Imperial Eye on Pakistan
Pakistan in Pieces, Part 1
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25009
Global Research, May 28, 2011
Introduction
As
the purported assassination of Osama bin Laden has placed the focus on
Pakistan, it is vital to assess the changing role of Pakistan in broad
geostrategic terms, and in particular, of the changing American strategy
toward Pakistan. The recently reported assassination was a propaganda
ploy aimed at targeting Pakistan. To understand this, it is necessary to
examine how America has, in recent years, altered its strategy in
Pakistan in the direction of destabilization. In short, Pakistan is an
American target. The reason: Pakistan’s growing military and strategic
ties to China, America’s primary global strategic rival. In the ‘Great
Game’ for global hegemony, any country that impedes America’s world
primacy – even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan –
may be sacrificed upon the altar of war.
Part
1 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’ examines the changing views of the American
strategic community – particularly the military and intelligence circles
– towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a general acknowledgement
that Pakistan will very likely continue to be destabilized and
ultimately collapse. What is not mentioned in these assessments,
however, is the role of the military and intelligence communities in
making this a reality; a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy. This part
also examines the active on the ground changes in American strategy in
Pakistan, with increasing military incursions into the country.
Imperial Eye on Pakistan
In
December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the
year 2015, which stated that by 2015, “Pakistan will be more fractious,
isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance.”[1]
Further, it was predicted, Pakistan:
Will
not recover easily from decades of political and economic
mismanagement, divisive politics, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic
friction. Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the
face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical
Islamic parties. Further domestic decline would benefit Islamic
political activists, who may significantly increase their role in
national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of the military –
once Pakistan’s most capable institution. In a climate of continuing
domestic turmoil, the central government’s control probably will be
reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.[2]
The report further analyzed the trends developing in relation to the Pakistan-India standoff in the region:
The
threat of major conflict between India and Pakistan will overshadow all
other regional issues during the next 15 years. Continued turmoil in
Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill over into Kashmir and other areas of
the subcontinent, prompting Indian leaders to take more aggressive
preemptive and retaliatory actions. India’s conventional military
advantage over Pakistan will widen as a result of New Delhi’s superior
economic position.[3]
In
2005, the Times of India reported on a US National Intelligence Council
report, written in conjunction with the CIA, which predicted a
“Yugoslavia-like fate” for Pakistan, saying that, “by year 2015 Pakistan
would be a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed,
inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear
weapons and complete Talibanisation.”[4]
In
November of 2008, the US National Intelligence Council released a
report, “Global Trends 2025,” in which they outlined major trends in the
world by the year 2025. When it came to Pakistan, the report stated
that, “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue
to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader
conflict between those nuclear powers.”[5] It stated that Pakistan “will
be at risk of state failure.”[6] In examining potential failed states,
the report stated that:
[Y]outh
bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are
likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in
the high-risk category. Spillover from turmoil in
these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves
elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political
stability will be rocky.[7]
The
report referred to Pakistan as a “wildcard” and stated that if it is
“unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun
tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line
[separating Pakistan from Afghanistan], maximizing Pashtun space at the
expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others in
Afghanistan.”[8]
In
January of 2009, a Pentagon report analyzing geopolitical trends of
significance to the US military over the next 25 years, reported that
Pakistan could face a “rapid and sudden” collapse. It stated that, “Some
forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a
sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger
haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to
its nuclear weapons,” and as such, “that ‘perfect storm' of uncertainty
alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a
situation of immense complexity and danger.”[9]
A
top adviser to former President George Bush and current President Obama
warned in April of 2009, that Pakistan could collapse within months,
and that, “We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will
dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on
terror now.” The adviser and consultant, David Kilcullen, explained that
this would be unlike the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which each
had a population of over 30 million, whereas “Pakistan has [187] million
people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the
American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of
the country which the Government does not control.”[10]
Target: Pakistan
Going
back to the later years of the Bush administration, it is apparent that
the US strategy in Pakistan was already changing in seeing it
increasingly as a target for military operations as opposed to simply a
conduit. In August of 2007, newly uncovered documents revealed that the
US military “gave elite units broad authority” in 2004, “to pursue
suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the
Pakistanis in advance.”[11]
In
November of 2007, an op-ed in the New York Times stated categorically
that, “the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed
Pakistan descended into the abyss,” and that, “we need to think — now —
about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come
to that.” The authors, Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon are both
well-known strategists and scholars at the American Enterprise Institute
and Brookings Institution, two of the most prominent and influential
think tanks in the United States. While stating that Pakistan’s leaders
are still primarily moderate and friendly to the US, “Americans felt
similarly about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late,”
referring to the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. They warn:
The
most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of
Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to
fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying
provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle
within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the
Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of
terrorism.[12]
They
state that the military solutions are “daunting” as Pakistan is a
nation of 187 million people, roughly five times the size of Iraq. They
wrote that, “estimates suggest that a force of more than a million
troops would be required for a country of this size,” which led them to
conclude, “Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act
before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation
of moderate Pakistani forces.” They suggested one plan would be to
deploy Special Forces “with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s
nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hand.”
