Hollowness of US allegations

In the wake of an attack on the US embassy in Kabul last week, Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that "the Haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's ISI". US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta appearing before the same committee also expressed frustration over sanctuaries of the said network in Pakistan and vowed that the US would safeguard its troops.
US top officials have also taken the same line in their comments on the episode and the US Senate Committee has demanded to link aid to Pakistan to its commitment to fight the militants. This blend of the severest indictment, blackmail and veiled threat to Pakistan in complete disregard of the sacrifices made by it and the dangers to its security as a consequence of siding with the US in the war on terror, has dealt a severe blow to the already strained relations between the two countries and exponentially enhanced anti-US feelings among the people of Pakistan. That indeed, has put the political and military leadership of Pakistan under tremendous public pressure to revisit its alliance with the US in the war on terror.
What is interesting to note is that despite the persistent allegations of the nexus between the Taliban and ISI, the US has never ever presented any concrete evidence to establish the veracity of its claims and has been using it as a pressure tactic to coerce the Pakistani leadership into compliance mode. Even in this particular instance, no verifiable evidence has been put forth. The reason for this unceremonious indiscretion by the US administration, apparently, seems to be the growing frustration over the failure of its counter-insurgency policy in Afghanistan, attempts to choreograph cleavage among the Taliban and imposing a solution of its own choice in that country before making an exit.
In the backdrop of the current scenario, it would be pertinent to pinpoint some contradictions in the US claims regarding the reasons behind the alleged linkages between the Taliban and the ISI. President Obama's adviser on Pakistan and Afghanistan Bruce Riedel, writing in the US media last week said, "Why are the ISI and the Pakistan Army making such risky moves? What is the calculation in the generals' minds? The short answer is, they believe we are on the run in Afghanistan and they want to push us out faster." Former US ambassador to Afghanistan and UN Zalmay Khalilzad in an article published in Washington Times in early July this year said "Pakistan despite being a partner of US in the war on terror was maintaining strong links with the militants and in sustaining the extremist threat, Pakistan sees a way to keep the US engaged in the region and therefore remain financially supportive of its military and civilian government." This glaring contradiction with regard to why Pakistan is maintaining alleged links with the Taliban, is enough to expose the hollowness of the US claims. Perhaps a reality check on the contentions of both the gentlemen would also help in putting things in their proper perspective. First let us consider the statement of Zalmay that Pakistan wants to prolong the US engagement for the financial dole outs for its army and the civilian government. Pakistan is thought to have sustained a loss of US $68 billion in the war against terror and lost nearly 38 thousand lives of security personnel and common citizens, besides facing an existentialist threat from the terrorists. And what the US has given to Pakistan is even less than one tenth of what it has lost. So why would Pakistan wish to continue suffering and keep on sustaining these financial losses, which its economy cannot afford over a long period of time? Only fools can give credence to this bizarre logic. Bruce Riedel's view that Pakistan wants to hasten the US's exit from Afghanistan through these sponsored attacks on US troops, also seems flimsy and frivolous in view of the fact that US exit from Afghanistan without peace returning to that war-ravaged country through an Afghan-led initiative supported by US, might plunge the country into factional fighting which undoubtedly would be inimical to Pakistan's strategic interests. Pakistan would be the last country to wish that.
Under the circumstances, the categorical rejection of US allegations by the Prime Minister and General Kayani, their resolve to protect Pakistan's vital interests and moves to evolve a consensus national strategy to deal with any eventuality arising out of possible US adventurism, is very reassuring and enjoys the support of the entire nation. Pakistan as a sovereign country is entitled to protect its strategic interests in the region and short of military confrontation must do every thing possible to reassert her position.
The US must realise that any unilateral action on Pakistan's soil or violation of its borders by forces from across the border would decimate the gains made in the war on terror through the combined efforts of the two allies and might also push the region into a never-ending armed conflict to the detriment of the strategic interests of Pakistan and the US and also scuttle the chances of an honourable exit of the latter from Afghanistan. Pakistan and the US need each other to take the war on terror to its logical end. The blame-game must give way to a rational and continued engagement between them to achieve the objectives of war on terror. The US must appreciate the fact that it is not only the US embassy or other Nato targets in Afghanistan, which have been attacked, Pakistan also has been a victim of such attacks on its security pickets from across the border and a spate of suicide attacks coinciding with the Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. While US and Nato forces are killing Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is fighting the terrorists and militants on its own soil, they must always be prepared to face such retaliatory attacks from the Taliban because they are not going to send them bouquets in return for the military action against them. It is as simple as that.
The COAS while addressing the Nato Chiefs of Defence meeting in Spain also stressed the point that while Pakistan remained committed to the war on terror, it had the sovereign right to formulate policies in accordance with its national interests and the wishes of the people.