Afghanistan, U.S. officials tell Reuters.
Potential
Trump administration responses being discussed include expanding U.S. drone
strikes, redirecting or withholding some aid to Pakistan and perhaps eventually
downgrading Pakistan's status as a major non-NATO ally, the officials said,
speaking on condition of anonymity.
Some U.S.
officials, however, are skeptical of the prospects for success, arguing that
years of previous U.S. efforts to curb Pakistan's support for militant groups
have failed, and that already strengthening U.S. ties to India, Pakistan's
arch-enemy, undermine chances of a breakthrough with Islamabad.
U.S.
officials say they seek greater cooperation with Pakistan, not a rupture in
ties, once the administration finishes a regional review of the strategy
guiding the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan.
Precise
actions have yet to be decided.
The White
House and Pentagon declined to comment on the review before its completion.
Pakistan's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
"The
United States and Pakistan continue to partner on a range of national security
issues," Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said.
But the
discussions alone suggest a shift toward a more assertive approach to address
safe havens in Pakistan that have been blamed for in part helping turn
Afghanistan's war into an intractable conflict.
Experts on
America's longest war argue that militant safe havens in Pakistan have allowed
Taliban-linked insurgents a place to plot deadly strikes in Afghanistan and
regroup after ground offensives.
Although
long mindful of Pakistan, the Trump administration in recent weeks has put more
emphasis on the relationship with Islamabad in discussions as it hammers out a
the regional strategy to be presented to Trump by mid-July, nearly six months
after he took office, one official said.
"We've
never really fully articulated what our strategy towards Pakistan is. The
strategy will more clearly say what we want from Pakistan specifically,"
the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Other U.S.
officials warn of divisions within the government about the right approach and
question whether any mix of carrots and sticks can get Islamabad to change its
behavior. At the end of the day, Washington needs a partner, even if an
imperfect one, in nuclear-armed Pakistan, they say.
The United States
is again poised to deploy thousands more troops in Afghanistan, an
acknowledgment that U.S.-backed forces are not winning and Taliban militants
are resurgent.
Without more
pressure on militants within Pakistan who target Afghanistan, experts say
additional U.S. troop deployments will fail to meet their ultimate objective:
to pressure the Taliban to eventually negotiate peace.
"I
believe there will be a much harder U.S. line on Pakistan going forward than
there has been in the past," Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to the
United States, told Reuters, without citing specific measures under review.
Kabul has
long been critical of Pakistan's role in Afghanistan.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks to the White
House in Washington, U.S. following his arrival from Camp David June 18, 2017.
REUTERS/Eric Thayer
Pakistan
fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory. It bristles
at U.S. claims that Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) directorate, has ties to Haqqani network militants blamed for some of the
deadliest attacks in Afghanistan.
"What
Pakistan says is that we are already doing a lot and that our plate is already
full," a senior Pakistani government source told Reuters, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
The source
doubted the Trump administration would press too hard, saying: "They don’t
want to push Pakistan to abandon their war against terrorism."
Pakistani
officials point towards the toll militancy has taken on the country. Since
2003, almost 22,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 Pakistani security forces have
been killed as a result of militancy, according to the South Asia Terrorism
Portal, which tracks violence.
Experts say
Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan is also driven in part by fears that
India will gain influence in Afghanistan.
IS PAKISTAN
AN ALLY?
Nuclear-armed
Pakistan won the status as a major non-NATO ally in 2004 from the George Bush
administration, in what was at the time seen in part as recognition of its
importance in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents.
The status
is mainly symbolic, allowing limited benefits such as giving Pakistan faster
access to surplus U.S. military hardware.
Some U.S.
officials and experts on the region scoff at the title.
"Pakistan
is not an ally. It’s not North Korea or Iran. But it’s not an ally," said
Bruce Riedel, a Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution.
But yanking
the title would be seen by Pakistan as a major blow.
"The
Pakistanis would take that very seriously because it would be a slap at their
honor," said a former U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Lisa Curtis,
senior director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council,
co-authored a report with Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's former ambassador to
Washington, in which they recommended the Trump administration warn Pakistan
the status could be revoked in six months.
"Thinking
of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next
administration as it did for the last one," said the February report.
It was unclear how seriously the Trump
administration was considering the proposal.
The growing
danger to Afghanistan from suspected Pakistan-based militants was underscored
by a devastating May 31 truck bomb that killed more than 80 people and wounded
460 in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
Afghanistan's
main intelligence agency said the attack - one of the deadliest in memory in
Kabul - had been carried out by the Haqqani network with assistance from
Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denies.
Washington
believes the strikes appeared to be the work of the Haqqani network, U.S.
officials told Reuters.
U.S.
frustration over the Haqqani's presence in Pakistan has been building for
years. The United States designated the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization
in 2012. U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, then the top U.S. military officer,
told Congress in 2011 that the Haqqani network was a "veritable arm"
of the ISI.
The
potential U.S. pivot to a more assertive approach would be sharply different
than the approach taken at the start of the Obama administration, when U.S.
officials sought to court Pakistani leaders, including Army chief General
Ashfaq Kayani.
David
Sedney, who served as Obama's deputy assistant secretary of defense for
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia from 2009 to 2013, said the attempt to
turn Islamabad into a strategic partner was a "disaster."
"It
didn't affect Pakistan's behavior one bit. In fact, I would argue it made
Pakistan's behavior worse," Sedney said.
MORE DRONES,
CASH CUT-OFF
Pakistan has
received more than $33 billion in U.S. assistance since 2002, including more
than $14 billion in so-called Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a U.S. Defense
Department program to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-insurgency
operations.
It is an
important form of foreign currency for the nuclear-armed country and one that
is getting particularly close scrutiny during the Trump administration review.
Last year,
the Pentagon decided not to pay Pakistan $300 million in CSF funding after
then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declined to sign authorization that
Pakistan was taking adequate action against the Haqqani network.
U.S. officials said the Trump
administration was discussing withholding at least some assistance to Pakistan.
Curtis'
report also singled out the aid as a target.
But U.S. aid
cuts could cede even more influence to China, which already has committed
nearly $60 billion in investments in Pakistan.
Another
option under review is broadening a drone campaign to penetrate deeper into
Pakistan to target Haqqani fighters and other militants blamed for attacks in
Afghanistan, U.S. officials and a Pakistan expert said.
"Now
the Americans (will be) saying, you aren't taking out our enemies, so therefore
we are taking them out ourselves," the Pakistan expert, who declined to be
identified, said.
Pakistan's
army chief of staff last week criticized "unilateral actions" such as
drone strikes as "counterproductive and against (the) spirit of ongoing
cooperation and intelligence sharing being diligently undertaken by
Pakistan".
REUTERS
0 Comments