However, they admit that, “even pro-American Pakistanis would be
unlikely to cooperate.” Another option, they contend:
would
involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they
sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective
government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban
assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a
sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also
other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.[13]
The
authors concluded, saying that any state decline in Pakistan would
likely be gradual, therefore allowing the US to have time to respond,
and placed an emphasis on securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and
combating militants. They finished the article with the warning:
“Pakistan may be the next big test.”[14]
In
December of 2007, the Asia Times Online ran a story about the US plan
to rid Pakistan of President Musharraf, and that the US and the West,
more broadly, had begun a strategy aimed at toppling Pakistan’s
military. As part of this, the US launched a media campaign aimed at
demonizing Pakistan’s military establishment. At this time, Benazir
Bhutto was criticizing the ISI, suggesting they needed a dramatic
restructuring, and at the same time, reports were appearing in the US
media blaming the ISI for funding and providing assistance to Al-Qaeda
and the Taliban. While much of this is documented, the fact that it
suddenly emerged as talking points with several western officials and in
the media does suggest a turn-around against a long-time ally.[15]
Both
Democratic and Republican politicians were making statements that
Pakistan represented a greater threat than Iran, and then-Senator (now
Vice President) Joseph Biden suggested that the United States needed to
put soldiers on the ground in Pakistan in cooperation with the
“international community.” Biden said that, “We should be in there,” and
“we should be supplying tens of millions of dollars to build new
schools to compete with the madrassas. We should be in there building
democratic institutions. We should be in there, and get the rest of the
world in there, giving some structure to the emergence of, hopefully,
the reemergence of a democratic process.”[16]
In
American policy-strategy circles, officials openly began discussing the
possibility of Pakistan breaking up into smaller states, and increasing
discussion that Musharraf was going to be “removed,” which obviously
happened. As the Asia Times stated:
Another
worrying thing is how US officials are publicly signaling to the
Pakistanis that Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the
country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for
any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their
actions are inviting potential assassins to target Bhutto.
If
she is killed in this way, there won't be enough time to find the real
culprit, but what's certain is that unprecedented international pressure
will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets
to create maximum internal chaos in the country.[17]
Of
course, this subsequently happened in Pakistan. As the author of the
article pointed out with startlingly accurate foresight, “Getting Bhutto
killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in
permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving
Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in
Islamabad.” He observed that, “the US is very serious this time. They
cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands.”[18]
Thus,
it would appear that the new US strategic aim in Pakistan was focused
on removing the Pakistani military from power, implying the need to
replace Musharraf, and replace him with a new, compliant civilian
leadership. This would have the effect of fracturing the Pakistani
elite, threatening the Army’s influence within Pakistani politics, and
undertaking more direct control of Pakistan’s government.
As
if on cue, in late December it was reported that, “US special forces
snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear
arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the
outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir
Bhutto.”[19]
The
New York Times ran an article in early January 2008, which reported
that, “President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating
whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and
the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the
tribal areas of Pakistan.” The article stated that the new strategy was
purportedly in response to increased reports of Al-Qaeda and Taliban
activity within Pakistan, which “are intensifying efforts there to
destabilize the Pakistani government.” Bush’s National Security team
supposedly organized this effort in response to Bhutto’s assassination
10 days previously.[20]
Officials
involved in the strategy discussions said that some “options would
probably involve the C.I.A. working with the military’s Special
Operations forces,” and one official said, “After years of focusing on
Afghanistan, we think the extremists now see a chance for the big prize —
creating chaos in Pakistan itself.” Of pivotal importance to the
strategy, as the Times reported: “Critics said more direct American
military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and
increase support for the militants.”[21] Perhaps this is not simply a
“side-effect” of the proposed strategy, but in fact, part of the
strategy.
