Recently, US President Barack Obama unveiled a new National Security Strategy. The document was hailed by many as a definitive — and welcome — departure from his predecessor’s approach towards security and foreign policy, and then promptly pushed out of the headlines.
Indeed, Obama’s outline of strategic goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan was widely dismissed as ‘same old, same old’. But certain aspects of the security document pertaining to Pakistan deviate significantly from previous thinking, and bear closer scrutiny by our government.
Obama’s new security strategy includes contradictory messages of cooperation and aggression that are directly relevant to the situation currently unfolding in North Waziristan.
On the one hand, the doctrine — which has been praised for its realism, caution and humility — warns against the military overreaching itself, states that war should not be waged without the deployment of ‘complementary tools’ and calls for comprehensive engagement with strong allies. This language suggests that Obama has, in fact, broken with George W. Bush’s doctrine of unilateralism.
Significantly, the new document also eradicates any mention of the ‘war against terror’, and clarifies that the US is not confronting the religion of Islam or the Islamic world. All mentions of Islamists, jihadists, Islamic radicalism, fundamentalism or extremism have faced the ‘delete’ button. Instead, the document specifically states that the US is waging a “global campaign” against Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates, with the aim to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the terrorist organisation and deny it safe havens. And there’s the rub.
Last Monday, news circulated of the death of Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the third-highest ranking Al Qaeda commander — he is believed to have been killed along with his family in a US drone attack in North Waziristan about two weeks ago. Then again, on Wednesday, a militant group announced that Osama bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Damjan Al-Dawsari, another top Al Qaeda commander, had been killed in a drone attack in South Waziristan. Soon after Yazid’s death was reported, Adm Mike Mullen stated on Fox News that Washington is aware that Al Qaeda’s leadership is operating from Pakistani soil.
US homeland security adviser John Brennan also announced that the US is prepared to “take the fight” to extremists, wherever they may be, including Pakistan. And American newspapers leaked the news that the US military has reviewed options for unilateral strikes against Pakistan in the event of an ‘extreme’ attack against the US that is traced to this country. Those beating war drums contradict the conciliatory tone of most of Obama’s national security review, and raise important questions about US-Pakistan relations.
To be fair, the document emphasises cooperation, mutual interest and capacity building for Pakistan in a counter-terrorism context. But now that Obama has clearly and narrowly pointed to Al Qaeda as an enemy the US will pursue at all cost, will Washington stand idly by if Islamabad continues to dither over what to do in North Waziristan?
The Pakistan Army has already announced that it will move into the tribal agency on its own timeline, and according to the terms of its own strategy. Initially, it was understood that our army would strike against those militants who have been targeting the Pakistani state. One can now expect that Al Qaeda commanders will also be targeted during any future military operation. However, one cannot imagine that this hands-off approach will be the extent of the US’s drive to eliminate Al Qaeda’s operations base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
In April it was reported that the US has deployed miniature drones carrying smaller missiles and equipped with advanced surveillance gadgets. These are meant to facilitate more accurate strikes with fewer civilian casualties — their deployment indicates that Washington means to continue with, and perhaps even escalate, its intense drone campaign.
Moreover, The New York Times recently reported that Gen David Petraeus had signed a secret directive in September authorising US Special Operations troops to launch clandestine missions in both “friendly and hostile” nations. The purported goal of these secret activities is to gather intelligence, develop local networks, and prepare the ground for US troop movement, if ever required.
In the spirit of transparency and accountability, Washington and Islamabad must clarify and make public the extent of US involvement in Pakistan’s security affairs.
There should also be a clear conversation about the two governments’ divergent priorities in the fight against extremism. Al Qaeda is America’s problem; the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and its growing network of militant outfits in Pakistan’s heartland are ours. What happens when the security goals of the two engaged, strong allies do not align? Will the US take unilateral action in Pakistan’s tribal areas against Al Qaeda, whose members have been conveniently termed ‘non-state actors’ by our government? Will such action proceed with Pakistan’s approval, or will it be tantamount to a military invasion?
Both Islamabad and Washington owe it to the Pakistani public to answer these questions. Decades of clandestine meetings and the exchange of military or civilian aid for the right to dictate Pakistan’s security agenda have left even progressive Pakistanis sceptical of Washington’s regional goals. Despite much talk of increased transparency and people-to-people contact during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan last year, we seem to have entered even murkier diplomatic waters.
As the US steps up its campaign against Al Qaeda, it must call for clear diplomatic and security-related agreements with Pakistan (vague references to ‘joint efforts’ and ‘intelligence cooperation’ will not do). Washington and Islamabad should jointly approach international organisations to monitor and evaluate the methodology of counter-insurgency operations in the tribal areas in an effort to remain transparent and accountable. Such pre-emptive and robust diplomacy would be the only way to ensure that the spirit of Obama’s supposedly revolutionary security strategy is kept alive.
Mohammed Abbasi 