Way of the knife

Published May 29, 2016
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

A RECENT book, Way of the Knife by Mark Mazzetti, describes the exploits and foibles of America’s clandestine agencies. In their parlance, the US drone attack which killed Mullah Akhtar Mansour was both a decapitation strike against the Afghan Taliban and a swift stab in Pakistan’s back(yard). The message to the Taliban was: talk or be targeted. To Pakistan: force the Taliban to the table or be humiliated.

In terms of the US justification for the strike, Mullah Mansour was not the prime target. He was the one who had authorised the Murree talks in Mullah Omar’s name. His recent resistance to resuming talks was probably due to preoccupation with consolidating his leadership.

The purpose of the US strike may have been to create fresh divisions within the Afghan Taliban by igniting another succession struggle and arresting the momentum of their ‘summer offensive’. This appears to have failed.


The purpose of the US strike may have been to create fresh divisions within the Afghan Taliban.


Another aim may have been to create distrust between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan’s ISI. Some Taliban leaders have reportedly expressed unhappiness with Pakistan.

Iran is another twist. Apparently, Mullah Mansour was returning from a visit to Iran. Was this the reason for his elimination?

In any case, the possibility of being struck on Pakistani soil will no doubt constrain the Taliban leadership’s movements and limit Pakistan’s ability to interact with them.

The strike also signals US determination to prevent the collapse of the Kabul regime. Protected by its American patron, Kabul is unlikely to offer the Taliban any ‘incentives’ to resume talks as desired by Pakistan.

A logical corollary is that sizable American and allied forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. It is generally expected that, rather than reduce the force to 5,500 as previously planned, 10,000 plus US troops will remain in Afghanistan and a decision regarding future levels would be left to the next administration.

The level of the US military presence in Afghanistan is unlikely to be reduced by Hillary Clinton if she is elected president. Compared to Barack Obama, she has always leaned towards a more robust US posture in various conflicts. Donald Trump may also be inclined to accept the Pentagon’s desire for a larger and longer military role in Afghanistan.

This does not imply an improvement in Afghanistan’s security environment. On the contrary. The Afghan Taliban have rapidly chosen a new leader who, due to his ‘spiritual’ rather than military role, may have better prospects than Mullah Mansour to preserve unity within the group. Their military commander, Sirajuddin Haqqani, will have a freer hand to promote operations. To avenge Mullah Mansour’s termination, the Taliban offensive will be pursued with renewed vigour.

With the Afghan intelligence agency backing splinter Taliban factions (besides the Pakistani Taliban), the existence of numerous rival militias and warlords, and the emergence of the militant Islamic State group, Afghanistan is likely to be engulfed in a Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’.

Pakistan needs to address three interrelated challenges emerging from the Afghan chaos.

One, how to deal with the Afghan Taliban? Pakistan can limit the cross-border movement of the Afghan Taliban (and the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan) by fencing parts of the Pakistan-Afghan border. But it cannot afford to fight Kabul and America’s war against the Afghan Taliban. If they joined the TTP in targeting Pakistan, it would gravely jeopardise its security. Nor is Pakistan in a position after the US strike to promote inter-Afghan negotiations. For the present, doing nothing appears to be the only option. When either Kabul or the Afghan Taliban face defeat, or both are locked in a military stalemate, they may be more open to a settlement.

Second, Pakistan’s priority is to defeat the TTP and eliminate its ‘safe havens’ in Afghanistan. An article in the last issue of the US Military Times quotes Stephen Biddle, (a former aide to the ex-US commander in Afghanistan, Gen McCrystal), as saying: Afghanistan is a base for destabilising Pakistan, and Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state that has an ongoing civil war involving a witches’ brew of extremists who don’t like us. ... That is the primary US concern.”

But if this is indeed America’s primary concern, it is not reflected in its actions. Sporadic drone and aerial strikes have been conducted against TTP targets. But no effort has been made to eliminate its ‘safe havens’ in Afghanistan or to end the support extended to the TTP by Afghan and Indian intelligence. Pakistan must consider all possible options to achieve these objectives, with or without US cooperation.

The third challenge is posed by Washington’s perverse preoccupation with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. In the Military Times article, the danger posed by the TTP and other extremists to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons is identified as the “most important factor” in the reassessment of American troop levels in Afghanistan. Even the uninitiated Donald Trump has referred to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as the main reason to maintain a US military presence in Afghanistan.

It is not clear how the US military presence in Afghanistan will serve to avert the ‘danger’ to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Is there substance to the media reports that the US plans to ‘seize’ Pakistan’s weapons in a crisis? Given the size and sophistication of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, how can this be accomplished without Pakistan’s acquiescence, which is unlikely, or without provoking a war with Pakistan? In the aftermath of the Balochistan strike, these questions deserve clear answers from the US.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

Published in Dawn, May 29th, 2016

Opinion

Editorial

Afghan turbulence
Updated 19 Mar, 2024

Afghan turbulence

RELATIONS between the newly formed government and Afghanistan’s de facto Taliban rulers have begun on an...
In disarray
19 Mar, 2024

In disarray

IT is clear that there is some bad blood within the PTI’s ranks. Ever since the PTI lost a key battle over ...
Festering wound
19 Mar, 2024

Festering wound

PROTESTS unfolded once more in Gwadar, this time against the alleged enforced disappearances of two young men, who...
Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...