|
16 October 2010 By A R Jerral
The NATO forces attack on FC post
in FATA has evoked "deep concern" from Pakistan, as
the media reports indicate. Our Foreign Minister has
expressed this concern to NATO's Secretary General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen at its headquarters in Brussels.
One hoped that the NATO would see the gravity of
reaction in Pakistan, but that was a wishful thinking.
Mr Rasmussen in the "good and open" discussion with
our FM admitted that the attack was carried out
"intentionally" - so much for our deep concern. The
NATO boss thinks that by offering condolences and
expressing regrets he has settled the incident. In a previous
article regarding America's strategic objectives in
Pakistan, I had opined that the ongoing war on terror
in Afghanistan is aimed to take the operations into
the Pakistani territory. The real target is Pakistan's
nuclear potential; they have no plausible security
threat from the ill-equipped Talibans or ragtag
extremist. Arthur Herman, an author and scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has hinted at the
real objective of the US. AEI is a think tank closely
associated with the neoconservatives and is openly
committed to Israel's security. It supplies advisors
to officials of the US administration and serves as
"incubator for new policy ideas and is critical part
of the web of power in Washington" (The Israel Lobby
and US Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt). What Herman
suggests in his write-up is in fact a policy direction
to the US administration. He implies that the policy
of sending drones and attacking the militant hideouts
in the Pakistan territory has not worked. His line of
argument is that Pakistan encourages drone attacks on
those terrorist who pose a threat to them; they do not
support attack on groups who target the Afghan
government. His underlying thrust is obvious, he wants
to tell the US and NATO forces to prop up the Afghan
government against Pakistan. One can
understand now why President Hamid Karazai vents his
anger on Pakistan from time to time. Herman suggests
that if Pakistan government is further destabilised
"the only thing keeping the country's nukes out of the
hands of Al-Qaeda may have to be the US troops." So,
the thrust is Pakistan's nukes. It is a tacit way to
tell the policymakers in Washington to keep the
pressure on our country, which will weaken the
Pakistani government's standing causing instability.
That will provide the reason for the US troops to move
in. What is
unknown to the public in Pakistan is that the pressure
is escalating. Herman quotes interesting figures of
NATO excursions into the Pakistan territory. In 2009,
he lists 45 Predator drone attacks, in 2010 so far the
attacks have tripled - 22 attacks in September alone.
We know about the drone attacks as these are reported
in the media, but what we do not know and our media
does not report, is the fact that the US-led NATO
forces are launching crossborder raids into Pakistan
to flush out the Taliban insurgents. For this, CIA is
operating Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams in
Afghanistan. These teams are regularly mounting ground
raids into the Pak territory. Bob Woodard in his
latest book, Obama's Wars, claims that CIA boss Leon
Panetta has demanded more powers and authority to wage
a secret war inside Pakistan. In this way, things are
getting hot as far as the war on terror is concerned.
Pakistan is moving to become centre stage in this war.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA and NSC official, has
advised Mr Obama to shift the focus of war "from
Afghanistan to Pakistan"; this is what we are
witnessing in the shape of heightened war effort into
the Pakistan territory. Another
American author, Eric Margolis assesses USA's
perception about Pakistan, as an "ungrateful ally and
a potential enemy of US interests in the region."
America is amidst mid-term elections in which the
Republicans see a chance to return in majority. There
will be stronger calls for tougher military action in
the war on terror. After the polls, there are chances
that there will be deeper "air and land attacks" in
Pakistan. Pentagon, too, seems convinced on this
strategic approach. Whatever way we look at the
situation America is moving gradually towards invading
Pakistan. The line of
arguments puts the emphasis on the perceived fact that
the US cannot win the war on terror in Afghanistan,
unless the militant sanctuaries in Pakistan are
shutdown or ‘blown out' - but the current US policy is
not achieving that goal. The hidden suggestion is
obvious: there has to be an escalation in the
crossborder military attacks. What we have witnessed
in the latest NATO raid on FC post is a step towards
that direction. It was intentional, as the NATO
Secretary General has said; they knew the post was not
a terrorist sanctuary and yet they attacked it. It is
a deliberate provocation to test the response from
Pakistan side. My assessment
is that the US-led NATO troops are not yet ready to
move into Pakistan in a big way. The US, thus, is not
inclined to militarily move into Pakistan and stay
here for a longer duration in occupation mode. With
Pakistan army's fighting potential and the general
hostility of the masses it will be a very costly
affair. America does not want another Vietnam in this
region. They would like to mount a lightning strike to
take out Pakistan's nukes. That can happen only once
General David Petraeus is reasonably assured about the
location of our nuclear assets. I had voiced
my apprehension in a previous article about the role
and tasking of the notorious Blackwater and its
deployment in Pakistan. The USA's Defence Department
hired it to provide security to its military
installations in Iraq. Its exploit are elaborately
covered in a book, according to which it had been
tasked to other dirty works too. What is it doing in
Pakistan no one knows? In fact, it has just vanished.
It may be vigorously searching the storage facilities
and locations of our assets which weigh heavily on the
American mind, or should one say the Israeli mind.
Israel is wary of nuclear capability with any Muslim
country. During Zia's regime, it is reported that
Israel with the connivance of India wanted to destroy
Kahuta by launching an air raid. More so, the
political clout that Israel exercises on the US
administration is obvious. The fact that policy
suggestions to take the war to Pakistan emanate from
the think tanks, who work for the Israel lobby,
indicates that this lobby is using all its might to
force the Obama administration to create conditions
where it becomes possible to go after Pak nuclear
assets. For the time being, aerial and ground based
pressure will be exercised to keep things hot. Once
the ground reconnaissance by Blackwater confirms the
targets, there will be an all-out effort to destroy
them. Till then, the US led "anti-terror forces" will
keep Pakistan engaged by raids in FATA area stepping
up the tempo. Pakistan needs to remain vigilant and be
prepared for the worst. It may sound
cynical and alarming, but one should view the US
designs with doubt. Pakistan has gained nothing from
their friendship and it lasts till the US sees any
benefit to its policy, and then we are thrown to the
wolves to fend for ourselves. It is high time that we
should chalk out a political course for ourselves
which can help us to act in national interest.
A R Jerral
is a freelance columnist.
|
Add Comments