As
one prominent Pakistani political and military analyst pointed out,
raids into Pakistan would expand anger and “prompt a powerful popular
backlash” against the Pakistani government, losing popular support.[22]
However, as I previously stated, this might be the intention, as this
would ultimately make the government more dependent upon the United
States, and thus, more subservient.
On
September 3, 2008, it was reported that a commando raid by US Special
Forces was launched in Pakistan, which killed between 15 and 20 people,
including women and children. The Special Forces were accompanied by
five U.S. helicopters for the duration of the operation.[23]
In
February of 2009, it was reported that, “More than 70 United States
military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in
Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the
country’s lawless tribal areas.” So not only are U.S. Special Forces
invading Pakistani territory; but now US military advisers are secretly
advising the Pakistani Army on its own operations, and the advisers are
themselves primary made up of Special Forces soldiers. They provide the
Pakistani Army “with intelligence and advising on combat tactics,” and
make up a secret command run by US Central Command and Special
Operations Command (presumably JSOC – Joint Special Operations
Command).[24]
In
May of 2009, it was reported that, “the U.S. is sending Special Forces
teams into one of Pakistan's most violent regions as part of a push to
accelerate the training of the Pakistani military and make it a more
effective ally in the fight against insurgents there.” The Special
Forces were deploying to two training camps in the province of
Baluchistan, and “will focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a
paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda
fighters.” Further, the project “is a joint effort with the U.K.,” which
helps “fund the training, although it is unclear if British military
personnel would take part in the initiative. British officials have been
pushing for such an effort for several years.”[25]
In
December of 2009 it was revealed that, “American special forces have
conducted multiple clandestine raids into Pakistan's tribal areas as
part of a secret war in the border region where Washington is pressing
to expand its drone assassination programme,” which was revealed by a
former NATO officer. He said these incursions had occurred between 2003
and 2008, indicating they go even further back than US military
documents stipulate. The source further revealed that, “the Pakistanis
were kept entirely in the dark about it. It was one of those things we
wouldn't confirm officially with them.” Further, as the source noted,
British “SAS soldiers have been active in the province” of Bolochistan
in 2002 and 2003 and “possibly beyond.”[26]
The “Balkanization” of Pakistan: Blaming the Pakistanis
Selig
S. Harrison is a director of the Asia Program at the Center for
International Policy, senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, and former journalist and correspondent. “His
reputation for giving ‘early warning’ of foreign policy crises was well
established during his career as a foreign correspondent. In
his study of foreign reporting, Between Two Worlds, John Hohenberg,
former secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, cited Harrison’s
prediction of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war eighteen months before it
happened.” Further, “More than a year before the Russians invaded
Afghanistan, Harrison warned of this possibility in one of his frequent
contributions to the influential journal Foreign Policy.”[27]
On
February 1, 2008, Selig Harrison threw his renowned “predictive”
abilities on Pakistan in an op-ed for the New York Times in the run-up
to the Pakistani elections. He started by stating that, “Whatever the
outcome of the Pakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the
existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive for long
unless it is radically restructured.” Harrison then went on to explain
that Pakistan would likely break up along ethnic lines; with the
Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, the Sindhis in
the southeast uniting with the Baluch tribesmen in the southwest, with
the Punjab “rump state” of Pakistan.[28]
The
Pashtuns in the north, “would join with their ethnic brethren across
the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an
independent ‘Pashtunistan’,” and the Sindhis “numbering 23 million,
would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to
establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran,”
presumably named Baluchistan; while the rump state of Pakistan would
remain Punjabi dominated and in control of the nuclear weapons. Selig
Harrison explained that prior to partition from India, which led to the
creation of the Pakistani state in 1947, Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch
ethnicities had “resist[ed] Punjabi domination for centuries,” and
suddenly:
they
found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that
have appropriated many of the natural resources in the minority
provinces — particularly the natural gas deposits in the Baluch areas —
and siphoned off much of the Indus River’s waters as they flow through
the Punjab.
