"I'm not yo friend, buddy!" "I'm not yo buddy, guy!"
On Wednesday, news agencies reported that General David Petraeus, the new U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, is pushing to designate top leaders from the Haqqani Network as “terrorists.” According to the NY Times, “…Petraeus introduced the idea of blacklisting the group…late last week in discussions with President Obama’s senior advisers on Pakistan and Afghanistan.” The idea was first publicized by Senator Carl Levin on Tuesday, who just returned from Pakistan and Afghanistan. During a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Levin stated,
As a matter of fact, I think we have to include on the list other threats to the Afghan mission. We have to have, I believe, we should have on our list the headquarters of the Haqqani network. We know where they are. We know where that headquarters is… I don’t think they should be off-limits to those strikes. They directly threaten the Afghan mission.
Levin went on to add that he would pursue legislative action to ensure the Haqqani network was on the U.S. terror list, calling them “the greatest threat” to stability in Afghanistan, even more so than Taliban militants crossing the border into the country from Pakistan.
So what could this inevitably mean? Ding ding ding! More drone strikes and more pressure on Pakistan. Levin emphasized, “Can more be done? It has to be done by Pakistan, unless it is going to be done with drone attacks on their headquarters. More needs to be done by Pakistan. They have not gone into that area in North Waziristan where the Haqqanis are.”
The pressure on Pakistan to go into North Waziristan isn’t new; in fact, both the U.S. and Pakistan have been back-and-forth on this issue for months now. However, if Washington decides to rebrand [the top leaders of] the Haqqani network as “terrorists,” it does send a very clear message, especially amid reports that Pakistan’s military/ISI have begun trying “to seed a rapprochement between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Haqqani network,” (COAS Gen. Kayani has denied facilitating secret meetings between the two parties). The message – the U.S. may support Kabul’s Taliban reconciliation program, but leaders of the Haqqani network will not be included in this arrangement.
This may lead to interesting ramifications for Pakistan’s strategic depth ambitions, an effort to hedge India‘s influence in Afghanistan. The less-than-ambivalent term “terrorist” not only shifts the tone from Washington, it also leaves little breathing room for Pakistan. Terrorist/Terrorism labels aren’t light designations in this post-9/11 era, and it will be interesting to see how Pakistan responds. If the military doesn’t go into North Waziristan, will that lead Washington to feel more “justified” in increasing drone strikes in the region? (For coverage of the legal justification of drone strikes, see here.)
Watching these developments play out are akin to a complex chess game. Whose move is it next?
Quick addendum:
According to the AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jSBkeOtGqVnTfKkwc5c7K_n8yrzQ):
“Placement on the State Department’s list would mainly impose legal limits on US citizens and companies, prohibiting trade with the Haqqani network or its leaders and requiring that banks freeze their assets in the United States.”
Hmm…
Also for a good backgrounder on the Haqqani Network: http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/03/inside_the_haqqani_network_0
[…] of blacklisting the group…late last week in discussions with […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan blacklisting, buddy guy, carl levin, christian science monitor, crossing the border, david […]
kalsoom
should Pakistan be going after Haqaani network?
Oooh…that’s not an easy question to answer.
From an idealistic perspective, yes. Pakistan should go after the Haqqani network because the group has been known to use Pakistan to launch and plan attacks on NATO forces and stir instability in Afghanistan. Just because they’re NOT going after Pakistani citizens now doesn’t mean this won’t change in the future.
However, from a Pakistani perspective, I can understand the desire for strategic depth in Afghanistan, especially when we look at historical relations with India and the continuing notion that despite militant violence, India is still enemy number one for the military/ISI. “Strategic depth” is a loose term though, so I guess that is up for debate.
Moreover, our own army is overstretched fighting our own war, against groups that are attacking the state and killing numbers of innocent Pakistani civilians. Our priority, from a realpolitick perspective, should be to protect the state and protect the citizens. If Pakistan goes into North Waziristan, such an operation may complicate our current operations in the tribal areas (previous reports suggest that Hekmatyar/Haqqani agreed to not attack Pakistani troops if they didn’t go into North Waziristan), AND from a perception management standpoint, it will be seen as a U.S.-branded operation, rather than one that is Pakistani in intention.
