Is Washington pondering over punishing Pakistan?

LAHORE: Having conducted over 400 drone attacks on Pakistan’s soil between 2004 and 2018, the American administration in White House is now reportedly engaged in an internal debate about the tempo and scale of possible punitive steps against Pakistan for its failure to take decisive action against Afghan militants breeding freely on its territory, prestigious American news publication “Foreign Policy” has stated in one of its recent eyebrow-raising articles titled “Is Trump ready to dump Pakistan?”

Bought in September 2008 by the Washington Post Company (now called the Graham Holdings Company), the 48-year old “Foreign Policy” magazine daily produces content on its website and prints six issues annually.

The magazine has noted that the mutual frustration and misunderstanding have plagued relations between Pakistan and the United States, who otherwise happen to be nominal allies with little strategic common ground.

It asserts that despite a suspension of $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid last January, Pakistan has failed to take decisive action to crack down on Afghan militants on its territory, either by arresting known militants or restricting the flow of fighters and weapons across its border with Afghanistan.

Founded in the winter of 1970-71 by Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University and his friend Warren Manshel to give a voice to alternative views about American foreign policy at the time of the Vietnam War, the “Foreign Policy” magazine has gone on to write: “The White House is talking tough, but previous U.S. presidents never managed to persuade Islamabad to fight Afghan militants. As US ambassador to Pakistan more than a decade ago, Ryan Crocker spent much of his time trying to convince the government in Islamabad to take action against militants moving freely inside the country and plotting attacks on U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan. In 2007, toward the end of his three-year tenure, Crocker spoke with the head of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who explained why Islamabad was not ready to reverse course.”

It further writes: “The United States had a short attention span, the general said, according to Crocker. “How long are you staying this time? Because you come and you go,” Kayani told Crocker.”

It quoted General Kayani as saying: “If you think we are going to turn the Taliban and Haqqanis and others into mortal enemies of ours and watch you walk out the door, you are completely crazy. Are we hedging our bets? You bet we are.”

The journal maintains: “Previous U.S. presidents tried and failed to persuade Pakistan to rein in the Taliban and the Haqqani militants on the Afghan border. Now President Donald Trump faces the same challenge, and officials inside his administration are debating how far to press Pakistan. Amid growing frustration on Capitol Hill, Trump’s deputies are weighing unprecedented political penalties on Islamabad for harboring Afghan militants waging war on the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan. The options under consideration include revoking Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally, permanently cutting off the U.S. military aid that was suspended two months ago, and even imposing visa bans or other sanctions on individuals in the Pakistani government deemed responsible for providing support to the militants.”

“Foreign Policy” further observes: “Some officials and military officers favor a hard line with Pakistan, maintaining that years of aid and accommodation have produced little in return. But other voices in the administration worry about alienating a nuclear-armed country of 200 million people bordering China. The appointment last week of a fervent hawk as national security advisor, John Bolton, and the nomination of another for Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, could tilt the discussion in favor of tougher measures against Islamabad. The suspension of military aid in January is not the first time the United States has withheld security funding to Pakistan since the 9/11 attacks. But unlike previous administrations, Trump’s deputies are looking at permanently cutting off the annual flow of military aid this year, which could put a strain on Pakistan’s defense budget and deprive it of coveted U.S. military hardware.”

The media outlet further mentioned: “Former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also pressed Pakistan to take action against the Taliban and their Haqqani comrades but stopped short of a full-blown confrontation. Under previous administrations, officials were reluctant to push too far, fearing Pakistan could sabotage any peace negotiation in Afghanistan, cut off supply lines to U.S.-led forces there, or that American pressure would embolden jihadis seeking to seize control of the country’s nuclear weapons. Two lethal attacks in Kabul in January claimed by the Taliban, occurring only days after the suspension of U.S. aid was announced and after a tweet by Trump castigating Pakistan, have added urgency to the debate. For critics of Islamabad, the attacks — including a suicide bombing that claimed the lives of 95 people — represented a familiar pattern from years past: Washington threatens to punish Pakistan, and its proxies in Afghanistan retaliate.”