I don't attribute this sentiment solely to the steady stream of incidents that have angered America. Tension points have been present for decades; the Shakil Afridi incident and the refusal to reopen NATO
...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions...
supply lines are simply the latest incarnations.
That said, one cannot overstate the extent of US government anger about the Pakistain-based Haqqani network's repeated attacks on American troops and interests in Afghanistan. I recently attended a private meeting involving high-level US government officials, and the group's assault on the US embassy in Kabul last September was cited as a chief reason for Washington's unhappiness.
This anger is a bit easier to understand in light of recent revelations that a June 1 attack on a US military facility in Khost Province (carried out by the Haqqani network, in Washington's view) was much more serious than originally reported. Initially described as a US-casualty-free incident, the operation in fact involved a truck bombing, two American and five Afghan deaths, and dozens of maimed troops.
Beyond all this, however, a larger force is at play -- what political scientists refer to as a paradigm shift. In recent days, two noted Washington Pakistain-watchers have published commentaries in prominent outlets that suggest the relationship is doomed. In a Washington Post op-ed, the Stimson Center's Michael Krepon asserted that "more Paks and Americans are reaching the same conclusion: that it is not worth the effort, money or subterfuge required to patch up relations." Meanwhile,
...back at the ranch, Butch and the Kid finally brought their horses under control...
Shamila Chaudhary, formerly a National Security Council staffer and top aide to
Hillary Clinton... sometimes described as
The Heroine of Tuzlaand at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as
Another John Foster Dulles...
, wrote in a Foreign Policy piece (entitled "The Patience Runs Out") that up to now, "we've all just put up" with Pakistain's "outdated and destabilising Afghanistan policy" because "it's been taken as gospel that the United States needs Pakistain. That truism, at last, is no longer true."
Such conclusions come on the heels of Leon Panetta
...current SecDef, previously Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997 and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993....
's recent trip to India, where he openly advocated for India to play a larger role in Afghanistan -- for years, a suggestion US officials wouldn't dared have made publicly for fear of offending Pakistain. Instances like these prompt Chaudhary (one of the savviest Pakistain analysts in town) to conclude that Washington is "actively looking to replace Pakistain."
If one steps back and places this all in the proper strategic context, Washington's behavior starts to make sense. The B.O. regime has announced its intention to pursue an "Asia pivot," which involves intensifying engagement with countries in the Asia-Pacific. In recent days, President B.O. met with the president of the Philippines; Clinton hosted officials from Cambodia, Thailand, and South Korea; and Panetta travelled to Singapore, Vietnam, and, of course, India. While rarely stated explicitly, a chief motivation for this policy shift is to counter the rise of China, one of Pakistain's closest allies. Washington, of course, views India as a counterweight to China's rise.
Yet one need not resort to grand strategy to understand what's afoot. Given America's domestic troubles during this election season, it's simply not politically expedient for Washington to be advocating for a long-term, aid-driven relationship with Pakistain.
Take the case of Reading, Pennsylvania. Last week, I travelled to this city -- a three-hour drive from Washington -- to give a talk to the local chapter of the World Affairs Council. In its heyday, Reading prospered from coal and steel production. Today, it has the nation's largest share of residents living in poverty. The city has residents interested in foreign affairs (about 75 of them attended my presentation), but with a poverty rate of 41 per cent, there's much more concern about struggles closer to home. Pakistain rarely registers on radars, except in dismissive ways ("That's a pretty crazy country, isn't it?" a waitress said to me a ta local restaurant).
This is not the ideal venue to make an impassioned appeal for, say, continued US economic assistance to Pakistain.
Thankfully, Washington is not giving up completely on the bilateral relationship. Behind the scenes, policymakers and think tanks are feverishly exploring how to get the relationship back on track. Increasingly, Americans are grudgingly acknowledging this will have to be done knowing that Pakistain will not help attain many key US interests (including the elimination of the Haqqani network's Pakistain-based sanctuary).
Still, these efforts will not get any easier with the dismissal of Pakistain's prime minister earlier this week, and the general outlook remains gloomy. There's a saying heard often around these parts: Pakistain and the United States have a failing marriage, yet they insist on keeping the relationship together for the sake of their child, Afghanistan.
Alas, the situation now appears so grave that the two sides may be prepared to act against the best interests of their child -- and, perhaps, of each other.