Those hoping that US President Donald Trump’s first tweet of the year threatening Pakistan signifies a major change in American policy towards the terrorist swamp should not hold their breath. Because several of his predecessors tried the same thing, and failed. There are two main reasons for this American dilemma, and they are difficult to address with aid cuts.
One is the fear of nuclear proliferation, and the second is the logistics of the never-ending war in Afghanistan. The wily former dictator Pervez Musharraf stayed on in power for over a decade by constantly telling the world that only he could guarantee that Pakistan’s ever-increasing nuclear arsenal did not find its way to other states or terror outfits. GHQ Rawalpindi continues to fuel this nuclear nightmare, pointing to the growing militancy within Pakistan which only the military can keep at bay.
As for Afghanistan, there is no way to keep the supply lines open for the 15,000 American troops there without access to Pakistan’s ports, airfields, rail and road network—which comes at a cost. And why are the American troops in Afghanistan? To ensure that Pakistan-backed Taliban and other terror outfits—funded by American money—do not regain control of Kabul. India resolved the problem of access to Afghanistan by funding the Iranian port of Chabahar and a road and rail network from there into Afghanistan. Trump, who believes Iran has a terrorist regime, does not have that option.
Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama took the fight to Pakistan, cutting aid, stepping up drone strikes along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and took out al-Qaeda chieftain Osama Bin Laden in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad. Nothing changed.
No doubt, Trump’s public denouncement of Pakistan needs to be applauded. But unless America’s dual fears are addressed by defanging Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and finding an alternate supply route into Afghanistan, one should not expect much from Washington bar a few cosmetic aid cuts.