Losing patience with Pakistan
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta remarked Thursday that the US is “reaching the limits of [its] patience” with Pakistan’s inability and unwillingness to effectively address the issue of terrorism within its borders. General Martin Dempsey has since stated that the US has been “extraordinarily dissatisfied” with Pakistan’s efforts to root out the Haqqani Network from its Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
These statements indicate an escalation of rhetoric between the US and Pakistan, seemingly with hopes of finding a common ground to counteract a recent cooling in relations. Without indicating punitive action, however, it is questionable whether any effect will be had on Pakistani behavior.
General Dempsey’s admonishment of Pakistan’s failure to combat the Haqqani Network highlights the growing influence of the militant organization in the context of the war in Afghanistan. The organization was borne of a crime family whose leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, maintains numerous and shifting alliances. Operating as decentralized “death squads,” the Haqqanis have been a driving force behind sophisticated attacks on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The US has recognized that Pakistan shares a similar concern over the Haqqani Network, but for different reasons. The Haqqani Network operates on Pakistani territory, not in the US. This distinction makes the organization a proverbial “snake in [Pakistan’s] backyard” that will someday bite the state. Pakistan’s inaction has been attributed to the government having taken this fact into consideration. Consequently, it has little desire to accelerate the chain of events by moving aggressively against the organization.
As such, there is little the US can do to further encourage Pakistani cooperation. Ending drone strikes and withdrawing all support is not an option given the regional security environment. Drone strikes could be increased, but will likely provoke greater backlash. The status quo has failed to achieve US objectives, but moving forward is challenging without expanding international involvement in what has generally been a US-NATO-Pakistan affair.
The US has found workarounds to the Afghanistan supply route issue while Pakistani southern transit points remain closed. The US and NATO have signed an agreement with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan to evacuate equipment and supplies through their territories as the Afghanistan drawdown begins.
Russia has also agreed to allow US and NATO forces to utilize the airport in Ulyanovsk as a hub for transport operations both into and out of Afghanistan, indicating Moscow’s growing concern for the regional security outlook following the 2014 exit date.
Whether these deals have been executed out of practicality or for use as leverage against Pakistan, their consequences will play out as the Afghanistan exit gathers momentum. The US may have its hands tied, but it cannot abandon its relations with and operations in the nation. Unless it articulates an actionable follow-up to recent statements, the US is unlikely to drive Pakistan towards more effective cooperation in regional security matters.
