PAKISTAN'S MILITARY A LAW UNTO ITSELF

If Senator Joe Lieberman thinks the Pakistani military has been bought and paid for and will do Washington’s bidding he is in for a rude awakening.
When he visited Pakistan with John Mc Cain on January 9, 2010, he announced that the Pakistani army was “on the move.” He didn’t say exactly where it was going but someone should have told him it was not where the U.S. wanted it to go. U.S. military chiefs had wanted it to go hell for leather into North Waziristan but Pakistan’s generals said they would only commit to a limited strike at Bin Laden and his associates in that region. On no condition would they send their army in with all guns blazing to take on the Taliban, which was the major force there.
Pakistan’s military knows all about the Taliban. It fought a short, bloody campaign against them in South Waziristan but failed to clear them out. Prolonged battles proved that only a massive military commitment to the area had any chance of dislodging them and it would have alienated large sections of the civilian population there and throughout the country. According to Pakistani military strategists, it would have required too many troops, thereby leaving other parts of the country vulnerable to a mobile enemy. In the final analysis, Pakistan’s generals reckoned their limited campaign sent a message to the Taliban leadership that they would return for a bigger showdown if the Taliban used the area for a safe haven for which it and Al Qaeda could attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.
It is not clear if the Taliban got the message but the generals still assert that the campaign served its purpose. They have always argued that South Waziristan is the real hotbed for Al Qaeda and similarly minded insurgents. The CIA says that is nonsense because the killing of seven of its agents in December 2009 was planned in North Waziristan. Be that as it may, the generals insist they will not be led by the nose by Washington. They have even demanded an end to drones over their territory, claiming American intelligence often selects the wrong targets and kills innocent civilians further radicalizing Islamic elements in Pakistan. They told Sec. of Defense, Robert Gates that allowing the U.S. military to operate independently over the skies of Pakistan has increased anti-Americanism. They would prefer the U.S. supplied them with drones and missiles and allowed them to do their own targeting.
The dispute between U.S. and Pakistan highlights much more than a debate about strategy. The Pakistan military, which ran the country for decades, is reluctant to cede any military decisions to its elected government. It is also unwilling to permit the judiciary to hold it accountable for its excesses, in particular for the thousand or more “disappeared” dating back to the rule of General Pervez Musharraf, Washington’s favorite dictator after 9/11. On another level, the military and the main intelligence service, the very powerful ISI – Inter Services Intelligence – believe they would be foolish to engage in massive military campaigns that would alienate Muslims across Pakistan.
Pakistan’s generals have always been equally cautious about making too many enemies among the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. They reckon that when NATO pulls out of Afghanistan, they will need allies among the Taliban in both countries if they are to prevent Pakistan from becoming a rogue state with nuclear weapons.
The military’s wish not to do U.S. bidding is tied to political deals between the country president Asif Ali Zardari and Washington. Last year, he secured $7.5 billion in non-military funding in return for promising to ensure Pakistan’s military stepped up to the plate in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The military was opposed to the deal because it required Zardari to place it under government control.
Human Rights Watch claims the military has been trying to undermine Zardari to prevent him from making it accountable for “disappearances,” as well as extra judicial killings and unapproved interventions in parts of the country. In a recent report, HRW said the military was trying to destabilize the president and the elected government:
“The Pakistani military continues to subvert the political and judicial systems in Pakistan. After eight years of disastrous military rule and in spite of the election of a civilian government, the army appears determined to continue calling the shots in order to ensure that it can continue to perpetrate abuses with impunity.”
In Britain meanwhile parliamentarians are outraged by evidence that Pakistan’s military and its intelligence arm tortured British citizens in their custody. There is a move by some M.P.s to launch an inquiry that would focus on whether Britain’s intelligence agencies were complicit in aiding or turning a blind eye to the torture.
The sheer power of Pakistan’s generals is evident in the fact that they forced Zardari to return to them control of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Behind the scenes in Washington that transfer was greeted with relief because it was felt the generals, for all their failings, were more reliable guardians of the nuclear trigger.
In 2010, it will be interesting to see how much the military continues to resist governmental interference. All signs suggest the president and the democratic process have been weakened and the military will continue to act as it chooses. Therefore, the billions of dollars in U.S. aid may alter little in terms of the balance of power. The aid has not even led to changes in blasphemy laws, which have allowed Islamic elements to claim Christian teachings insult the Prophet. Those laws have been used to foment hatred of a Christian community that numbers almost 3 million. Since 2001, there have been several massacres of Christians, culminating in one last August when seven were killed and scores injured after 60 homes were fire bombed. Following that incident local police, who could have prevented the tragedy, were merely suspended.
Since Washington is prepared to give Pakistan billions in aid it should insist that it addresses issues like the blasphemy laws. Perhaps, Joe Lieberman and his fellow senators would be better putting pressure on Pakistan to make legal changes rather than wishfully thinking the country’s generals are going to do the Pentagon’s bidding any time soon.