The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

At Large

Aftermath of the Great Game

By on 10.15.10 @ 6:07AM

When Pakistan ponders Afghanistan it thinks India.

For Pakistan’s military and intelligence community, the 2,640 km border with Afghanistan always represents a vulnerability to attack by India. It may be hard for outsiders to understand, but Pakistan believes it is a strategic necessity that it control its neighbor to the north in order to prevent any possibility of an encircling attack by India.

When challenged with the claim that this is a strategy left over from the days of the “great game” of Russia against the British Raj or from the Cold War’s alignment of India and Russia with China siding with Pakistan, the reaction among the Pakistani high command is swift and negative.

The Pakistan defense thinkers, usually retired generals, are quick to point out the construction of India’s military air base in Farkhor, Tajikistan, as an example of India’s encirclement strategy. They note also that India seeks an Afghan transit route for a projected Central Asian energy pipeline. Of perhaps more immediate concern tactically has been the opening of Indian consulates in Kandahar, Jalalabad, Heart, and Mazar-e-Sharif, providing an intelligence collection capability throughout Afghanistan. The Indian embassy in Kabul has returned to full operation after being bombed in July 2008, killing forty.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s own intelligence apparat, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), operates on the principle that President Hamid Karzai always will lean toward India as a result of his many political and economic contacts going back all the way to his years in an Indian university. It may appear counter-intuitive that Pushtun Afghan leaders such as Karzai would be biased toward India instead of Pakistan with its impressive Pushtun minority. But that, too, is the quixotic nature of tribal allegiances

General Ashfaq Kiyani, Pakistan’s chief of army general staff, has referred to his country’s need for “strategic depth” in order to maintain an effective defense capability against what he considers “Indian territorial ambitions.” All of which brings into play the military and political logic that fears the creation of an American and Karzai government-engineered arrangement with the Taliban that excludes Pakistan’s guiding hand.

This same logic has driven the seemingly purposeful motivation of the Pakistan military in not providing protection for the NATO supply lines traversing their country. Why would the ISI escalate its covert cooperation with Taliban elements by assisting in inhibiting resupply of NATO forces? The answer lies — as it always has in Pakistani strategic thinking — in the need to influence and control Afghanistan in order to counter perceived Indian strategic ambitions. Last week’s blowing up of petrol trucks is a reminder that nothing can or should be done in that part of the world without Pakistan’s approval — whatever such action might be.

The threat of mutually assured destruction of both Pakistan and India as a result of both countries’ nuclear weapon capability has not done away with their willingness to contest one another: it has simply turned the political military clock back to pre-nuclear days. It also places the hardest core of the Taliban-related factions in a pivotal position as a guerrilla reserve in any potential Northwest Territory border conflict with India. It’s ISI’s job to keep alive that relationship, and India is well aware of that fact.

The bigger question posed by this complex situation is whether the United States can afford to sacrifice its longtime close relationship with Pakistan in exchange for a dubiously secure arrangement between the government of Hamid Karzai and the “more moderate” elements of the Taliban without ISI participation. At least that is the question that has been implied by the Pakistani military leadership.

Gen. David Petraeus as CENTCOM chief was in a better position to deal with this deadly puzzle than he is now as simply ISAF commander. The Obama NSC team, of which General McChrystal complained, has been unable to negotiate the mountainous political terrain of Pakistan/Afghan affairs. Specific responsibility conveniently has been placed on military and civilian desks dealing with South Asia. The trouble is that no one on the working level of State, CIA, and the Pentagon has had the ability during this seemingly perpetual political season to get the attention of anyone who could comprehend and do something about the issues involved.

The odd thing is that the Pakistani brain trust thinks they have been quite clear in the signals they have sent. It shouldn’t have taken dozens of burning petrol tankers or rehashed old stories of ISI’s close associations with the Taliban to get Washington’s attention. The bottom line in this equation can be stated quite briefly: India is now and always will be the first priority in Pakistan security matters. The most radical Taliban elements, such as the Haqqani network, are now and will continue to be most important to ISI.

Finally, until Hamid Karzai is willing to bow in the direction of Islamabad, Pakistan’s military leadership and its civilian political followers will withhold their support for the Afghan president’s initiatives for peace — unless they can tilt them to their control.

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) |

Howard| 10.15.10 @ 8:11AM

Unfortunately you will not get reporting this good from the Mainstream Media. MSDNC was going wall to wall with the Chilean miner mistress story. Now, that's important.

Alan Brooks| 10.15.10 @ 9:27AM

Yeah, as Lewinsky was important in the late '90s when the terrorists were organizing.

c| 10.15.10 @ 9:53AM

if clinton would have done his job and focused on the terrorists, such as capturing osama when he had the opportunity, instead of focusing on lewinsky, wiley, paula, etc., then i would agree with you that the media should have focused on clinton's efforts against the terrorists. the media reported on what clinton did. had he done anything when the Cole was attacked, when the Khobar towers were attacked, when the Kenya embassy was attacked, etc. then your point would be valid.