The
resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States
is failing to get effective Pakistani cooperation in fighting
terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghan border are happy to
give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composed
primarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends.
Pashtun
civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes
on both sides of the border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun
nationalist movement. Its initial objective is to unite all Pashtuns in
Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into a unified
province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood.
...
The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent
insurgencies since their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In
the current warfare Pakistani forces are widely reported to be deploying
American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was intended
for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military
links with Sindhi nationalist groups that have been galvanized into
action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, a Sindhi hero as was her father,
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[29]
This
passage is very revealing of the processes and perceptions surrounding
“Balkanization” and “destabilization.” What I mean by this, is that
historically and presently, imperial powers would often use ethnic
groups against each other in a strategy of divide and conquer, in order
“to keep the barbarians from coming together” and dominate the region.
Zbigniew
Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard,” that,
“Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with
preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central
basis for global primacy.”[30] Brzezinski then gave a masterful
explanation of the American global strategy, which placed it into a firm
imperialistic context:
To
put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of
ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are
to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the
vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the
barbarians from coming together.[31]
While
imperial powers manipulate, and historically, even create the ethnic
groups within regions and nations, the West portrays conflict in such
regions as being the product of these “ethnic” or “tribal” rivalries.
This perception of the East (Asia and the Middle East) as well as Africa
is referred to as Orientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning it generally
portrays the East (and/or Africa) as “the Other”: inherently different
and often barbaric. This prejudiced perspective is prevalent in Western
academic, media, and policy circles. This perspective serves a major
purpose: dehumanizing a people in a region that an imperial power seeks
to dominate, which allows the hegemon to manipulate the people and
divide them against each other, while framing them as “backwards” and
“barbaric,” which in turn, justifies the Western imperial power exerting
hegemony and control over the region; to “protect” the people from
themselves.
Historically
and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other,
blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus
justified their control over both the people, and the region they
occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical
conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. In
both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating
ethnic rivalries, providing financial, technical, and military aid and
training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict, war, and
genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic
interests were met through an increased presence militarily, pushing out
other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Western
access to key economics resources.
This
is the lens through which we must view the unfolding situation in
Pakistan. However, the situation in Pakistan presents a far greater
potential for conflict and devastation than either Yugoslavia or Rwanda.
In short, the potential strategy of “Balkanization” and destabilization
of Pakistan could dwarf any major global conflict in the past few
decades. It’s sheer population of 187 million people, proximity to two
major regional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its strategic location as
neighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, and
its nuclear arsenal, combine to make Pakistan the potential trigger for a
much wider regional and possibly global war. The destabilization of
Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe
since World War II.
Thus,
Selig Harrison’s op-ed in the New York Times in which he describes the
“likely” breakup of Pakistan along ethnic lines as a result of “ethnic
differences” must be viewed in the wider context of geopolitical
ambitions. His article lays the foundation both for the explanation of a
potential breakup, and thus the “justification” for Western
intervention in the conflict. His “predictive” capacities as a seasoned
journalist can be alternatively viewed as pre-emptive imperial
propaganda.
Fracturing Pakistan
The
war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan.
From the days of the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s, arms and money were
flowing through Pakistan to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. During the
civil war that followed, Pakistan armed and financed the Taliban, which
eventually took power. When the U.S. and NATO initially attacked
Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, this was primarily achieved through
cooperation with Pakistan. When the war theatre was re-named “AfPak,”
the role of Pakistan, however, was formally altered. While the previous
few years had seen the implementation of a strategy of destabilizing
Pakistan, once the “AfPak” war theatre was established, Pakistan ceased
to be as much of a conduit or proxy state and became a target.
