Washington narrative on Pakistan seems stuck in a bygone era

Washington, Sep.17 (ANI): The narrative on Pakistan sustained by American policy wonks appears stuck in old think, unduly rationalizing Islamabad's destructive behaviour while showing a curious inability to understand India.

The numerous think tanks sprinkled around Washington produce an impressive flow of reports, papers, books and monographs on South Asia all year around, documenting the ebb and flow of developments in the region, often in admirable detail.

But when it comes to Pakistan, many US experts speaking from the privileged platforms of prestigious institutions seem to underplay the use of terrorism as a policy tool. In think tank speak, which can instantly reduce the impact of horrible attacks, terrorism becomes a part of Pakistan's "asymmetric warfare" against India. Terrorists are mere "surrogates" and subversion, infiltration and an overt low-intensity war waged through militants is described as "Pakistan's crisis-generating behaviour."

A report released by the Stimson Center on "Crises in South Asia: Trends and Potential Consequence" on Wednesday was a textbook example of this narrative. It described Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed as mere "extremist groups" and over 100 pages, refrained from using the word "terrorism" or "terrorists" while talking of the Mumbai attacks. It preferred "mass-casualty assault" and "militants."

Many US strategic experts seem to accept the storyline given by Pakistani military-intelligence establishment, which always paints India as a hungry monster waiting to swallow a chunk of territory and unyielding on the Kashmir issue. No American expert, save one or two, cares to say who started the three wars between India and Pakistan, lest the moral equivalence they establish through jargon and selective display of facts between the two countries be disturbed.

In the post-Osama bin Laden Pakistan, where brave Pakistanis have been questioning their army, its competence, the ISI and its lethal influence in the region in greater numbers through newspaper columns, it is sadly ironic to see old time experts in Washington sticking to outdated ideas. That the Pakistan army is the only institution which works no matter how duplicitous its dealings with the US or in the region. That Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism as if that wipes away the army-ISI imprint on terrorist attacks against India and elsewhere.

At a recent conference organized by the Middle East Institute and the Johns Hopkins University on "Inside Pakistan's ISI," panelists bent over backwards to seemingly exonerate the most implicated foreign intelligence service in recent times. They concluded that while there was substantial evidence of links between the ISI and terrorist groups, they could not be sure whether the ISI as an institution was involved or only some "rogue agents."

Arturo Munoz, a former CIA officer and now an expert with Rand Corporation, speculated that the July 7, 2008 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which killed 41 people, was a "rogue operation." He then proceeded to claim that it is "hard to say" whether the ISI created the Taliban because Taliban leaders he spoke to said they got no help from the agency.

Is this mere na?vete? Instead of expecting Taliban leaders to freely confess their parentage, Munoz should have made his assessment based on available evidence. But he gave the ISI a boost in a room packed with other experts, students and young policy wonks waiting to break into the business of thinking.

In fact, there is so much "understanding" of Pakistan's dilemma, a few US experts have now begun pleading that growing US relations with India might be coming in the way of curing Islamabad's many diseases. They forget that for nearly three decades, India was at the receiving end of unfriendly US policies and was shown little "understanding."

George Perkovich, a highly respected expert on South Asia at the Carnegie Endowment, released a report last week, which while advocating sensible changes in US policy towards Pakistan, also had a section titled "Stop Over-Indulging India." He said that both the United States and India "must be more sensitive to the legitimate difficulties Pakistan will experience in coming to terms with" India's rise.

This may come as a shock to New Delhi, which thinks of itself as collateral damage in America's Pakistan policy. India has watched in dismay as billions of dollars in US military aid have gone to a neighbour who repeatedly sends lethal human bombers across the border and whose intelligence agencies have been caught on tape directing attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks which killed 164 people.

The report goes on to say that "many Pakistanis feel that their dignity and the moral worth of Muslims are disrespected as a result of the war on terror as defined by the United States and India." For the record, India is not a joint sponsor, nor a definer of the war against terror. Its tactics are vastly different from those used by the post 9/11 hyper-security state that is America today.

Perkovich warns that Washington "will exacerbate the backlash in Pakistan if it does not balance its interest in military sales and cooperation with India" with efforts to reassure Pakistan. India and the US must proceed "slowly" and give Pakistan the opportunity to participate "constructively" in bilateral and trilateral dialogues that India's intentions are defensive. How about peeking at history instead to determine the offenders?

Perkovich also concludes that India is getting a free ride from Washington and human rights groups on its record. He rains hard on US politicians, businesses and media calling them "blind and deaf to India's imperfections and mute in calling India to account" such as bringing those behind the Samjhota Express attack to book. Yes, India is no longer the target of negative reporting but Indian activists keep the light on the government and its follies. The recent report on unmarked graves in Kashmir is a case in point.

A few experts such as Christine Fair have argued that Pakistan should be given a civil nuclear agreement similar to the Indo-US deal to help moderate its behaviour. The idea has found no traction within the Obama Administration, which alternately tries to entice, coerce, bribe and threaten Pakistan in other ways to save itself from a downward slide.

But the important question for US experts is this: Even if the entire geo-political situation in South Asia were changed to fit Pakistan's requirements, would Islamabad abandon its terrorist friends? (ANI)

Attn: News Editors/News Desks: The views expressed in the above article are that of Seema Sirohi, a Washington D.C.-based foreign affairs analyst. By Seema Sirohi (ANI)