Alan Brooks| 10.17.10 @ 11:20PM

"then i would agree with you that the media should have focused on clinton's efforts against the terrorists."

So the media isn't so bad after all? they are not all libtards covering up for satyrs? were they making up in '98 for their silence on JFK's bed-hopping decades before?

Rev. Jesse Jackson| 10.15.10 @ 4:16PM

Alan Brooks,
Go back to yesterday's special report, "Internet Freedom Under Siege", where you said that, "God is a woman and Jesus is his daughter." I have a rebuttal there waiting for you.

Prakash| 10.15.10 @ 8:31AM

Why is USA, Nato allowing Pakistan to decide the fate of Afghanistan's Foreign policy and who should be it friends and many other things.

Pakistan is the Epicenter of the Terrorism in this world. They are reluctant to act against the Terrorists but are simply milking the USA Billions of Dollars in the name of being an ally on WOT.

Pakistanis think that USA can not do anything productive without its support.

First of all USA should not have depended or given a impression that it is depended on Pakistan. Now Pakistanis are getting both Billions of Dollars and also total control over the Terrorists.

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:02AM

Well you have a sick mind. For India Pakistan is the epicenter of all terrorism? Well you think you have all the proofs about Pakistan's terrorism?

Let me state that India is the greatest terrorist State nation in the world, that is responsible for killing 80,000 innocent civilians, 3, 000 innocent Sikhs, innumerable Christians and innocent Muslims Gujarati and Muslims after Ayodha incident during BJP;s rule.

When you accuse a country you should also listen to the facts relating to your own country!!!

James Bailey| 10.15.10 @ 8:47AM

It was Pakistan's abuse of its northern neighbor that got us in this problem in the first place. The ISI hand picked the Taliban to take over Afghanistan. It was the ISI that wanted terrorist training camps in Afghanistan so they could assert that they had nothing to do with the wave of terrorists they were sending into India. And the ISI succored the Taliban when they were on the run from us.
As an independent country, Afghanistan needs to form good relationships with ALL of its neighbors. That includes India and China. Pakistan should not be allowed to dominate and abuse its northern neighbor any more.

Ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:19AM

Well better make yourself aware of some history before criticizing Pakistan. Mujaheddin were trained by the ISI under the guidance of CIA. Al-Qaida were around 250 top Arab leaders and fighters brought from Arab countries by the CIA for training the mujaheddin for fighting the USSR occupation. After the defeat of USSR in 1989 USA forgot about Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2001 after the 9/11 incident you remembered what you had left behind while the whole area was under the occupation of these mujaheddin. The civil war between the warlords in Afghanistan continued for more than 10 years and Pakistan had to bear the brunt of 3.5 million refugees. For making that peace Pakistan had to do something so that the refugees could go back. USA had completely forgotten this area. Pakistan established Taliban for getting rid of the warlords and its great burden of refugees that have destroyed the peace in that country since 1989.

Afghanistan is a land locked country for which Pakistan has suffered most to get rid of USSR and yet everybody blames it for Afghanistan's troubles but Afghanistan totally depends up on Pakistan for all its supplies and Pakistan has helped this country to get rid of foreign occupation. No other foreign country that has not sacrificed anything for Afghanistan has any right to lecture about Pakistan's role in Afghanistan.

John C| 10.15.10 @ 9:26AM

Here again, Pakistan plays chess while Obama plays checkers

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:26AM

Why not Pakistan has the right to play chess?USA will go away after losing this war and leave it to the countries in the region to dabble for control in the area.

Afghanistan is a land locked country more dependent up on Pakistan than any other country, so why should Pakistan not dictate its terms? Why should not Pakistan think of its own security then of other countries only? Have anyone ever recognized Pakistan's sacrifices?

canuckistani| 10.15.10 @ 9:57AM

Musharref is reorganizing, actually he never left.
His Dubai house is his main point of contact. The military is still loyal to him, which scares the Zardari regime.
Musharref was the architect behind the Taliban purges in Swat last year: total liquidation.
That's the Pakistani way. They operate in absolutes, terms the Taliban understand.

ACynic| 10.15.10 @ 11:19AM

The ill conceived notion that Pakistan is a friend of the USA is a joke. They hate the USA, and yet, like suckers, the US taxpayer provides them billions in aid. You can thank the criminally negligent elitist thieves in congress for this brilliant tactic. This is disgusting. Let India take care of them. They will not hesitate to put them in their place. One less country full of radical muslims will do wonders for world peace.

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:37AM

Without knowing anything about a country and its people you are writing of what you read in western press.