In
September of 2008, the editor of Indian Defence Review wrote an article
explaining that a stable Pakistan is not in India’s interests: “With
Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as
international contradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to
exist.” He explained that Pakistan’s collapse would bring “multiple
benefits” to India, including preventing China from gaining a major port
in the Indian Ocean, which is in the mutual interest of the United
States. The author explained that this would be a “severe jolt” to
China’s expansionist aims, and further, “India’s access to Central Asian
energy routes will open up.”[32]
In
August of 2009, Foreign Policy Journal published a report of an
exclusive interview they held with former Pakistani ISI chief Lieutenant
General Hamid Gul, who was Director General of the powerful
intelligence services (ISI) between 1987 and 1989, at a time in which it
was working closely with the CIA to fund and arm the Mujahideen. Once a
close ally of the US, he is now considered extremely controversial and
the US even recommended the UN to put him on the international terrorist
list. Gul explained that he felt that the American people have not been
told the truth about 9/11, and that the 9/11 Commission was a “cover
up,” pointing out that, “They [the American government] haven’t even
proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He
said that the real reasons for the war on Afghanistan were that:
the
U.S. wanted to “reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and “open the
door there”, which “was a requirement of corporate America, because the
Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas
pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They
wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security
shield to the state of Israel, and they wanted to include this region
into that shield. And that’s why they were talking at that time very
hotly about ‘greater Middle East’. They were redrawing the map.”[33]
He
also stated that part of the reason for going into Afghanistan was “to
go for Pakistan’s nuclear capability,” as the U.S. “signed this
strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a
nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi.” When he was
asked about the Pakistani Taliban, which the Pakistani government was
being pressured to fight, and where the financing for that group came
from; Gul stated:
Yeah,
of course they are getting it from across the Durand line, from
Afghanistan. And the Mossad is sitting there, RAW is sitting there — the
Indian intelligence agency — they have the umbrella of the U.S. And now
they have created another organization which is called RAMA. It may be
news to you that very soon this intelligence agency — of course, they
have decided to keep it covert — but it is Research and Analysis Milli
Afghanistan. That’s the name. The Indians have helped create this
organization, and its job is mainly to destabilize Pakistan.[34]
He
explained that the Chief of Staff of the Afghan Army had told him that
he had gone to India to offer the Indians five bases in Afghanistan,
three of which are along the Pakistani border. Gul was asked a question
as to why, if the West was supporting the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), would
a CIA drone have killed the leader of the TTP. Gul explained that while
Pakistan was fighting directly against the TTP leader, Baitullah
Mehsud, the Pakistani government would provide the Americans where
Mehsud was, “three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped off America,
but they did not attack him.” So why all of a sudden did they attack?
Because
there were some secret talks going on between Baitullah Mehsud and the
Pakistani military establishment. They wanted to reach a peace
agreement, and if you recall there is a long history of our tribal
areas, whenever a tribal militant has reached a peace agreement with the
government of Pakistan, Americans have without any hesitation struck
that target.
...
there was some kind of a deal which was about to be arrived at — they
may have already cut a deal. I don’t know. I don’t have enough
information on that. But this is my hunch, that Baitullah was killed
because now he was trying to reach an agreement with the Pakistan army.
And that’s why there were no suicide attacks inside Pakistan for the
past six or seven months.[35]
An
article in one of Canada’s national magazines, Macleans, reported on an
interview with a Pakistani ISI spy, who claimed that India’s
intelligence services, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), have “tens of
thousands of RAW agents in Pakistan.” Many officials inside Pakistan
were convinced that, “India’s endgame is nothing less than the breakup
of Pakistan. And the RAW is no novice in that area. In the 1960s, it was
actively involved in supporting separatists in Bangladesh, at the time
East Pakistan. The eventual victory of Bangladeshi nationalism in 1971
was in large part credited to the support the RAW gave the
secessionists.”[36]
Further,
there were Indian consulates set up in Kandahar, the area of
Afghanistan where Canadian troops are located, and which is
strategically located next to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan,
which is home to a virulent separatist movement, of which Pakistan
claims is being supported by India. Macleans reported on the conclusions
by Michel Chossudovsky, economics professor at University of Ottawa,
that, “the region’s massive gas and oil reserves are of strategic
interest to the U.S. and India. A gas pipeline slated to be built from
Iran to India, two countries that already enjoy close ties, would run
through Baluchistan. The Baluch separatist movement, which is also