Sorry for the more ambivalent/diplomatic response, but it’s such a complex issue. What are your thoughts?
I have always hated the term strategic depth and policies adopted by our establishment to ensure it. The implications outweigh the potential advantages of having a stronghold in Afghanistan but as you rightly suggested its debatable and perhaps the only way left is for Pakistan India, Karzai regime and talibans to negotiate some sort of power sharing deal where every party has a significant role to play. However that’s almost like a fairytale scenario and highly unlikely
I have few questions and their answer might help us determine our next step
What would Haqqanis possibly do once America makes an exit leaving Afghanistan with Karzai and Taliban having some kind of power deal? I mean where would it leave haqqani network? Literally purposeless? How cute does that sound
Maulana Fazalullah aka mullah radio and his TNSM thugs have supposedly taken refuge in north Waziristan. This is the group that unleashed hell on Pakistan. Wouldn’t we be hunting down that fellow
Supposedly successful operation in South Waziristan has pushed TTP and they too have allegedly gone back to North under Haqqani protection. TTP’s CV needs no introduction. Pakistani public has suffered mostly because of TTP. Who would catch them?
According to more unconfirmed reports, scores of Uzbaks, Tajiks, Somalis, Arabs, Palestinians and members of Al Qaeda are already in North. Should we happily accept their presence in our territory?
Now imagine all these legends together in one land reminding me of Con Air. Once they have no more adventures left in Afghanistan after American ouster, would they simply sit and ideally spend their time doing Allah Allah and not be expected to inflict more brutality on Pakistani public especially with their combined strength
I cant buy that
Kiyani has been accused of secretly facilitating a deal between Karzai and Haqqanis but where does it leave groups like TNSM and TTP. Why would they be accommodated in north in the first place if Haqqanis are supposedly on our side and regardless of what happens in Afghanistan can we expect TNSM and TTP to peacefully stay in north?
Help me if you can with these questions and we may discover our answer
If I can:
1st — America would never leave Afghanistan, as a whole, it would leave behind a strong presence.
2nd — Depends on what exactly they are fighting for (like money/power or religion) one would be in power and other would be destroyed.
3rd — Pakistanis are just sitting ducks in this whole scenario with no access to information at all.
4th — Current puppet govt suits army’s ambitions as they have a cover up to blame and nothing to lose, even if they lose entire country to someone, they would simply blame Political govt( and political govt need not to say to some one else in previous term or army itself).
5th– Its a greener season for Army to get better war tec (if not US then China) and make money to invest it abroad, all these operations happening is just dusting work in which, I personally believe only common man are dying which then would be counted as someone else bodies.
6th– Nuclear blackmail is the single tipping factor, its a single point fault line, once it falls, Haqqanis would either run away in same boats as army or be hunted down by Afghans(If not Chinese/Iranians or Indians) itself.
Remember every one is talking with state is because its a failing state with N.
So my answer would be, yes the army would hunt down for Haqqanis but just to show and top Haqqanis would never be caught.
Pakistan’s track record with its pet jihadis is not a very good one and the Haqqani network is going to be no different than the rest that have turned on the hand that once fed them.
Zia and co imagined that the Afghan Mujahideen would be at their beck and call and that Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout would provide this much-ballyhooed and ridiculous notion of ‘strategic depth’. But instead there was civil war and the Muj groups did stopped listening to the Pakistanis once the communist regime had fallen.
The Taliban was financed, trained, organised and supported by Pakistan, but after 9/11 when the Pakistanis asked for Al Qaeda to be handed over in order to pre-empt an American invasion, the Taliban refused their former benefactors.
Why would anyone believe the Haqqani network will be any different?
Branding the top hierarchy of this group as terrorists would be a good step forward. It would help in controlling insurgency in our tribal belt as well
When can you decide a new Pakistan. Government we seek, change
Pakistan is dire. Straits establish new administration soon. Kick
America out start trade with Central Asia and Iran. India is problem!