The Pakistani Spectator

On July 31, in Washington, I had a long conversation with Ahsan Iqbal, Information Secretary of PML-N, on Pakistan’s role in helping Afghanistan and to stabilize that part of the world.  I stated to Secretary Iqbal that on February 27, Secretary Nicholas Burns said at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said “the fact is that the central government has been unable to extend its control outside the capital city to large parts of the country [Afghanistan].” Secretary Iqbal said that “it validates Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML) position that the current U.S-Pakistan policy is not resulting in its intended positive outcome, and thus, both the United States and Pakistan need to reassess their policies.”

According to Secretary Iqbal, “Pakistan, U.S. and Afghanistan need to work on a new strategy to bring peace in the region, as the piecemeal approach toward the problems of extremism and terrorism has not delivered much. Pakistan and U.S. must use a holistic and comprehensive strategy with political reform and social and economic leverage to work out these problems.”

Secretary Iqbal said that his “party’s leadership considers president Musharraf’s policies as the major cause of domestic terrorism in the country. The party believes that President Bush’s continuing support of President Musharraf has not destabilized only that region, but it’s hurting even the United States own long-term interests in South Asia.”
Among American South Asian experts, the PML is not the most pro-west Pakistani party, but its position is indirectly supported by some American officials who have expressed their concerns regarding the difficulties faced by Pakistan. For example, according to the New York Times, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that “the al-Qaeda threat from Pakistan represents a ‘huge challenge’ for the United States. He  chose his words very carefully in reference to the Pakistani government’s ability to face this challenge. “We’re just not going to solve it overnight,” he said. While advocating patience at a meeting of defense reporters, Mullen said. “It’s going to take longer than most people realize.”
Similarly, according to Washington Post, the retiring American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, General McNeill said that, “last year was a very difficult year for Pakistan.” He cited episodes of militancy including “a huge spike in suicide bombers, the Red Mosque events, some 250 Pakistani soldiers captured by about 20 militants, some forts laid siege to….”
General McNeill, however, expressed his concerns about Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani’s unwillingness to make ‘War on Terror’ his top priority by saying, “What’s missing is action to keep pressure on the insurgents . . .  General Kiyani has failed to agree to attend meetings that Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States have held in recent years on border problems.”
By the way, the discontent about Gen. Kiyani’s lack of interest in the meetings is not news in Washington anymore.  He has been declining meetings with some Senators and other U.S. dignitaries as well.   Some people say that the General does not want to be seen as very pro-American, whereas others say that contrary to Musharraf, who was blindly following U.S. guidelines, General Kiyani wants to have little more independence while leading the country. While differentiating between these two Generals, Secretary Iqbal said that “Musharraf has a megalomaniac personality.”  Many Pakistani-Americans believe that getting a thousand Pakistani soldiers killed, for instance, is not much of a price for Pervaiz Musharraf to stay in power.
Like President Bill Clinton, Gen. Kiyani, however, might be a considerate human being once it comes to valuing the life of a soldier.  Contrary to President Bush, President Bill Clinton is not a war mongering man. As a President, having ordered a limited attack on a small country, President Clinton expressed his sadness to some of his staffers by saying a kid like Chelsea (his own daughter) was not going to see her father ever again after the U.S. attack that night. Similarly, Gen. Kiyani might be thinking that his indifferent to the life of a Pakistani soldier might bring hardship to feed the half dozen children after the Pakistani soldier died fighting a so-called ‘War on terror.’
Secretary Iqbal said that “the U.S. should stop supporting President Musharraf because he is a power hungry tactician.”

While talking with Secretary Iqbal I felt that it was partially Musharraf’s luck that almost a decade ago PM Nawaz Sharif promoted him as a Chief of Army Staff.  Not being a strategist, Musharraf seems to have mastered the skills of staying in power, which in the long-term is damaging the mutual U.S-Pakistani interests in the region.  Instead of merely ruling on the lives of the hungry masses, PML leadership tends to be sincere and serious in helping Afghani and Pakistani tribal people by appreciating and respecting their traditions.

The PML and its leader Nawaz Sharif with soaring popularity emerge as a credible alternative for the United States to work with, but mutual mistrust on both sides must first be addressed for a successful partnership to result, I believe. PML, for example, needs a healthy injection of realism in its attitude towards America because of Pakistan’s heavy dependence on U.S. and foreign largesse and aid. To convince the U.S. about its position, the party also needs to develop a little more trust in American goodwill manifested toward the international community, including Pakistan and Afghanistan. It also needs to lobby itself as the most pro-business political party capable of peacefully resolving the foreign insurgent problems in FATA.

The foreign policy experts in Washington are well aware that it is not only the Pakistani PML, but almost the whole Muslim world tends to focus on the arrogance and raw power of American military expenditures of 800 billion dollars per year, equal to that of rest of the whole world.

Along with Muslim world, the PML, nevertheless, needs to learn that in absolute terms America also donates to poor countries more than any other nation on earth. For example, according to Rick Barton, Co-director of the CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, “We have made some major progress in electrification of the country [Afghanistan]. We have built several thousand schools, and millions of kids are now back at school in Afghanistan who weren’t in school under the Taliban.” PML ought to realize that if America does not do this honorable job in Afghanistan, India will do it. In this case, Pakistan would have a serious problem because it would perceive it as an act of Indian brainwashing of Afghan children.  America’s assistance in education in Afghanistan is a better alternative to Indian education of Afghan children.

