NEW YORK – The United States has warned Pakistan that failing to expand its fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would undercut the new American strategy and troop increase for Afghanistan that President Barack Obama is preparing, a leading US newspaper reported Monday.
Citing American officials, the New York Times said President ObamaÂ’s national security adviser, Gen James Jones, was sent to Islamabad, with the message that the new American strategy would work only if Pakistan broadened its fight beyond the militants attacking its cities and security forces and went after the groups that use havens in Pakistan for plotting and carrying out attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, as well as support networks for Al-Qaeda.
General Jones praised the current Pakistani operation in South Waziristan but urged Pakistani officials to combat extremists who have fled into North Waziristan, the newspaper said.
General Jones also delivered a letter from Obama to President Asif Ali Zardari, in which the US leader said he expected Zardari to rally the nationÂ’s political and national security institutions in a united campaign against extremists threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan, it said, citing an official briefed on the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were confidential.
For their part, according to the paper, Pakistani officials have told the Americans that they harbour two deep fears about ObamaÂ’s new strategy: that the United States will add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border, and that the American effort will end too soon. Their first concern, described by officials on both sides of the recent discussions, is that if Obama commits an additional 30,000 or more troops, it will inevitably push more Taliban fighters across the border into Pakistani territory and complicate the South Waziristan offensive.
Every time Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting, The Times said. It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC programme “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”
White House officials have said comparatively little about the Pakistan side of the administrationÂ’s evolving war strategy, in part because they have so few options, The Times pointed out. They cannot place forces inside Pakistan, and they cannot talk publicly about the Central Intelligence AgencyÂ’s Predator drone strikes in the country, though they are so much of an open secret that Mrs Clinton was asked about them repeatedly in meetings she held late last month with Pakistani students and citizens. (She refused to acknowledge the programmeÂ’s existence.)
In his letter to President Zardari, it said Obama offered a range of new incentives to the Pakistanis for their cooperation, including enhanced intelligence sharing and military cooperation, according to the official who had been briefed on the letterÂ’s contents.
During Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al-Qaeda “bottled up” in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan, it said. That is the position taken by Vice President Joseph Biden; the White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel; and most recently, the American ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, administration officials say.
“You could argue that even under the status quo, we don’t see Al-Qaeda coming into Afghanistan,” said one official sympathetic to this view. “And so an additional commitment of forces isn’t going to apply more pressure on our main target.”
Those arguing for a more forceful presence – including Mrs Clinton, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen – have contended that while Afghanistan is not now a haven for Al-Qaeda, it could easily become one if the Taliban make further inroads.
Mrs Clinton argued that NATO had actually increased troop levels along that border but had decided to consolidate about a half-dozen remote outposts into fewer, larger installations, because they were easier to defend. According to American military officials, the Pakistani military got no warning of the change.
So great was the Pakistani concern over the outpost closures that Gen Stanley A McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, made a special point during an unannounced trip to Islamabad after Mrs ClintonÂ’s visit to reassure Pakistani officials of American resolve.
“We’re stuck between not wanting to suggest we’re going to be there forever, but on the other hand, if we don’t show some kind of commitment, everyone continues to play the same game,” a senior administration official said Sunday. “That’s the challenge.”
If Pakistanis voice concerns about a lack of American commitment, they express equal concern that sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan could force Taliban militants into Pakistan. The Times argued.
“Whatever we do – put in more troops or put in fewer troops – theyÂ’ll freak out,” said an American intelligence officer who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardising his relations with Pakistani officials. But the intelligence officer acknowledged that the long-term security picture and the American commitment in Afghanistan were still unclear. “Look, if I were in Pakistan, IÂ’d be hedging my bets, too,” the officer was quoted as saying. “We need to be much more convincing that we have a better game plan.”