Have you ever visited Pakistan? Do you know Pakistanis have always rejected all extremist parties in all elections since partition. USA in 1977 helped eliminate the most secular and independent leader of Pakistan Z.A Bhutto and planted Ziaul-Haq who was a fundamentalist leader that helped defeat USSR in Afghanistan. So better read some history before writing these biased views!!!

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:58AM

Pakistan helped USA defeat Russia and because of it suffered most with 3.5 million refugees left inside its borders while USA went away from 1989 to 2001 while Pakistan was being invaded by these extremists from Afghanistan. Where was USA in that period? Then in 2001-2 USA let Al-QAida and Osama escape from Tora Bora and withdrew its major forces from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2003 was that also Pakistan's fault?

We better read History before writing and blaming every other fault on Pakistan!!!

Madge| 10.15.10 @ 11:20AM

Will sad agin Cockksucker $

Madge (I'm a forger)| 10.16.10 @ 8:51AM

I've taken over another's moniker, and all I can say is cocksucker. Take a look at my posts.
COCKSUCKER
COCKSUCKER
COCKSUCKER
COCKSUCKER
COCKSUCKER
COCKSUCKER

Is this Margie or Old Texican? Their imaginations are so limited and coarse.

Thomas| 10.15.10 @ 11:39AM

In my opinion, the Afghanistan/Pakistan border represents almost no danger of Indian invasion via that route. The eastern border of Pakistan represents a much better and easier invasion route for the Indians, should they choose to mount an invasion. And, their forces would not have to negotiate the mountainous terrain to the west.

Pakistan is a very complex country. A very complex country. And the situation that exists in the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas is very complex and delicate. The FATAs only remain part of Pakistan at the pleasure of the tribal leaders, main Pashtuns. And the situation in the NWFP is little better. Both areas are heavily tribal and the topography of the area favors the inhabitants over any outside forces. And, the tribes share a far closer relationship with the cross border tribes in Afghanistan, including those comprising the Taliban, than they do with Islamabad and the rest of Pakistan. In fact, until 1893, these areas, along with the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, were part of British controlled Afghanistan. As the Pakistanis learned after the Taliban seizure of Swat, sizable support exists in in both the FATA and the NWFP for the largely Pashtun Taliban. And, due to the topography there, it would require a monumental military expenditure to control the area, if it could be done at all. And because of the dispute with India over the Kashmir region, Pakistan can not afford to divert troops from that region to the the NWFP and the FATA. Islamabad can not afford to lose these regions and it can not afford to pacify them militarily. So, to keep their "control" of the area, the Pakistani government, through the agency of the ISI, plays a very dangerous game. They turn a blind eye to certain actions of the militant extremists living in their country [such as the recent destruction of the NATO convoys] as well as using these same militants to destabilize India [as occurred in Mumbai in 2008].

But, this is only one facet of Pakistani internal politics. Islamabad also has a big problem with radical Islamic fundamentalism in the Indus valley. The military has to keep a lid on these groups as well. And, the civilian leadership seems incapable of making any kind of a hard line decision. Pakistan is a very complex place.

For the NATO interests in Afghanistan, the FATA and the NWFP are analogous to Northern Mexico in 1916 and Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War. They provide safe haven for combatants to raid into Afghanistan and then withdraw to sanctuary as well as provide secure C3 locations for the Taliban leadership. For these reasons, NATO can not allow them to remain inviolate, but, at the same time, an active large scale military operation there is also impossible. So as long as NATO remains in Afghanistan, the strikes in these areas will have to continue. And, the Pakistani government will have to find ways to seemingly protest these actions while allowing them to continue, as they work to their advantage as well.

RJ| 10.15.10 @ 9:11PM

Thanks for the insights, Thomas.

What are your thoughts about whether the US & Nato should be fighting directly in Afghanistan or through proxies? The overthrow of the Taliban went well with few US troops on the ground, working with the Northern Alliance. Now we have over 100,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, which inevitably triggers friction with the local population. Are there native interests in Afghanistan of sufficient strength which the US can support to lead the fight or are US and Nato forces the only alternative?

Thomas| 10.16.10 @ 11:28AM

I'll try, RJ.
I have to preface this by saying that I do not have access to the strategic thinking of the members of the Bush administration at that time. So this is based solely on my own perceptions of what U.S. strategic interests should have been or should be.

In the first place, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban participated in the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11/2001. The Taliban did allow Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to reside in and train in their territory. The United States did not set out to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. The administration made a demand for the Taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden and the senior staff of Al Qaeda to the United States. The Taliban refused, triggering the invasion and subsequent ousting of the Taliban. If the Taliban had held Bin Laden and negotiated with the U.S., it is unlikely that there would have been any invasion and it is very likely that the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.

The expressed purpose of the invasion was to get Bin Laden. It was evident by late 2002 that Bin Laden was either dead or had fled the country. At that point, it would have been reasonable for the U.S. to install a caretaker government and simply withdraw everything but aid.

