Monday, May 10

Pakistan and the zen of reading a threat from the White House

Below, three pearls of Indian counterterrorism expert B. Raman's hard-won wisdom about the reasoning processes of Pakistan's military chiefs. I've supplied brief editorial comments to excerpts from his May 8 analysis, which parses the chiefs' reaction to a threat from the White House that was delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Round Up the Usual Suspects
The Pakistani reaction to the identification of Faisal Shahzad as the perpetrator of the [Times Square bombing] attempt has been typical. Firstly, to assure all cooperation to the US in the investigation of the case. Secondly, to round up about 20 persons in Karachi, Peshawar and other places, including four alleged members of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM). Thirdly, to point out that Faisal is an American and not a Pakistani citizen and hence causes for his radicalisation are to be found in the US and not in Pakistan. And fourthly, to start releasing those arrested one after the other on grounds of lack of evidence.
The future? We live in the Eternal Now
[Clinton's] warning has received greater attention in India than in Pakistan. The lack of an impact in Pakistan could be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, a careful reading of her remarks shows that her so-called warning is not with reference to the failed attempt by Faisal Shahzad, a US citizen of Pakistani origin, on May 1, 2010, to cause an incendiary car bomb explosion in the Times Square of New York, but with reference to any future attack that might be successful. What she meant was that if there was a successful attack in future and the investigation traced it back to Pakistan, it would face severe consequences.
We suppose you haven't noticed that USAF has Gone Native
All US warnings and admonitions have no effect on the Pakistani authorities because of their conviction that the importance of Pakistan for US policies in Afghanistan would protect Pakistan from any reprisals by the US and that anyhow, whatever the State Department might think and say, the Pentagon would oppose any action against Pakistan.


nizhal yoddha said...

dear pundita, the pakistanis are used to dire warnings about what will happen the *next* time they do some hanky panky. india's prime minister manmohan singh has been warning them steadily for the last seven or eight years that he'll.... he'll... he'll.... do SOMETHING the next time they send a bunch of terrorists across the border. i think they have parsed the 'something' as 'i'll hold my breath till i am blue in the face'. they believe the same is true of hillary clinton as well, which is why they are not particularly perturbed.

Pundita said...

Excellent point!

Anonymous said...

Hi Pundita,
Many in India and some Westerners know that Pakistan is behind the world's terrorism, supported by Saudi Money.

Now Pakistan has been 'a crook and a thief' to the world. I feel that Pakistan will arrest a top Taliban leader or an Al-Queda Leader to show that it is indeed against Islamic terrorists. Obama will be satisfied, CIA will be satisfied, Ms. Hillary will be satisfied.
But soon, one can expect a major terrorist act in India. Because world is not worried out the lives of Indians.
Did you read an article in BBC on "terrorists have regrouped in Pak Occupied Kashmir"? Even the locals there are scared of these terrorists.


Anonymous said...

but why? why is the usa more keen on keeping pakistan a client state than defeating terrorists inspired by it? what advantage is there for the usa in such a deal? oh i am sure there is - because the establishment in the usa is full of crooks - of the ivy league variety. but would like clear pointers on how they benefit by placating pakistan. vtpcnk.

Pundita said...

vtpcnk -- re your question, "why is the usa more keen on keeping pakistan a client state than defeating terrorists inspired by it?" -- I explained in a post last year but no one wanted to believe me. Stay tuned.