The Fogh of war: NATO secretary general says Pakistan is still a partner

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 11:23 AM Share

Hmm -- this must be a new category of NATO partner, one that shoots at our helicopters, proliferates nuclear weaponry, and plays footsie with terrorists.

By Elizabeth Flora
Best Defense aging alliances deputy bureau chief

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stopped by SAIS last week as part of a tour across America to promote the geriatric alliance's purported current and future relevance. In addition to dishing out the usual mush about the alliance, he fielded questions about current security challenges:

On Libya: When questioned on whether or not NATO would engage in nation-building in a "post-Qaddafi era," he said that it will have a "role to play" in the transition to democracy, especially by ensuring that the military can be controlled by a new government. Fortunately, he did not have to answer when this era will emerge.

On Afghanistan: His recommendations have not changed in the post-bin Laden era, which call for the same timeline with a contingent of non-combat troops remaining past 2014, when Afghans should "stand on their own feet" but "will not stand alone."

On Pakistan: However, to accomplish success in Afghanistan, NATO will need a "positive engagement" and "partnership" with Pakistan. "Despite recent events" and "many questions that need to be answered," Rasmussen said that "we appreciate" that Pakistan has "taken steps" against terrorism in the border region, but in an diplomatic understatement, "we do believe there is potential for strengthened efforts."

Waqar Hameed/Flickr

EXPLORE:GUEST BLOGGER, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, PAKISTAN

(6)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

WALKING WOUNDED

5:20 PM ET

May 18, 2011

dusty foggo of wartime bedfellows

This new category of NATO ally might look to Italy for precedent.

Releasing the grounded Achille Lauro gang at gunpoint, major false intel of Niger uranium being traded there, targeted operations by CIA on their turf, arrest warrants out for said CIA snatch teams, the tawdry news-celebrity kidnap/ransom/friendly fire incident in Baghdad...

Just sayin, quite a history there.

Or how about the whole nukular democratic Israel thing, with Mossad and the Israeli-Georgian drug mafia's working across europe and the Gulf, targeted assasinations, laundering paid-in-advance foreign aid money, trading arms and dual tech?

The ever-helpful Brits have lost more aircraft to US blue-blue fire than to any enemies, over the last 20 years. But that NATO-wagging relationship is definitely in a category of its own.

JPWREL

5:47 PM ET

May 18, 2011

Fortunately, the NATO

Fortunately, the NATO Secretary General is as about as influential over matters of NATO strategy as is the Postmaster General. If there ever was an irrelevant office in this world it has to be this. The NATO SG should be seen and not heard.

NIKOS_RETSOS

3:41 AM ET

May 19, 2011

Is Pakistan still a Nato ally?

Yes, Pakistan is a Nato and U.S. ally of sorts - depending on the definition what an ally is. The late Massachusetts senator Edward Kennedy described the allies that the U.S. has used as "coalitions" on its war in Iraq and elsewhere as "The Coalition of the Arm-Twisted and the Unwilling!" And that description fits perfectly the kind of ally Pakistan is! Nato has really no business to contribute forces for a U.S. war outside the European Theater -as mandated by its charter. But the U.S. twisted the definition to pull the allies into the war in Afghanistan to depict it as a global war on terrorism. Pakistan was forced to join in because " it was located at the wrong place, at the wrong time - so to speak, not because it shares the global U.S. hegemonic interests.

For a similar precedent in history, the former Soviet Union also forged a coalition of "the arm-twisted and the unwilling" when it forced its subordinate partners in Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and Bulgaria - under the Warsaw Pact Alliance- to contribute forces for the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

There are "two kinds" of allies, therefore: a) the willing - like Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, and France, and b) The Unwilling - like Latvia, Poland, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Australia that joined the U.S. reluctantly as allies in Afghanistan under various obligations, and various behind the scenes deals. Pakistan was dragged in in handcuffs by the U.S. into the conflict in Afghanistan, but it is paid $ billions to "play" the role of an ally -while in fact it isn't!

The best way to describe the U.S. - Pakistani relations is this unflattering analogy: Pakistan acts as an escort service in Central Asia for a rich and powerful client the U.S.!
Nikos Retsos, retired professor

CARDSHARP

5:47 PM ET

May 19, 2011

Christ we get it....

You hate Pakistan. If you can put your personal emotions and dislike aside, you'd come to the same conclusion the Obama admin. has to come to. Things would be worse if we didn't have them as a partner.

STAFF GUY

11:57 AM ET

May 20, 2011

How?

How would things be worse if we did not have Pakistan as a partner?

I cannot speak for the ret prof above, but I do not hate Pakistan. Don't really care about them all that much. Much more concerning to me is the US political reaction to Pakistani actions.

So the question is: what actions has Pakistan taken in the last decade that, had they not taken those actions, would have resulted in a situation worse than what we currently face in Afghanistan / Central Asia? Or since 2009 when the President took office?

Pakistan - again, from my limited perspective - has done nothing but gain from its relationship with the US. The US has paid, either cash or in kind, for maintaining this relationship. And Pakistan has flipped us the bird on numerous occasions, OBL being if not the most egregious example then the most politically inflammatory. What is the US getting out of this? And I am not implying that Pakistan owes the US anything, even with OBL, if they wanted to shelter him then that was their decision to make - which apparently they did. Why does the US put up with this shit though? Where is the gain?

There are numerous ways of working around the Pakistani land supply routes. Sure, many of them are painful or require other types of concessions. But we, the US, are so apparently intent on not looking at these other means that we will take whatever Pakistan dishes out.

I am also not sure at all that I buy the whole nuclear stability thing. Yes, Pakistan is a nuclear power nation. What are they going to do? Drop a bomb on India? India would wipe them off the map and Pakistan knows this. Pakistan could not survive a war with India, not a nation-mobilizing war. They would get their collective ass handed to them.

The US gives Pakistan no incentives to act in a reasonable fashion when dealing with the US. No matter what Pakistan does our politicians and senior military leaders give them a free pass. Karimi could probably take a nice hefty crap on the ISAF conference room table during the middle of a Presidential update and everyone would pretend that he shat roses. Look at SecDef Gates' response to the OBL whacking; he states - in public no less - "I have seen no evidence at all that the senior leadership knew" about OBL being there. Really? Does our own SecDef believe that line?

Perhaps the true question is: what exactly does Pakistan need to do to the US to get us to change the bipartisan dynamic here? I fail to see how things would be worse if we had ceased dealing with Pakistan years ago.

MARTY MARTEL

7:25 PM ET

May 19, 2011

Gates/Mullen and Tom Ricks

What does Tom Ricks have to say about Defense Secretary’s statement ‘about no evidence of Pakistani government or Army knowing about Osama living in Abottabad’?

Never mind that Osama was living in the garrison town with Pakistani Army checkpoints at every corner and Taliban leaders from Afghanistan visited Osama in Abottabad umpteen times bypassing those very check points without ever being caught!

Gates’s statement about no evidence of Pakistani government or Army knowing about it reminds us about Petraeus’ statement that ‘while Faisal (Pakistani-origin bomber caught in New York city) was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants‘ which turned out to be utterly false because Failsal did have direct contacts with Pakistan-based militants.

Aside from Pakistani Army/government and President George W. Bush, Gates/Mullen is the main reason why U. S. Army is still mired in Afghanistan because of their refusal to carry out drone attacks on Haqqani network in North Waziristan until recently and on Mullah Omar’s QST in Baluchistan.

With Gates/Petraeus/Mullen trio carrying out America’s Afghan policy, U. S. Afghan mission was destined to fail.