OPINION:
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India last week was his best shot at implementing President Trump’s “new” strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He struck out.
In his August 21 speech outlining his strategy, Mr. Trump stuck with much of the failed nation-building strategy of the past 16 years, but went beyond it by announcing a change in our relationships with Pakistan and India.
The president said that Pakistan has long been a safe-haven for terrorist organizations. But, diplomatically, he didn’t state the fact that the Pakistani government through its “Inter-Service Intelligence” agency — ISI — has not just been harboring some of the most dangerous Islamic terrorist groups it is actively supporting them.
Before going to Pakistan, Mr. Tillerson made short trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. He asked the Iraqis to send home the Iranian-backed Shiite militias, an idea they rejected immediately. After meeting with Afghan President Ghani, he said the U.S. is ready to negotiate with the Taliban if they renounce extremism and violence. The Taliban would only do that to lure us into a Vietnam-like negotiation to cover our withdrawal and their rapid reconquest of the nation.
Pakistani reaction to Mr. Trump’s August speech was hostile, so Mr. Tillerson’s reception there was a cold one. Mr. Tillerson met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Abbasi, Foreign Minister Asif and the heads of the army and ISI. They assured him there were no terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan and that no terrorist attacks were planned there.
They were bound to do so because they need to maintain that political fiction. Decades ago Pakistan decided that Islamic terrorism was a matter of state policy in its constant war against India over the province of Kashmir. Support for terrorist networks has consistently grown.
There are several nations that have considerable influence over Pakistan, and we’re not one of them.
The Afghan Taliban are being armed by Russia. Russia does so with the knowledge and cooperation of ISI. For decades, the Saudis have sponsored radical Islamic madrassas in Pakistan which feed the terrorist ranks.
Xi Jinping’s China is most influential, investing tens of billions in Pakistan to create a band of influence across the nation known as the “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor” — CPEC — which enables China to build railroads, military bases including a soon-to-be-massive naval base on the Arabian Sea at Gwadar.
Terrorist activity in Pakistan is centered in Balochistan, a province bordering Iran and Afghanistan that’s about half the size of Texas.
The Taliban have several large bases and training centers in Balochistan near the Iranian and Afghan borders. For the past two years, competing sects among the Taliban — one supported by ISI and the other supported by Iran — have been trying to kill each other off. That’s the good news.
According to a reliable intelligence source who has requested anonymity the bad news is that ISI’s favorite terrorists include Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) — (LeT’s “charitable” front organization) — and the Milli Muslim League. LeT was the group that in 2008 attacked Mumbai, India killing over 150 and wounding over 300. LeT regularly carries out terrorist attacks against Indian targets in Kashmir. ISI is trying to turn both into legitimate political forces under the purview of the Milli Muslim League.
These groups range through the Balochistan. There, they are joined by Laskar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami (LeJ-A), one leader of which is considered the leader of ISIS in Pakistan. In 2014, an ISIS delegation visited Islamabad, and held talks with both JuD leaders and members of Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s Islamist political party.
Any American influence over Pakistan is what nearly two decades of payments and military aid have bought. It pales to insignificance compared to the influence of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia.
China, Iran and Russia — as well as Pakistan — seek to rid the region of U.S. and NATO presence. China, however, has considerably more at stake than the rest because CPEC is a means to expand its power in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Neither the Chinese nor the Pakistanis will try to defeat the terrorist networks. China will protect its interests against the terrorists and try to make it worthwhile for ISIS to help.
Mr. Tillerson’s Sisyphean task was performed amid Pakistani protestations of innocence and insincere promises to do better against terrorists within their borders. The rock rolled back down the hill as soon as Mr. Tillerson’s aircraft was wheels up.
Mr. Trump’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy cannot succeed because we lack the power and influence to make it happen. The best we can do in both countries is to deploy enough intelligence operatives, special forces and air power — mainly drones — to disrupt and attempt to contain the transnational terrorist networks thriving in both nations.
Pakistan has the status of a major non-NATO military ally, giving it access to much of our technology and intelligence information. The president can, and should, change that immediately. Pakistan is no friend of ours. Its status as a “major non-NATO ally,” entitling it to technology and intelligence, should be terminated.
The final part of Mr. Trump’s strategy, and Mr. Tillerson’s trip, was to strengthen our strategic relationship with India. India has been a principal victim of Pakistan-based terrorism. Greater military and intelligence cooperation between us and India won’t stop Pakistan-based terrorism but such joint efforts could, at least, begin its containment.
• Jed Babbin, a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, is the author of “In the Words of Our Enemies.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.