Pakistan resisting US Incursions, but not too much
Published Date: September 17, 2008
Helicopters carrying US troops crossed the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan were forced to turn back because of firing from Pakistani troops, Reuters reported Sept 15, citing unnamed Pakistani security officials. The incident reportedly took place in the early hours Sept 15 near the Angor Adda area in the South Waziristan agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). US officials denied that any such skirmish took place, while a Pakistani military spokesman said there had been an incident
but denied that US forces crossed into Pakistan or that Pakistani forces opened fire; he suggested that the shots might have come from local militants or tribesmen.
It is unlikely that Pakistani troops actually engaged US forces - Pakistan's military leadership is not looking for a shooting war with the United States. For that matter, Washington would be very hesitant to have one of its helicopters shot down over Pakistan, so the standards for aborting a mission or an insertion are likely very low (though they would change in a situation where troops were actually on the ground). Instead, the incident was likely stage-managed - a move on the part of Islamabad to deal
with growing internal pressure against US attacks on Pakistani soil. In the absence of any real intent or capability to confront US forces, General Headquarters has to show that it is not willingly allowing the country's sovereignty to be violated.
The confrontation comes amid other escalations of US-Pakistani tensions in the Afghan border region. Pakistan scrambled fighter aircraft to repel a US spy plane in its airspace for the first time Sept 15, Pakistani English-language daily Dawn reported. The US aircraft was seen hovering over Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, and disappeared when Pakistani jets appeared on the scene. Pakistani fighter aircraft also reportedly were patrolling the FATA airspace Sept 13, and tribal elders threatened
to retaliate against any US forces crossing the border.
Pakistani army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani on Sept 10 criticized the US raids, and the following day the British Broadcasting Corp reported that Islamabad had ordered the army to push back against increasingly overt, unilateral US military action in the country. The issue of US raids reportedly was the main item on the agenda of a corps commanders meeting chaired by Kayani. The Pakistani government, and especially the army, is facing a situation where it cannot afford to be seen domestically as doing nothing
to defend against violations of the country's sovereignty by US forces - especially not at a time when it is also facing a domestic jihadist insurgency. Appearing passive risks a backlash not only from the voting public but also from within the army.
At the same time, Islamabad cannot risk a major confrontation with the United States because of its dependence on US and international financial assistance - and in any case, Pakistan lacks the military capability to prevent such attacks. In the light of this situation, it is likely that the Pakistanis are trying to take steps that could placate the domestic audience and get Washington to end its unilateral moves without actually going so far as to engage in a military conflict with the United States. Ther
e continues to be debate within the US administration over whether unilateral incursions are the best policy, and Islamabad is hoping to bolster those forces in Washington who oppose such raids.
Even though there has been no real incident where Pakistani forces have engaged their US counterparts, such reports represent a major shift in attitude in Islamabad away from cooperating with Washington in the war against the Taliban. From the US point of view, this is unacceptable - in order to deal with the situation in Afghanistan, Washington needs to see the end of jihadist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Islamabad's inability or unwillingness to eliminate these safe-havens is the reason for the US moves towa
rd unilateral action.
Pakistani attempts at resisting US unilateral moves, however, are unlikely to deter Washington. If anything, they will have the opposite effect: the United States could try to bring India into the picture to force the Pakistani hand. New Delhi, for its part, might join Washington against Islamabad, but it is not clear that it will do so. By moving against Pakistan, India would risk sparking a regional conflict that could be exploited by jihadists and could easily get out of hand. Now that the United State
s is engaging in unilateral action, the trajectory moving forward will depend on how Washington decides to respond to Pakistan's resistance to that action.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
As usual, Trump stole the spotlight with al-Baghdadi’s death. Nevertheless, will this ultimately mean a Middle East that is free from war, problems, and disputes?