active in Iran, offers an ideal proxy for both the U.S. and India to
ensure their interests are met.”[37]
Even
an Afghan government adviser told the media that India was using Afghan
territory to destabilize Pakistan.[38] In September of 2009, the
Pakistan Daily reported that captured members and leaders of the
Pakistani Taliban have admitted to being trained and armed by India
through RAW or RAMA in Afghanistan in order to fight the Pakistani
Army.[39]
Foreign
Policy magazine in February of 2009 quoted a former intelligence
official as saying, “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the
Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,”
and that, “the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting
at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close
its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of
there.”[40]
The
Council on Foreign Relations published a backgrounder report on RAW,
India’s intelligence agency, founded in 1968 “primarily to counter
China's influence, [however] over time it has shifted its focus to
India's other traditional rival, Pakistan.” For over three decades both
Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies have been involved in covert
operations against one another. One of RAW’s main successes was its
covert operations in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh, which
“aimed at fomenting independence sentiment” and ultimately led to the
separation of Bangladesh by directly funding, arming and training the
Pakistani separatists. Further, as the Council on Foreign Relations
noted, “From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with
the Mossad, Israel's external intelligence agency.”[41]
Since
RAW was founded in 1968, it had developed close ties with the Afghan
intelligence agency, KHAD, primarily to do with intelligence sharing on
Pakistan. In the 1980s, while Pakistan was funding, arming and training
the Afghan Mujahideen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the CIA,
India was funding two covert groups which orchestrated terrorist attacks
inside Pakistan, which included a “low-grade but steady campaign of
bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore.” RAW has
also had a close relationship with the CIA, as even six years before
RAW was created, in 1962, the CIA created a covert organization made up
of Tibetan refugees, which aimed to “execute deep-penetration terror
operations in China.” The CIA subsequently played a part in the creation
of RAW. In the 1980s, while the CIA was working closely with the ISI in
Pakistan, RAW, while wary of their relationship, continued to get
counterterrorism training from the CIA.[42]
In
October of 2009, the New York Times reported that the US strategy “to
vastly expand its aid to Pakistan, as well as the footprint of its
embassy and private security contractors here, are aggravating an
already volatile anti-American mood as Washington pushes for greater
action by the government against the Taliban.” The U.S. gave Pakistan an
aid deal of $1.5 billion per year for the next five years, under the
stipulation of “Pakistan to cease supporting terrorist groups on its
soil and to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian
politics.” President Zaradari accepted the proposal, making him even
more unpopular in Pakistan, and further angering Pakistan’s powerful
military, which sees the deal as interfering in the internal affairs of
the country.[43]
America
is thus expanding its embassy and security presence within the country,
as the Embassy “has publicized plans for a vast new building in
Islamabad for about 1,000 people, with security for some diplomats
provided through a Washington-based private contracting company,
DynCorp.” The NYT article referred to how relations were becoming
increasingly strained between Pakistan and the US, and tensions were
growing within the country exponentially, as “the American presence was
fueling a sense of occupation among Pakistani politicians and security
officials,” and several Pakistani officials stated that, “the United
States was now seen as behaving in Pakistan much as it did in Iraq and
Afghanistan.” Futher:
In
particular, the Pakistani military and the intelligence agencies are
concerned that DynCorp is being used by Washington to develop a parallel
network of security and intelligence personnel within Pakistan,
officials and politicians close to the army said.
The
concerns are serious enough that last month a local company hired by
DynCorp to provide Pakistani men to be trained as security guards for
American diplomats was raided by the Islamabad police. The owner of the
company, the Inter-Risk Security Company, Capt. Syed Ali Ja Zaidi, was
later arrested.
The
action against Inter-Risk, apparently intended to cripple the DynCorp
program, was taken on orders from the senior levels of the Pakistani
government, said an official familiar with the raid, who was not
authorized to speak on the record.
The entire workings of DynCorp within Pakistan are now under review by the Pakistani government.[44]
As
revealed in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, U.S. Ambassador to
Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote in September of 2009 that the U.S.
strategy of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan “risk destabilizing the
Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military
leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan
without finally achieving the goal.”[45]
In
an interview with Press TV, Hamid Gul, former Inter-Services
Intelligence chief revealed more of what he sees as the US strategy in
Pakistan. He explained that with the massive expansion of the U.S.
