Posted by Justin Bresolin
The Obama Administration’s appeals to Pakistan for partnership in the combating of the terrorist insurgency present in their territory meets with official support, but also great outcry from the people and certain political factions. While the government hails the alliance as a “positive change,” along with welcoming the financial aid provided by the US, certain members of the government and the military argue that the Al Qaeda/Taliban threat is not as urgent as the US argues it to be. A considerable portion of the military in particular continues to believe that India is the primary foe that demands Pakistan’s attention. In addition, many citizens believe that coming to an agreement with the insurgents is better than fighting them. Many Pakistani’s strongly believe against fighting Muslims on their soil, and demonstrate a deep-rooted lack of trust between the two nations based on continuous suspicion by the US of Pakistan’s government involvement with the terrorists, along with the unwillingness of the US military to give greater control to the Pakistani military over the fighting. Sentiment seems to regard the insurgency as being “an American cause, not a Pakistani one.”
For their part, American intelligence and heads of the discussions, including Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, believe that Pakistan is on its way toward economic and societal collapse, and that it is critical for the US to guide Pakistan toward a better future. This includes the strengthening of political institutions, eliminating “feudal loyalties” among the political parties and steering the military away from its obsession with the “past enemy” of India toward more contemporary foes. Fearful analysts estimate a period of 6-12 months before Pakistan’s situation deteriorates to the point of true danger.
The situation is a fascinating example of the conflicts of interest and autonomy that two nations encounter in the pursuit of a goal. The potential goal of the US is to alter Pakistan’s government and military dramatically to better accommodate their vision of what is best for the country, and by extension their own. The sheer amount of work and careful diplomacy that would require is a titanic feat for both countries to achieve, and it’s unclear whether or not such deep-rooted traditions can be successfully changed.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment