WORLDVIEW:The threat from a destabilised Pakistan is seen as greater than any from Afghanistan, writes PADDY SMYTH
THE NEW Yorker's Pulitzer prize-winning Seymour Hersh has been making waves again. This time, in Pakistan, where Hersh, who made his name over decades with remarkable exclusives on US intelligence and military activities, has rattled sensitivities with claims the country has been working on a secret agreement with the US to secure its nuclear weapons should their control be put in jeopardy.
Long-standing fears that Pakistan’s nuclear capacity could fall under the control of Taliban insurgents, or more likely, rogue military elements, prompted the discussions, Hersh claims, with a view to allowing specially trained US units to provide “added security” for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis.
In April President Obama was explicit about US fears. He was, he said, “gravely concerned” about the fragility of the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari. “Their biggest threat right now comes internally. . .We have huge . . . national-security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.” The US, he said, could “make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure – primarily, initially, because the Pakistan army, I think, recognises the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands”.
Such concerns form an unstated part of the backdrop to his troop surge speech to West Point during the week when he made clear that relations with Pakistan and its engagement with the struggle against the Taliban were a crucial third pillar in his Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.
In effect it is the second front and, if anything, US strategists regard the threat from a destabilised, embattled Pakistan as greater than any emanating from its neighbour. Islamabad has hosted a string of senior US military and diplomatic visitors in recent weeks seeking to consolidate the relationship.
In June, Congress approved a $400 million (€269 million) request for the “Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund”, providing immediate assistance to the Pakistani army for equipment, training, and “renovation and construction”. And the US has promised more – a broader aid package of $7.5 billion over the next five years – although Obama’s speech was somewhat unspecific, not least because, although some of the main terrorists he is targeting are there, he cannot send any troops.
Secret US operations inside Pakistan are mostly run by the CIA, and Obama is constrained from referring to them for fear of stoking anti-US sentiment in a country that reacts sharply to missile strikes against extremists that also kill civilians, and which fears the US is plotting to run its government and seize its nukes.
In recent weeks such concerns have been fuelled by widespread reports inside Pakistan that mercenaries from the controversial Blackwater company are operating as US proxies alongside Pakistani troops. The reports are strenuously denied by the US, Pakistan and the company.
But US magazine The Nationa fortnight ago carried a well-sourced article claiming Blackwater operatives are involved in "a secret programme in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives, 'snatch and grabs' of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan . . . The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus."
The New York Timesreported on Wednesday that "the CIA has delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the CIA's budget for operations inside the country".
These operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials say. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on US troops.
“The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against al-Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorism safe havens,” one US official told the paper. “More people, more places, more operations.”
The US has been heartened by what it sees as a more robust approach by the Pakistani government reflected in its major operations in Swat and South Waziristan. They appear to have borne fruit although sparking a wave of retaliatory Taliban suicide bombings, with more than 430 people killed in Pakistan in the past two months.
Political uncertainty is also complicating matters. The turmoil raises the possibility, although remote, that another civilian government will fail to serve a full term in a nation ruled by the military for over half of its 62-year history. Only 15 months into his rule, President Zardari is contending with rock-bottom public opinion, strained relations with the military, bloody insurgency and vocal opposition. Political tensions were stirred last weekend, when a legal amnesty protecting Zardari and aides from corruption cases expired.
Obama’s murky, proxy war is a battle on unstable and shifting sands.
psmyth@irishtimes.com