Embassy in Pakistan, and alongside that, the increased security staff,
the Chinese are becoming increasingly concerned with the sovereignty and
security of Pakistan. He claimed that the money that the US government
offered (with heavy conditions) to Pakistan, $1.5 billion every year for
five years, will be spent under the direction of the Americans, and
that “they are going to set up a large intelligence network inside
Pakistan,” and ultimately “they really want to go for Pakistan's nuclear
assets.” He further claimed that the Indians are trying to destabilize
Pakistan; however, he explained, this does not necessarily mean
disintegrate, but rather:
they
are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak
and economically has to go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for
succor and help. And in that process they will want to expect certain
concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards to
setting up their facilities here in Pakistan.[46]
When he was asked what America’s long-term goal was in regards to Pakistan, Gul responded that the goal:
for
America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create
a way for Baluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for
Iran so that this new state will talk about greater Baluchistan... So it
appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment all these
countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be
pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term
objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan and blocking Iran's
progress in the nuclear field.[47]
In
Part 2 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’, I will examine the specific ways in
which the American strategy of destabilization is being undertaken in
Pakistan, including the waging of a secret war and the expansion of the
Afghan war into Pakistani territory. In short, the military and
intelligence projections for Pakistan over the next several years
(discussed in the beginning of Part 1 above) are a self-fulfilling
prophecy, as those very same military and intelligence agencies that
predict a destabilized Pakistan and potential collapse are now
undertaking strategies aimed at achieving those outcomes.
Notes
[1] NIC,
Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment
Experts. The Central Intelligence Agency: December 2000: page 64
[2] Ibid, page 66.
[3] Ibid.
[4] PTI, Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA. The Times of India: February 13, 2005: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-CIA/articleshow/1019516.cms
[5] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council: November 2008: page x
[6] Ibid, page 45.
[7] Ibid, page 65.
[8] Ibid, page 72.
[9] Peter Goodspeed, Mexico, Pakistan face 'rapid and sudden' collapse: Pentagon. The National Post: January 15, 2009: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1181621
[10] PAUL MCGEOUGH, Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months. The Sydney Morning Herald: April 13, 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html
[11] Scott Lindlaw, AP: U.S. gave troops OK to enter Pakistan. USA Today: August 23, 2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm
[12] Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon, Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem. November 18, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ahmed Quraishi, The plan to topple Pakistan's military. Asia Times Online: December 6, 2007: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL06Df03.html
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ian Bruce, Special forces on standby over nuclear threat. The Sunday Herald: December 31, 2007: http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766
[20] Steven
Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, U.S. Considers New Covert
Push Within Pakistan. The New York Times: January 6, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Farhan Bokhari, Sami Yousafzai, and Tucker Reals, U.S. Special Forces Strike In Pakistan. CBS News: September 3, 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml
[24] Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support. The New York Times: February 22, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html
[25] YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHAN GORMAN, U.S. Special Forces Sent to Train Pakistanis. The Wall Street Journal: May 16, 2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html
[26] Declan Walsh, US forces mounted secret Pakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida. The Guardian: December 21, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids
[27] CIP, SELIG S. HARRISON. Center for International Policy: http://www.ciponline.org/asia/Seligbio.html
[28] Selig S. Harriosn, Drawn and Quartered. The New York Times: February 1, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01harrison.html
[29] Ibid.
[30] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. (New York: Perseus, 1997), page 39
[31] Ibid, page 40.
[32] Bharat Verma, Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest. Indian Defence Review: September 11, 2008: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/09/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest.html
[33] Jeremy
R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency
RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’. Foreign Policy Journal: August 12,
2009: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Adnan R. Khan, New Delhi’s endgame? Macleans: August 23, 2009: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/new-delhi%E2%80%99s-endgame/
[37] Ibid. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, Global Research, December 30, 2007
[38] Imtiaz Indher, Afgan MPs call for early withdrawal of foreign troop. Associated Press of Pakistan: April 1, 2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72423&Itemid=2
[39] Moin Ansari, Proof: Captured TTP terrorists admit to being Indian RAW agents. Pakistan Daily: September 20, 2009: http://www.daily.pk/proof-captured-ttp-terrorists-admit-to-being-indian-raw-agents-11015/
[40] Laura Rozen, Can the intel community defuse India-Pakistan tensions? Foreign Policy: February 16, 2009:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions
[41] Jayshree Bajoria, RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency. The Council on Foreign Relations: November 7, 2008: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/
[42] Ibid.
[43] Jane Perlez, U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance. The New York Times: October 5, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html
[44] Ibid.
[45] US embassy cables, Reviewing our Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, The Guardian, 30 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226531
[46] US military bases 'will destabilize Pakistan'. Press TV: September 13, 2009: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106106§ionid=3510302
[47] Ibid.
