WASHINGTON, Sept 24, (RTRS): The United States and Pakistan unleashed a war of words this week as Washington accused Islamabad of involvement in attacks on US targets in Kabul, and Pakistan warned against a rupture in an already strained relationship crucial to US success in Afghanistan.
Years of intermittent feuds between the two countries, nominally united against Islamist extremists, have escalated into an ugly feud over a shockingly blunt US accusation.
The top US military officer called the Haqqani network, blamed for the brazen Sept 13 attack on the US Embassy in Kabul, a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency. Haqqani militants are now seen as a chief driver of violence in eastern Afghanistan and serious obstacle to President Barack Obama’s plan to wind down a long war.
Pakistan denies the charges and its foreign minister hit back, warning Washington would “lose an ally” if it goes too far.
While the United States cannot afford to walk away from nuclear-armed Pakistan, its priorities clearly do not align with those of officials in Islamabad. As Washington focuses on quashing threats against soldiers in Afghanistan and beyond, Pakistan frets chiefly that India may fill a vacuum that could be created by the gradual US departure from the region.
Here are several scenarios for how US-Pakistani ties could evolve in the coming months:
The path of least resistance would be the Obama administration’s current path, applying a mix of sticks and carrots in hopes Pakistan will finally crack down on militants such as the Haqqani group and the Afghan Taleban.
The White House, State Department and Pentagon would defend generous aid to Pakistan to an increasingly hostile Congress, which is already moving to restrict assistance. Economic aid and military support amounting to an approved $20 billion since 2001 would continue to fund Pakistan’s military, support economic growth and help Pakistan deal with natural disasters.
The United States would continue drone strikes on militant targets in Pakistan’s lawless border areas.
The bottom line: This approach has so far not yielded the results Washington seeks and there is no evidence that would suddenly change.
In this scenario, the United States would get tough, using diplomacy and other “soft power” tools at its disposal.
It would make its criticism of Pakistan’s inaction on the Haqqani group increasingly sharp and public. It would more openly name agencies within the Pakistani government such as the ISI that it believes are linked to militants.
Executive branch officials, perhaps concluding that billions of dollars in aid have failed to buy results, would support moves in Congress to restrict US aid.
The Obama administration would designate the Haqqani network as a foreign terrorist group and might scale back its support for Pakistan in multilateral venues such as the World Trade Organization.
The bottom line: These moves would certainly prompt turmoil in Pakistan’s military and might slow development projects supported by US aid funds. But they might also prompt the government of President Asif Ali Zardari to turn its own screws in response, denying Americans visas and further restricting US training and intelligence activities in Pakistan.