The deep sense of American generosity and sensitivity toward saving human life can be appreciated by the PML’s leadership in President Bill Clinton’s compassion towards its leader Nawaz Sharif’s life.  In October 1999, he was transferred from the Prime Minister’s house to a prison house in Pakistan and eventually was exiled to Saudi Arabia.  He avoided the possibility of following the same heartbreaking end as Z.A. Bhutto, BB’s father, a Sindhi, who was hung by a Punjabi General named Zia-Ul-Haq a couple of decades ago.  In that process, Clinton assisted Sharif in leaving the country to prevent his suffering in Pakistan.

If the PML looks past its mistrust of Bush administration, it will see that America has done a lot more positive things than it’s given credit for in the region. The party has some compelling arguments to influence Washington of its position toward Afghanistan. For example, both the PML and U.S. counterinsurgency experts agree that a shift from hard to soft power in Afghanistan is necessary for success.  The American counterinsurgency experts believe that they need to deal with 80 percent soft power and about 20 percent military muscle. President Musharraf is getting over 97 percent of U.S aid to Pakistan for military purposes and about 3 percent for the benefit of civilians living in FATA, the areas known as the center of Islamic extremism.

The PML is very vocal in telling the Bush administration that it should reverse the aid equation and pay more attention to using soft power in the areas. According to Secretary Iqbal, “Washington must understand the anthropological and psychological background of the Taliban who call themselves freedom fighters against American occupation.”

Commenting on the current propaganda in Washington against ISI, Secretary Iqbal said that “the Taliban are the product of joint venture of ISI and CIA, and thus these two organizations must work together to deal with this problem using 98 percent rather than 80 percent soft power. Diminishing ISI’ role in defeating USSR and blaming the organization for every wrong thing in Afghanistan is not going to resolve the problems in that part of the world.”

PML leader Sharif and his party have earned the trust of Pakistani people by being consistent and having better understanding of Islamic traditionalists.  According to Secretary Iqbal “in the West, people are generally linear in their thinking and thus they are very legalistic in negotiations with their foes, whereas in our part of the world we have more spiritual ways of relating and dealing with others.  In order to deal with the angry Islamists in our part of the world, America must depend less on the Pentagon’s war plans and more on cultural specialists who understand these terrorists and their history and religion.”

About Sharif family’s reputation in Pakistan, Secretary Iqbal said that “the Pakistanis rightfully think of the Sharifs as traditional, Islamic and profoundly grounded in Pakistan. On the other hand most Pakistanis consider President Musharraf as the instruments of the Bush Administration, willing to compromise some Islamic and national interests for some personal gains.”

Secretary Iqbal said that “the PML and the United States have some other similar positions on several issues, creating a sound foundation for their partnership. Both the U.S. and the PML believe that reconstruction and infrastructure projects are vital to bring peace to the region.”

On the States part, Secretary Nicholas Burns has said that “It [the coalition] is building new schools and health clinics, build roads and electricity grid because it’s a country with one of the least developed infrastructures in the world.”

While talking with this writer Secretary Iqbal commented on Secretary Burns’s statement by saying “the Department of State needs to know that no one could agree more with Secretary Burns on the need of building infrastructure in FATA and Afghanistan than  PML, which has economic development as its top priority in its party’s charter.

Secretary Iqbal said that “just bombing the Taliban is not an option.” Secretary Burns has shared those views indirectly by stating at the CSIS that “I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Afghan government and the international community can be successful in keeping the Taliban at bay – I didn’t say defeating them militarily – keeping them at bay to allow the country to develop.”

In the seminar at CSIS, Colonel David W. Lamm, U.S. Army (Ret.) and former Chief of Staff, Combined Forces in Afghanistan said, “the interesting thing about the helicopters is that [its] probably not the way to go about the strategy. Flying over the top of your problems doesn’t endear you to the people on the ground that are living every day with the Taliban.” On the same line, Secretary Iqbal said that the “PML leader Nawaz Sharif believes that in Afghanistan we can’t resolve the serious grievances of different nationalities by bombing Afghanis or the Taliban.

Having long conversation with Secretary Iqbal, I developed the feelings that it’s incumbent upon PML leadership to educate Washington that Secretary Burns is being rational and realistic for not establishing the goal of eliminating Taliban. With the goal of bombing, the U.S. will create more resentment in FATA areas and promote a policy that is doomed to fail.

On its part, I believe, the U.S. needs to consider reassessing the PML role in future politics of Pakistan. In order to find durable political solutions, Washington must take on some of the positions of the PML such as depending more on soft power; and forming alliances with traditional minded leaders that have the trust of the people in Pakistan.

Last 5 posts by kami

• Who Made Taliban Terrorists? - July 2nd, 2008
• Donde Drug Trade Dollars De Afghanistan? - June 4th, 2008
• Cross Fire - May 30th, 2008
• Good Memories With Some American ‘Right Wing Bigot Christians’ - May 23rd, 2008
• Blaming Jews and Christians for Our Own Follies - May 20th, 2008