Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Michael Barone
Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a FOX News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is syndicated by Creators.com. http://washingtonexaminer.com/author/michael-barone
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Pakistan & The US: One Delusion After Another
Michael Barone
December 3, 2013
Not many foreign policy experts would argue with the proposition that the country with which the United States has the most problematic relationship is Pakistan.

Most Americans, when they have thought about it, have taken a similar view since Osama bin Laden was killed in a raid by Navy SEAL Team Six in May 2011.

Bin Laden was hiding in plain sight in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just a few miles from Pakistan's military academy. It is hard to believe that his whereabouts weren't known to Pakistan's military or its intelligence agency, the ISI.

It has been apparent for some time to those who are well-informed that elements in the Pakistani military and ISI have been aiding the Taliban and other terrorist elements on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, both before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the problems began long before that, as Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011, explains in his just-published book "Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States and an Epic History of Misunderstanding."

"Since 1947," the year Pakistan became independent, he writes, "dependence, deception and defiance have characterized US-Pakistan relations." That year was the year when Britain granted independence to India and agreed to set off several geographically separated provinces as a predominantly Muslim Pakistan.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's charismatic first leader, died a year after independence; his successor was assassinated in 1951. Most of the time since then, Pakistan has been under military rule.

That's no coincidence. As Haqqani points out, Pakistan was given one-seventh of undivided India's resources but one-third of its military. The decision was made to keep the military despite the cost to economic development.

The military was furious that India retained most of Muslim-majority Kashmir. Ever since, it has directed most of its military efforts against India.

Pakistani leaders were convinced that their nation was the "pivot of the world" and reached out immediately and repeatedly to the United States for military aid. They used any arms they got to confront and, on occasion, fight India and to pry Afghanistan away from its alliance with India.

On occasion, this proved disastrous. When the military suppressed parliamentarians from the geographically separate East Pakistan, people there rebelled and, with India's encouragement, created the new nation of Bangladesh.

Haqqani castigates Pakistani leaders' illusions and those of Americans who thought they could move Pakistan in other directions. Dwight Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, irritated by India's neutral posture in the Cold War, credited Pakistani leaders' avowals of anti-Communism.

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger used Pakistan as a channel in their opening to Communist China. Kissinger actually flew on his secret trip to China from a base in Pakistan.

During the Reagan administration, Pakistan cooperated with American efforts to reduce Communist influence in Afghanistan. In the process, the Pakistanis supported jihadis, resulting in blowback after the end of the Cold War.

American leaders were encouraged by the warm relationships they built with Pakistani military and intelligence officers. They failed to note that the Pakistanis concealed from their people their cooperation with the United States and instead sponsored anti-American propaganda.

India changed in response to the Cold War, moving toward market economics, freer trade and warm relationships with the United States. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both advanced something like a de facto alliance.

Haqqani would like Pakistan to progress similarly. But under President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s and the military and ISI since, it has moved toward Islamist strictures and support of terrorists.

India has fostered rapid economic growth and a vibrant high-tech sector. Pakistan's economy has mostly stagnated under the burden of the overlarge military.

There is no evidence, Haqqani argues, that India wants to conquer Pakistan. But there is plenty of evidence that elements in Pakistan's government have facilitated acts of terrorism against India, like the 2008 attacks in Mumbai targeting the Taj Mahal Hotel and a Jewish community center, and the 2011 bombings there.

Pakistan has aided the Taliban in Afghanistan both before and after Sept. 11, Haqqani notes, with only a pause after US officials pressured President Pervez Musharraf right after the attacks.

What should both sides do now? Haqqani calls for "a recognition of divergent interests and an acknowledgement of mutual mistrust." Better to base policy on a realistic appraisal rather than on one magnificent delusion after another.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server