Reported By:
| Edited By: Firdous Syed |Source: DNA |Updated: May 10, 2011, 10:48 PM IST
The living Osama bin Laden personified violent extremism driven by hatred; in his death, he may prove to be even more divisive. Though President Barack Obama had initially acknowledged that “our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding”, the stark reality of the al Qaeda chief being killed deep inside Pakistan, some 60 kilometres away from Islamabad in the garrison town of Abbottabad, is hard to miss. Immediately after ‘Operation Geronimo’ had successfully eliminated Osama bin Laden, members of the Obama administration started raising the question of ISI’s complicity in harbouring the al Qaeda chief. CIA chief Leon Panetta’s comment of either ‘complicity’ or ‘incompetence’ on part of the ISI made clear to the world the way in which the Obama administration viewed Osama’s hiding in Pakistan, virtually within its belly. Obama himself has raised doubts about Pakistan’s commitment.
The American president’s observation that the al Qaeda leader must have had “some sort of support network” is logical. Without any support structure it was simply impossible for Osama bin Laden to survive for too long. The US president has not blamed Pakistan directly, yet he suspects Pakistan of complicity: “We don’t know whether there might have been some people inside of [Pakistan’s] government, people outside of government.” However, most damaging for Pakistan so far has been the comment of the CIA chief: “It was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardise the mission.” This not only displays a complete lack of trust, but also Washington’s deep contempt for Pakistan.
It goes without saying that Osama’s discovery within its borders is irreversibly destructive for Pakistan; it has confirmed the rumours of the country being a ‘terrorist sanctuary’. It will henceforth be very difficult for Pakistan to mould international opinion ‘that it too is a victim of terrorism’, despite 35,000 of its people having been killed by terrorists. But ironically, being caught with half its pants down is not the real issue for Pakistan. American ‘unilateral action’ has demoralised the majority in Pakistan. American SEAL commandos having a free run deep inside Pakistan and the Pakistan military ostensibly finding out only after the Americans had left Pakistan’s airspace has badly shaken the confidence of Pakistan’s masses, and they have come to view their military as ‘impotent’ and ‘ineffective’.
Pakistan has warned the United States of “disastrous consequences” if it carries out any more raids against terrorists like the one that killed Osama Bin Laden. However, America has categorically stated that it will not hesitate to carry out another operation to nab high value terrorists inside Pakistan. Seething with anger, Pakistan army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has retorted: “Military and intelligence cooperation with the United States will warrant a review if an Abbottabad-type action that violates the sovereignty of Pakistan takes place.”
Apparently, it looks as though in the aftermath of Osama bin laden’s death, Pak-US relations are headed for a collision. Putting to rest the possibility of an imminent breakdown, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said, “It is not always an easy relationship, you know that ... But on the other hand it is a productive one for both our countries and we are going to continue to cooperate.” When pushed in a corner, Pakistan is susceptible to American pressure; America may like to drive it towards more cooperation. Under pressure, Pakistan has produced results in the past. To lower temperatures, it has occasionally handed over top al Qaeda and Taliban leaders to the United States. This time too it will not be surprising if Ayman al-Zawahiri and other middle-rung Taliban leaders suddenly find themselves in American custody. But this still will not indicate a change of course.
The game changer for America will be if Pakistan, in a dramatic turnaround change of its policy, stops supporting Afghan Taliban and abandons them completely. It’s very difficult to imagine that Pakistan, obsessed with India and its notion of strategic depth in Afghanistan, can compromise its Taliban assets easily, assets that have long been nourished with great risks. Taliban has forced an impasse in Afghanistan partly due to Pakistan’s support. Pakistan considers the game to be nearing an end in Kabul, and expecting it to alter its security doctrine at this juncture might be asking for more than they can give.
American options are limited. It cannot ‘abandon’ Pakistan completely, yet it cannot trust it fully. That does not resolve the conflict in Afghanistan. A hasty American exit will only confirm Afghanistan’s status as ‘graveyard of empires’, it will only lead to further radicalisation and will provide an impetus to al Qaeda ideology. And America continuing with its present military intervention in Afghanistan, even for a decade more, will not completely subdue the Taliban either. The war of attrition goes on.
The author is a Srinagar-based columnist and political analyst
firdoussyed@yahoo.com