Afghanistan had no strategic importance to the United States. Realistically, it has none now, with the possible exception of the mineral wealth discovered there after 2001. It is a tribal society that is never going to support anything resembling a centralized democracy in any of our lifetimes. And the logistics of supporting U.S. troops there relies totally on the good graces of countries with whom we have unstable relations.

Afghanistan should have been a quick in and out, with Bin Laden or without. Instead, it became a political war. Nation building became the purpose. And, by trying to use the Afghanistan Campaign as justification of the War On Terror and to undermine the Iraq Campaign, the loyal opposition [the Democrats] adopted it as THEIR war. Now they own it. Unfortunately, after 2003 and the resurgence of the Taliban, it became ever more difficult for the U.S. to withdraw, without giving the public appearance that they were being driven out by the Taliban and therefor had lost the war.

The Afghan Campaign was won in 2002. The Taliban Insurgency is probably not winnable in the short term and the benefits to U.S. strategic interests to winning it are almost non-existent. At this point, the U.S, should begin withdrawal and allow the current Afghanistan government to either sink or swim on foreign aid alone.

RJ| 10.17.10 @ 2:54AM

Thank-you very much, Thomas. I appreciate the time you have given me and your insights.

One of my big disappointments in the Bush administration was how it campaigned against nation-building and then after 9-11 became the biggest promoter of it. Last Spring, I re-read a 1968 book on President Eisenhower by Arthur Larson ("Eisenhower, the President Nobody Knew") Mr. Larson points out, that as the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Theater in WWII, Eisenhower came to the White House with unusually well-developed skills in projecting US power and promoting US interests. In reviewing the actions of the Eisenhower administration, he was much more cautious in committing US forces than the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Eisenhower, the soldier was much more aware of the limits of military force than the civilian whose experience was based in legislation (Kennedy and Johnson).

For the last several years, the US seems to reflexively assert military power. I fear that as a society, we have lost our understanding of its limits. Also, the world-wide status of the US has fallen greatly since the Eisenhower administration, some of which probably was inevitable, but we have not played our hand well.

I have copied your comments for future reference. Thanks again. I look forward to reviewing other comments which you choose to make in the future.

Best wishes,

RJ

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:30AM

Comparisons are odious.

No foreigner has ever won in this area. USA always forgets history and then loses a war after every 40 years. Stay in your own country and mend your ways you cannot be a policeman of the world when you don't have money and jobs at home!!!

OneOut| 10.16.10 @ 7:32AM

You cannot have it both ways. Above the US is criticized for leaving the area alone and now you are doing the opposite.

Would you have rather the Soviets to rule Afganistan? Think the Afganis would be better off under Soviet communism?

When we left them alone an attack on our country was led from there.

Personally I would like to see our foreign policy to be such that we allow all backward and undeveloped areas of the world left alone to kill each other off. A geopolitical Darwinism, if you will. Realistically I know that backward and ignorant people must be restrained so that they don't hurt innocents.

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 12:51AM

Once USA leaves this region will be better as nobody needs a foreign country meddling in this area particularly when that country cannot solve its own problems at home where it should be concentrating.

ratee| 10.16.10 @ 1:07AM

Well Pakistani generals are no fools they know the fact that India has never accepted Pakistan and its right to exist. India attacked Pakistan in 1971 and divided the country Mr George Whittman so you better read your history.

Pakistan is a small country and it knows that their dearest friend USA will not come to save Pakistan when India attacks it again. So any small country it needs to have its own security apparatus. USA the so-called only super power is afraid of few fanatics like Osama why not Pakistan should not take its own security seriously against a country 10 times its size that has already deceived and attacked it three times in the past.

Negro X| 10.17.10 @ 10:25PM

Pakistan must be elimininated totally. It is a human garbage dump.

K| 10.21.10 @ 2:10PM

well, for all of you thinking that india will invade pakistan, here is the truth : ITS SO BLOODY MESSED UP THAT NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER WANT TO INVADE IT. indians view pakistan more as a nuisance than a competitor. pakis should get over their "india is a threat" obsession. plz do the whole world a favor and leave india alone and concentrate on ur own development and problems.

s| 10.23.10 @ 12:18PM

true!

More Articles by George H. Wittman

More Articles From At Large

Pray and Grow Rich

May 16, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

Naqba — Commemorating a Self-Inflicted Tragedy

May 15, 2013 | Daniel Mandel

O Pakistan

May 14, 2013 | Frank Schell

UKIP Comes Out Fighting

May 8, 2013 | Hal G.P. Colebatch

The Perils of Intervention in Syria

May 7, 2013 | Doug Bandow

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/15/aftermath-of-the-great-game

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|123 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|106 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|66 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.