Troubles with Pakistan

I've been arguing it for a few months in my college debate rounds, among my friends and family, and over a few Facebook rants, but it's time to present my views to the world of blogging. It is my concern that we are on the brink of much darker times in Pakistan and bordering Afghanistan than even in recent times. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Negative reactions to the US's use of drone strikes in the northwestern region of the country are beginning to exponentially increase. Not only do the CIA's reported number of civilian casualties in the region appear to be misleading, including reports of hundreds of children killed in the drone war, but recent blunders such as NATO's attack on Palestinian military bases are quickly bringing the issue of American intervention to the forefront of political issues within the country, sparking mass protests encouraged by televised broadcasts of some of the fallen Pakistani soldiers' funerals.

It is quickly becoming apparent that the claims that we receive general support from the majority of Pakistanis (we're helping get rid of violent terrorists, right?) are simply untrue, with Pew Research polls showing only about 12% of Pakistanis hold a favorable view of the US, and a significant majority view the United States as more of an enemy than an ally (69% vs. 6%). We've also witnessed negative responses from the Pakistani government as well, with the country cutting off a crucial NATO supply route to Afghanistan, as well as a withdrawal from an international conference in Germany regarding Pakistan's neighbor. With Russia also considering blocking NATO's other major supply route through their country, US efforts in Afghanistan are sure to be hurt.

Well, that all sucks, right? Here's the clincher. Most talks concerning our "alliance" with Pakistan defend it on claims that we must maintain a strong presence so as to ensure that the weakened government maintains control over it's people, and more importantly its nuclear stockpile. However, it's becoming clear that American involvement has not only decreased support for the Pakistani government, who is blamed for allowing such travesties to occur, but is directly leading to increased support for the very terrorist threats we are attempting to quell. The idea of "blowback" isn't new, and is perhaps most famously espoused by Republican presidential contender Ron Paul. We can see evidence of this reaction already in the protests currently occurring.

"We're going to teach America the kind of lesson that is going to make them forget about Vietnam.", "Jihad is the only response to the U.S." and "Friends of the U.S. are traitors to Islam." are among some of the many statements made by leaders of various Islamic groups and protesters in response to the recent NATO attacks.

It seems that the damaged US-Pakistani relations are set to be a key issue in discussions of Middle-Eastern foreign policies, and one can only hope that a more reasonable and well-crafted approach to the issues will be looked to in the future.

The question, from Pakistan's viewpoint, seems to be centered around how to react to the US and NATO's recent actions. Pakistani Government officials have claimed the November 26 attacks "were totally unacceptable and constituted a flagrant breach of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and violated portions of international law and the UN Charter. Furthermore, the government has also conveyed "in no uncertain terms, to the United States and NATO, that these attacks w[ill] have consequences".

It seems as if perhaps the most crucial decisions regarding Pakistani-US relations are now beyond our control. Should Pakistan officials decide against continued unconditional support of the US's efforts in the region, some or all of our questionable (read objectionable) actions within the country will be hindered, something I regard as a net positive. It could mean a reduction or even an end to the use of drone strikes, a substantial decrease in the growing resentment towards the US, as well as a more stable Pakistani government, which despite complaints and accusations, has been largely supportive of anti-terrorist efforts both with and without America's assistance. Terrorism has little likelihood of increasing should the US scale down a presence in the region, and the Pakistani government will be more capable of handling the problem of extremists without American "help".

However, should the Pakistani government fail to react to the recent NATO attacks with enough severity or resolve, they will find themselves at the mercy of an increasingly un-supportive populace. Not to mention a recent scandal which has empowered the political clout of military leaders and opposition parties in the country, some of which have been accused of assisting terrorist efforts. The fears of an unpredictable, radicalized, or unstable nuclear-capable Pakistan are looking to shortly become a reality as a result of US and NATO actions within the country if Pakistan decides to continue our unholy alliance.

Well, that's my two cents. What do you think?