The panel – led by Richard Armitage and Samuel Berger, top aides to former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – notes that Pakistan’s presence in such groups would enable it “to connect with new power structures and familiarise it with emerging norms and responsible international behaviour”.
In a report released on Friday, the task force, which enjoys support of the administration, endorses the Obama administration’s effort to cultivate cooperation with Pakistan as the best way to “secure vital US interests in the short, medium, and long run”.
It recommends that this approach should include significant investments in Pakistan’s own stability, particularly after this summer’s floods. But in order for US assistance to be effective over the long-term, Washington must make clear that it “expects Pakistan to make a sustained effort to undermine Pakistan-based terrorist organisations and their sympathisers.” The task force warns that “two realistic scenarios” could force a fundamental reassessment of US strategy and policy.
First, it is possible that Pakistan-based terrorists conduct a large-scale attack on the United States and that the Pakistani government – for any number of reasons – refuses to take adequate action against the perpetrators. In the aftermath of a traumatic terrorist attack, it would be impossible for US leaders to accept Pakistani inaction.
The United States most likely would launch a targeted strike on Pakistani territory led by Special Forces raids or aerial attacks on suspected terrorist compounds. Even limited US military action would provoke a strong backlash among Pakistanis. Public anger in both countries would open a rift between Washington and Islamabad.
In a second scenario, Washington could reach the conclusion that Pakistan is unwilling to improve its cooperation on US counter-terrorism priorities. The panel warns that frustration over Pakistan’s persistent relationships with groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Afghan Taliban at some point could cause the United States to shift its approach towards Pakistan.
In this case, Washington will have a number of points of leverage with Pakistan. It could curtail civilian and military assistance. It could also work bilaterally and through international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the UN, to sanction and isolate Pakistan.
US operations against Pakistan-based terrorist groups could be expanded and intensified.
In the region, the United States could pursue closer ties with India at Pakistan’s expense.
“Sticks would be directed against Pakistan-based terrorists, but also against the Pakistani state, in an effort to alter its policies. The US-Pakistan relationship would become openly adversarial.”
But the panel warns that “Americans and Pakistanis must understand that these options carry heavy risks and costs. Both sides have a great deal to lose”.
The United States and Pakistan on Wednesday open their latest “strategic dialogue,” an initiative by President Barack Obama's administration to show Pakistan's skeptical public it is ready to take up its concerns.
Frank Ruggiero, the US deputy special representative on Pakistan and Afghanistan, said the Pentagon and the Pakistani military have been talking about a framework for security assistance.
“We specifically worked with the Pakistanis over the summer to identify what would be the types of military equipment and so on,” Ruggiero told reporters.
“That will be a topic of discussion at the strategic dialogue.” The US Congress last year approved a five-year, 7.5 billion-dollar package for Pakistan aimed at building schools, infrastructure and democratic institutions in hopes of denting the appeal of extremists.
Pakistan's powerful military initially voiced misgivings, saying the aid came with too many conditions.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March promised to work on a “multi-year security assistance package.”
Ruggiero said the United States considered its ties with India and Pakistan to be “distinct bilateral relationships.”
“The United States committed to a strategic dialogue with the government of Pakistan, a strategic partnership, and we also have a strategic relationship with the government of India,” he said.
Diplomatic sources in Washington, while talking to Dawn, also confirmed this, saying that Pakistan had agreed in principle to extend its military operation to North Waziristan and other areas identified by the Americans as militant hideouts.
“I wouldn’t speak to any kind of details in terms of either plans or operations,” said US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen when asked if the Pentagon had planned a unilateral military strike in Pakistan.
The Fox News, which interviewed the US military chief, also asked if the talks of a unilateral strike aimed at putting the Pakistan government and the terror groups on notice that “we’ll take this into our own hands if need be?”
“My focus, more than anything else, is in support of” the Pakistani military’s efforts to combat the militants, said the admiral.
But “clearly … we’re very concerned about that part of the world. We’re very concerned about — that’s where Al Qaeda leadership lives. We know that”.
The United States, he said, was working with both Pakistan and Afghanistan to continue to put pressure on the terrorist leadership but he refused to disclose details of such measures.
In a visit to Islamabad earlier this month, US National Security Adviser James Jones and CIA Director Leon Panetta told Pakistani leaders that militants hiding in these areas planned attacks against the United States and its allies.
The two senior US officials met President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, during this visit and told them that these militants were also behind a May 1 attempt to bomb New York’s Times Square.
“The meetings led to an understanding between the two sides that Islamabad will extend its military operations to North Waziristan and other similar areas as well,” a diplomatic source told Dawn.
“They are now discussing when will be the right time to do so. When, not if,” the source added.
Recent terrorist activities, particularly Friday’s attacks on the Qadianis in Lahore, apparently cemented the government’s desire to take on the militants.
In his interview to Fox News, Admiral Mullen said that he had “spent an extraordinary amount of time in Pakistan” in dealing with Gen Kayani, and had been impressed with how much Pakistan was doing to combat the militants.
He had said earlier that Gen Kayani had promised to launch an operation in North Waziristan and he trusted him because the Pakistani general had always done what he said he would do.
“They’ve lost a significant number of troops. They’ve regained a significant amount of their territory. They’re very focused on that,” the admiral said.
“They’re struggling in building behind the security that they’ve created in — particularly in the western area. They’ve moved some 70,000 troops to the west. So we’re working hard to strengthen that relationship. We’re working hard to support them in training. And we’ll continue to do that.”
Diplomatic sources in Washington also confirmed what the admiral indicated, saying that the Pakistanis would decide “when to launch the operation, what means to use, where to use the airpower and where to send in the troops”.
The sources said the expected operation had further increased the need for greater cooperation among the three major stakeholders in the current power set-up in Pakistan: the political government, the military and the judiciary.
“All three understand the need to cooperate with each other in the greater interest of the country,” said one such source. The decision to take on the militants also followed increased pressure from Washington.
On Saturday, the US media reported that the Obama administration had prepared plans to launch a unilateral military strike inside Pakistan, should another successful terrorist attack in the US is traced to that country.
The US media also reported this week that the Obama administration had ordered a major escalation of clandestine military operations in the greater Middle East region that includes Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
According to these reports, the White House authorised a massive expansion of clandestine military and intelligence operations in this region, sanctioning activities in more than a dozen countries and giving the military’s combatant commanders significant new authority to conduct unconventional warfare.
About Me
