What’s the Rush, Mr. Zardari?
So why the sudden anxiousness on Zardari’s part to move negotiations forward with Sharif and impeach Musharraf? There are two, contrasting explanations. The first is desperation. After his failed attempt to gain control of the ISI as well as ISI efforts to undermine his government (for the purposes of maintaining a political stalemate), Zardari is now attempting to go after Musharraf. President Musharraf still represents the military’s institutional foothold in politics. The second explanation could be that Zardari has received US approval and backing for his actions after potentially convincing the current administration that Musharraf is what stands in the way of effective anti-Taliban operations in Pakistan. The second explanation is less likely however, as it was the current government that immediately and repeatedly sought to negotiate with the “Pakistani Taliban” from a position of weakness.

Regardless of his reasons, Zardari faces a major hurdle – the Army. Despite stepping down as Army Chief, Insider Brief sources report that the Pakistan Army remains very loyal to the President and is willing to go to bat for his political survivial, especially against the likes of Zardari. This brings us to the crux of this post.

The Coming Storm
The weight of recent events, shifting attitudes, and intense internal and external pressure on Pakistan are such that things can no longer continue as they have been. From our perspective at the Insider Brief, something has to give and it will undoubtedly be in the form of radical, tumultuous change in the near-to-medium term. Consider the following:

• The present civilian government (read: Zardari and co.) has picked a needless fight with the Army over the ISI and lost. It is yet again picking a needless fight against President Musharraf; a fight that will ultimately lead to another confrontation with a pro-Musharraf military.
• Insider Brief sources let slip that if things continue on their current trajectory, the military may be forced to (reluctantly) re-take the driver’s seat.
• Insider Brief sources also report that discontent is growing within the Army against its chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. He is increasingly being perceived as an American lackey from within the ranks.
• Pakistan’s government and military have been unable to effectively roll back a raging Taliban-led insurgency in its northwest. This is moving beyond a crisis of governance into a crisis of existence.
• US and US-allied forces are preparing to conduct larger, more overt military action in Pakistan and have already openly admitted to conducting air strikes on Pakistani territory.
• The CIA publicly identified the ISI as having a hand in the recent bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.
• Sources further indicate that there is a common perception within the Pakistani military that the US is colluding with the Indians to foment trouble in Balochistan and Pakistan’s northwest.
• Intermittent hostilities have broken out between India and Pakistan on the Line of Control in Kashmir after 5 years of peace.
• Public discontent is being compounded by a slowing economy and food and oil inflation.

Pretty picture, right? It depicts how unsustainable the current state of affairs is.

Ultimately, we’re witnessing a web of competing interests intersect and conflict in a big way. At the center of it all is the Pakistani military establishment. It currently finds itself in conflict with the US, India, the Pakistani civilian government, insurgents and perhaps even itself. This is no fault of the military’s — this merely reflects the reality that the military is at the center of the Pakistani state. It is the only institution that is capable of holding Pakistan together as the country tears itself apart.

It would behoove the present elected government to work in lockstep with the military, instead of engaging it and other parties in petty power struggles. The reinstatement of sacked judges or Musharraf’s impeachment will not save Pakistan. That will instead be determined by how Pakistanis and their leaders come together as a nation.

The decision is one that is bold, unprecedented and controversial. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) has traditionally fallen under the purview of the military, with Army officers rotating through the agency for two year stints. Many have labeled the ISI as a “state within a state” for its pervasiveness and ability to influence state matters with near complete autonomy. Today’s decision by Gilani and his cabinet marks a major move by the nascent civilian government in the long standing struggle by Pakistan’s civilian/political forces to bring the military establishment under their control. This news also likely corroborates our last post as the move may be in response to military/intelligence discussions over the ouster of his PPP government.

The military will not accept the cabinet decision lying down. Insider Brief sources further report that many ranking military officials have indicated that there will be a coup if Gilani does not back down from his decision. Such a move would not be unprecedented. Many may remember that the last time a civilian government attempted to meddle in military affairs, it ultimately resulted in the coup that brought President Musharraf to power. Much of the anger in the military is being directed towards Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who is widely believed by Pakistan’s intelligence community to have had some affiliation with the CIA. In the eyes of Pakistan intelligence, Malik’s access may severely compromise ISI operational security.

