American-Pakistani Ties Unraveling
The political relationship between Pakistan and America has been strained for the past several years, especially since the resignation of former President Pervez Musharraf.
The New York Times reported on Monday that American-Pakistani relations still have “a tinderbox quality, [driven] by differences over cia drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal belt, the Afghan war and, most contentiously, the Haqqani network”—a terrorist group affiliated with the Taliban and headquartered in Pakistan. “The arguments are well worn: American officials say the Pakistani military’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency is covertly aiding the insurgents; Pakistani officials deny the accusation.”
Although the new Pakistani government more convincingly fits the mold of a democratic ally than Musharraf did, the reality is, the relationship is worse than it was during Musharraf’s reign.
Before his resignation, Musharraf was a lukewarm ally of the U.S.—but an ally nonetheless. There is some evidence that he favored both sides in the “war on terror,” but he was not openly against American policy. However, with pressure from influential politicians, the U.S. gave Musharraf an impossible ultimatum, which led to his resignation.
That was a huge strategic blunder, my father noted in January 2008: “American leaders are telling Musharraf to take off his military uniform and give real freedom to that country. However, the military is the only institution that gives stability to that extremely divided country! This is another example of how little our leaders know about Pakistan.”
February 2008 saw elections give power to a new coalition government. But the “power” is fragile at best. Vast territories, especially in northwest Pakistan, host breeding grounds for a few very influential radical Islamic groups, like al Qaeda and the Taliban, and there are ethnic and tribal differences throughout the country.
As we’ve pointed out before, this history is eerily similar to what happened in Iran during the late 1970s. Back then, my father wrote, “our liberal press and politicians thought [the shah of Iran] was too undemocratic, so they helped to drive him from power. As he was falling, America gave him little or no support.” The Iranian Revolution that followed paved the way for an Islamic Republic that has since turned into the number one state sponsor of terrorism.
My father wrote, “More than any other nation (apart from Iran itself), America is responsible for the overthrow of the shah and the ushering in of Ayatollah Khomeini. Our weakness could prove to be the biggest foreign-policy disaster of the 20th century!” That article was titled “Pakistan and the Shah of Iran.” It contains a sobering warning—not only for Pakistan, but for the United States mainly!
He continued: “There would be no state-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East if America had the will to use its power! But America’s problem is even worse than a weak will. We even help push our allies into the hands of radical Islam. That is a dangerous kind of ignorance.”
For much more on this, read “Pakistan and the Shah of Iran” and also request your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy.
