi, the Pakistan Hindu Council strongly condemned NATO's "unprovoked air strike" on the Army posts and described it as an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty.
The Council pledged its "full support" to the army in its fight for the honour, sovereignty and safety of the country. Among those who joined the protest were former legislator Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, Mahesh Kumar Talreja, Mohan Lal Harchandani and Mangla Sharma.
They appealed to international organisations like the United Nations to take note of the "US aggression".
They underlined the need for changes in Pakistan's foreign policy to uphold its interests and sovereignty.
"We will have to take certain difficult decisions," Vankwani said.
The protestors shouted slogans like "We condemn NATO attack on our sovereignty" and "Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are brothers".
In Quetta, peace activists, members of civil society groups and the Balochistan Gender Network participated in a candle light vigil organised by Aurat Foundation to protest the NATO air strike.
PTI
It's Time To End Our Relationship With Pakistan | Fox News
By K.T. McFarland
Published November 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Our relations with Pakistan are like the battered wife syndrome. The country keeps doing us wrong, but promises that next time things will be different.
We’re desperate for the relationship to work out, so we believe them. We take their excuses at face value, rationalizing away their behavior. We seize on the few moments when things are good, as proof that they will change we just hang on a little longer….or try a little harder. But of course nothing ever changes, and we get in deeper and deeper.
We, like the battered wife, need to face the reality that things are only going to get worse, and it’s time to walk away and make some new friends. But it won’t be easy and it won’t be without major risks.
For ten years we have had a tortured relationship with Pakistan. We’ve needed their help in the Afghan War, and they’ve wanted our money. We’ve needed Pakistani supply routes to get our equipment and material into landlocked, mountainous and roadless Afghanistan. We’ve needed Pakistan to help take out the Taliban safe havens in the tribal areas inside Pakistan. We’ve needed Pakistan to help us find Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda. And we’ve given them some $20 billion in military and economic assistance as an incentive. And they have helped us….just enough…. to string us along and keep the relationship going.
But they’ve never been committed enough to the relationship to go all in. Why?
Because they see things differently than we do, and have different goals. Above all, they want a pro-Pakistan, government in Afghanistan after our inevitable departure, to give them strategic depth against their arch-enemy India. If we leave and the Karzai government stays in power, fine, Pakistan has helped achieve that outcome.
But if we leave and the Karzai government falls, as looks ever more likely, the Pakistanis are hedged because they have given safe haven to the Taliban group most likely to succeed Karzai.
Sound complicated? Not really. They’re just doing what they think is best for them.
They did the same thing with Usama bin Laden. For years the government denied that the terror mastermind was in Pakistan. Yet Bin Laden was found in a safe house near in a military complex in... Pakistan.
Shocking? Hardly.
The Pakistanis were in the "finding" Bin Laden business. Once Bin Laden was found -- dead or alive -- they’d be out of business. So they did the sensible thing -- from their perspective -- and kept him alive and hidden. They pretended to help us look for him and they continued asking us for more aid to do so.
From our viewpoint, they’ve been double dealing. But from Pakistan’s viewpoint, they’re only doing what is in their best interest: hedging their bets against our departure, hedging their bets to get our assistance.
But we’ve got to do what is in our best interests, too. Those in favor of sticking it out with Pakistan cite three reasons:
First, if we don’t Afghanistan will descend into chaos and Al Qaeda will come back. Phooey. Al Qaeda has already moved on….to Yemen….to Somalia…. we don’t have 100,000 troops there. Who needs Afghanistan if they have all of cyberspace?
Second, they point to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal and say if we sever ties with Pakistan those nukes could fall into the hands of terrorists. Yet, by that logic we have just as much to fear from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and from Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Even our most militant neo-cons don’t think we should invade Iran.
To a certain extent, we’ve been Pakistan’s enablers. Hasn’t our military assistance allowed them to devote more of their own resources to their rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal? Wouldn’t it be better for us to take those billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan and put it towards intelligence gathering and covert operations so we can know where those nuclear weapons are and if need be stop them from falling into the hands of terrorists?
Finally, some of the aid we give Pakistan ultimately ends up supporting the Pakistani intelligence services which give safe haven to and work with the Taliban. As former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen said, the Haqqani Taliban network is a virtual arm of the Pakistani intelligence services. -- This is the same group responsible for a number of the recent attacks on NATO military and civilian targets.
Isn’t it unconscionable that we are paying Pakistan to kill our people in Afghanistan? Don’t we owe it to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country and who are still in Afghanistan to walk away from this abusive relationship?
Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3"-- already one of the Web's most watched national security programs.
Pakistanis demand end to US ties
Last Updated: Thursday, December 01, 2011, 23:46
NATO attack: Pakistanis demand end to US ties
Tags: NATO attack, Pakistan, Pakistan protests
Lahore/Islamabad: People across Pakistan, including lawyers and political activists, continued protests on Thursday against the cross-border NATO air strike that killed 24 soldiers over the weekend and demanded that the government should snap ties with the US.
During a huge rally organised in Lahore, lawyers' groups urged the government to stop providing any logistical support to NATO forces in Afghanistan and to reject all financial aid from the US.
They contended that Pakistan's participation in the US-led war on terror had put the country's sovereignty at stake.
Several leaders of lawyers' groups demanded that Pakistan should immediately end its relations with the United States and take back military bases that were being used by American forces.
Lawyers boycotted courts as part of the protest and marched in a rally along the Mall Road, Lahore's main thoroughfare.
Though the Lahore city administration had banned protests on this road, the lawyers obtained special permission for their rally from a court.
They shouted slogans against the US and pledged their support to the military leadership.
Pakistan responded angrily to Saturday's NATO attack on two military border posts by closing all NATO supply routes and asking the US to vacate Shamsi airbase, reportedly used by CIA-operated drones.
In Faisalabad, several organisations and people from different walks of life staged rallies against the NATO attack.
The protesters carried banners and placards and shouted slogans against NATO forces.
Activists of the main opposition PML-N party, Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf and Pakistan Medical Association were among those who joined the protests.
They appreciated the government's decision to stop NATO supplies.
In Karachi, the Pakistan Hindu Council strongly condemned NATO's "unprovoked air strike" on the Army posts and described it as an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty.
The Council pledged its "full support" to the army in its fight for the honour, sovereignty and safety of the country. Among those who joined the protest were former legislator Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, Mahesh Kumar Talreja, Mohan Lal Harchandani and Mangla Sharma.
They appealed to international organisations like the United Nations to take note of the "US aggression".
They underlined the need for changes in Pakistan's foreign policy to uphold its interests and sovereignty.
"We will have to take certain difficult decisions," Vankwani said.
The protestors shouted slogans like "We condemn NATO attack on our sovereignty" and "Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are brothers".
In Quetta, peace activists, members of civil society groups and the Balochistan Gender Network participated in a candle light vigil organised by Aurat Foundation to protest the NATO air strike.
PTI
Comment