The government’s move has also placed Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, in an awkward position. Since his appointment to COAS, he has been an advocate of extricating the military from overt interference in government affairs and has made a very public effort to support the new government. As opposed to engaging Kayani in a process to alter the balance of power between Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Gilani’s government has acted brashly and resultantly forced Kayani into a corner. If Kayani does not respond forcefully, he will appear weak and lose credibility with his subordinates. The Army Chief will also likely want to respond — after all, the ISI was under his command.

If there is a coup, it will likely be a politically engineered, “soft coup.” This would include the possibility of President Musharraf dismissing the government through powers granted to him in the constitution. An overt military coup is unlikely as it would trigger sanctions, isolate Pakistan internationally and result in a further weakening of already shaky relationship.

The PPP has taken a risky gamble — Prime Minister Gilani may return to Pakistan only to find himself out of a job.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Hillary Clinton is many things, but one thing she is not is unintelligent. Nor are those she surrounds herself with. Her foreign policy team — which includes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and of course, her husband, former President Bill Clinton — is painfully aware of how impractical her proposal for joint oversight is. After all, it was under President Bill Clinton’s watch that Pakistan defiantly tested its nuclear weapons, despite the threat of new sanctions when its economy was teetering on the brink of collapse.

So then why did she issue such an undeniably flawed policy statement?

The answer is right in front of us in the media’s response. Following her third place finish in Iowa at the hands of Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards, Sen. Clinton’s policy appears to be a ploy designed to attract attention to her campaign on the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary. With a media that thrives on soundbites, it’s a ploy that in the past has proven effective.

NUCLEAR FALLOUT
Not convinced that the proposal is a campaign tactic? Assume for a moment that Clinton is serious in proposing joint US-UK stewardship of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Implications abound, the proposal would risk severe fallout for Pakistan as well as US interests in the region:

Violent and Vocal Reaction in Pakistan. It’s safe to say that any sitting government in Pakistan that would agree to US oversight of the nation’s nuclear weapons would be overthrown either in a military coup or by an overwhelming response from the Pakistani public. President Pervez Musharraf is afraid to openly acknowledge American boots on the ground in Pakistan’s northwest, let alone American oversight of Pakistani nukes. (Just today, Pakistani spokepeople were bristling at alleged deliberations by the Bush administration to give the CIA expanded powers to operate within Pakistan.)

Spike in Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Muslim world. Pakistan is currently the world’s only Muslim nuclear weapons state. US supervision of Pakistan’s nukes would be viewed as a continuation of the American “crusade” against Muslims. Pakistanis in general have long been convinced that the US is seeking to destablize their country in the hopes of an excuse to defang its nuclear capabilities. Many average Pakistanis are convinced that the US had a role to play in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto for that very reason. Sen. Clinton’s proposal is a sure fire way of stoking anti-Americanism and bringing Islamists to power in Pakistan.

Disruption of Sino-US relations. China was heavily involved in helping facilitate the funding and technical expertise towards the Pakistani nuclear program. China’s involvement reflects a long-standing strategic relationship between itself and Pakistan. The Chinese will not take pseudo-US control of nuclear weapons in their backyard lying down. The US government should be prepared for a severe reaction from the Chinese govement including aggressive behavior around Taiwan, Central Asia and the support of a military coup in Pakistan.

Loss of Credibility for the Democratic Party in Pakistan. The Pakistani establishment has long favored the Republican Party given the party’s record of, more often than not, engaging Pakistan. Many in Pakistan have not forgotten the treatment meted out to them by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office. If Hillary Clinton pushes her policy proposal, she would be helping ensure a poor working relationship with the government of Pakistan anytime a Democrat is in office.

The aforementioned are only a handful of the potential (frightening) outcomes from the promotion/imposition of Sen. Clinton’s proposal. It’s unlikely that the likes of Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, or Hillary Clinton herself would have overlooked these.

LESSONS LEARNT
The buzz generated by Clinton’s statement lasted a heartbeat and as of now, she trails behind Barack Obama by 9 points in New Hampshire. It’s a poignant lesson for all presidential candidates who seek to use controversial statements as a short term means of boosting their respective campaigns. Instead of formulating strong messages backed by well thought out policies, they end up right back where they started while looking, well, unintelligent.

The News: Reuters
With Gen. Ashfaq Kayani’s ascendancy to the role of Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Reuters published an article on Nov. 28th titled, “Five Facts on Pakistan’s New Army Chief – Kayani,” in which they cited the Insider Brief.

