As the United States continues to lumber after its mutually contradictory objectives in Afghanistan, American analysts continue to struggle to justify our cognitive dissonance. Among the latest attempts is this fine summary of the situation in Afghanistan from Ehsan M. Ahrari at Small Wars Journal. Although I recommend that you read it in full, the section I want to point out is this tidbit on the role of Pakistan:
Pakistan is the only regional power that holds a few cards, in the context of pushing for negotiations between the Taliban and the government of President Ashraf Ghani. However, it also brings a lot of baggage with it. It is disliked by the Afghan government for its perceived hegemonic aspirations toward that country, and the Taliban do not place a lot of trust in Pakistan in its role as an honest broker. However, Pakistan remains important because it is willing to provide security havens for the Taliban and is a source for their arms.
Pakistan is the epitome of those mutually contradictory objectives. Pakistan is not our ally, probably plays host to more Al Qaeda members than any other country in the world, and is the implacable enemy of India, whom we should want to be an ally. As long as the Taliban can flee across the border into Pakistan with impunity we will never root them out. Pakistan remains the fourth largest recipient of U. S. aid.
There’s a simple reason for that. We need Pakistan’s cooperation to continue to prosecute our war in Afghanistan. It’s far cheaper to move fuel and war materiel through Pakistan than to get it into Afghanistan any other way.
Memory says … India, after gaining independence from England and after partition, persisted for many years in being “non-aligned” — neither pro-Western nor pro-Soviet. Which to most Americans and perhaps others who identified with “the West” meant that India was “objectively” pro-Soviet. Pakistan has consistently viewed itself as opposed to India in every possible way, which means that to folks in Washington Pakistan bas generally looked pro-Western. And as a pro-Western Moslem nation, Pakistan has generally been viewed as worthy of economic and military aid, and Pakistan’s government has graciously accepted such financial offerings.
So time has passed, and the Soviet Union has fallen, and the division of 3rd world nations into pro- and anti-Soviet factions no longer makes sense (if it ever did). The Russians being fewer and poorer these days, India gains nothing from siding with them and seeks to align itself with the West. (After all, in 2090 or so the Indians may have the economic strength and sufficient population to dominate the planet, so non-alignment isn’t going to be a lasting strategy.) So the Indians are willing to be our friends now, and for various good reasons (in 2090 or so … etc) we’re eager to be friends with the Indians.
Of course, this creates problems with the Pakistanis, who have been our good friends for so long because they weren’t Indians and shared (or pretended to share) our animus towards the Soviets. What does Pakistan have to demonstrate its value as a friend anymore to keep justifying all that foreign aid? It’s not staffing computer call centers like the Indians. It’s population isn’t going up and up like India and China and Africa — particularly after the loss of Bengladesh. It developed an A-bomb, which is certainly a point of interest, but hasn’t developed the missiles or aircraft necessary to convey nuclear warheads to much of the world, so even that accomplishment doesn’t count for much.
Strikes me, we don’t need Pakistan for much. Granted, we’ve been on friendly terms for 70 years, so there’s no reason to become hostile. There’s much to be said for treating Pakistan as a friend and ally, not for bloody reasons of realpolitick but just because friends ought to stay friends just on general principles.
Is this “liberal” or “conservative” reasoning?
What is often missing from these analyses is the fact that Afghanistan unilaterally disputes the border between it and Pakistan, and has done so 1947. Afghanistan supported the short lived Pashtunistan seperatist movement too. Afghanistan to this day refuses to accept the border. They believe all Afghans (not just border tribes) should have unhindered access to all of Pakistan. Karzai and Ghani have even put forth the idea that there is NO border at all, and that the two countries should function as an amalgamated blob of a country.
When Pakistan tried to fence the border, Afghans opened fire on Pakistani labourers. Afghans also opened fire on a Pakistani census team recently as well.
Afghanistan was never a good neighbour to Pakistan when it was stable, and today still refuses to accept the border based on the argument that Pashtuns must be united. I myself am Pashtun, and all Pakistani Pashtuns recognize that we are quite different from Afghans. None of us want to be Afghans – especially since Afghans would rather live on the fringes of Pak society than to go back.
“Strategic depth” argument isn’t as important as people think. Afghan irredentism matters more than westerners think.
Until Afghanistan accepts the validity of the border, there will be little improvement in the region.
Mike schupp,
Pakistans population is definitely increasing. It sits at a very strategic point in a strategically important region, which renders it quite important so long as we’re invested in Central Asia and the Middle East. Pakistan also is perhaps China’s only close friend, and so maintaining good ties with Pakistan may indirectly influence the Chinese, and Saudis for that matter. It was Pakistan which arranged th Nixon-China detente as well.
Pakistan also holds a prestigious position in the Islamic world for its nuclear capability, and history of leadership in the region (despite being poor).
Ridwan khan: Thanks for your courteous comments, and I’d be pleased to see more of them. As for Pakistan’s size, I was unclear — I recognize the population is large by world standards (6th, according to Wikipedia, just behind Brazil) and increasing. But it doesn’t have the prospect of exceeding China or India in size, not this century, barring inconceivable holocausts in those lands. Ditto for the US, so that’s something else we have in common.