On the Web: Watandost
In his latest blog post entitled, “Three New Excellent Blogs on Pakistan,” Hassan Abbas of Watandost recommended three Pakistan-focused blogs to his readers, one of which happened to be the Insider Brief. A published author and former Pakistani government official, Abbas is also a Research Fellow at the Belfer Center’s Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program. His recognition, like that of the PCR Project, means a lot to us.

On the Radio: The John Batchelor Show
Last night, I appeared on the John Batchelor Show to discuss the rise of Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and President Musharraf’s future. You can listen to my conversation with John by using the player below.

Download audio file (wabc-interview-20071202-pakintel.mp3)
(Download file)

John’s show airs on Sundays, WABC 770AM in New York from 7-10pm EST (webcast), and KFI 640AM in Los Angeles from 7-10pm PST (webcast).

We at the Insider Brief contend that the real, imminent crisis exists in Pakistan’s current inability to tame and integrate the country’s northwestern frontier — also known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) — which stems from a larger crisis in governance that afflicts the rest of the nation. The latest symptoms of this failure include the twin bombings in Rawalpindi and ongoing military operations in Swat, the latter of which seek to rollback Islamist forces that have now expanded their reach from the tribal regions into NWFP proper.

Gordian Knot
The Pushtun tribes and people that occupy the tribal belt that straddles the Afghan and Pakistani border have lived in that region with their way of life in times predating Islam and even Jesus Christ. Every empire and nation that has attempted to enter and impose its rule on those lands has often regretted it — be it Alexander, the Mughals, the British, and now Pakistan. Even the British Empire, despite its vast resources and experience in ruling even the unruliest of places, had an incredibly tenuous hold on the region which for the most part remained largely autonomous

Couple this unmanageable region’s history with a heavy saturation of weapons (there are more guns than people) left over from the Soviet invasion and the throngs of unemployed, well trained and battle hardened jihadist guerillas jointly created by the CIA and ISI during the 1980’s, and you have the ingredients for what the CIA calls blowback. Sprinkle in the fact that every Afghan regime since Pakistan’s inception has challenged the legitimacy of the Durand Line border demarcation that splits these tribal regions down the middle and you have to ask yourself, can Pakistan really claim sovereignty over this region?

It’s a miracle in itself that President Musharraf managed to pour nearly 100,000 soldiers (~ 2 heavy infantry divisions and 2 infantry divisions) into FATA and the surrounding areas, set up check points, and launch military operations without sparking an all out rebellion.

Cutting the Knot … with an AK?
The New York Times reported last Sunday that the Pentagon was considering enlisting the help of tribes in Pakistan’s northwest against Islamist militants. This strategy mirrors the successful American strategy in Iraq’s Anbar province but may not be applicable to Pakistan. Though some tribes view foreign and local Islamist militants as a cancer for the tribal system – destroying the very system that safeguarded them and from whence they came – there are some tribes, like the Mehsuds and Aurakzai, that have been defending the very same militants.

Hypothetically speaking, if the US strategy were to work, it presents a double-edged sword. What happens after the US-armed and financed tribals have rid themselves of the Islamists? They’ll likely turn their guns right back on the US, demanding the US withdraw from the region. It is unlikely that the US will comply.

So then, what is the solution for quelling the violence in FATA, disarming Islamists and bringing the region into the fold? Does it involve a paradigm shift in the way counterinsurgency operations are carried out? Does it involve a Marshall Plan for the region with billions of dollars in developmental spending? Does it mean destroying the tribal system? They say the lifespan of an insurgency is around a decade, sadly, the struggle for the tribal belt is one that has been ongoing for centuries.

At the Insider Brief, we don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions, but we do know what doesn’t work. The solution for the region as a whole doesn’t lie in Predator-fired Hellfire missiles or heavy handed tactics. It doesn’t lie in blanket clemency for militants either. The solution must lie somewhere in the middle. For starters, Pakistan and the US should join hands with the same commitment they did near the end of the Cold War, and spend on poverty alleviation and education, not just military supplies and training for the local populace. One thing must be clear: only when you have a hand in bettering someone’s life can you claim sovereignty over where they live.

As military operations continue in the nation’s northwest, we intend on bringing you new guest posts and exclusive content aimed at developing a fresh perspective of a region that has perplexed many. Stay tuned and stay informed.