With 'allies' like Pakistan, does the US need enemies?

US President Barack Obama warned Pakistan on Thursday that its ties with “unsavory characters” have put relations with the United States at risk, as he ratcheted up pressure on Islamabad to cut alleged links with militants mounting attacks in Afghanistan. Obama accused Pakistan’s leaders of “hedging their bets” on Afghanistan’s future, but stopped short of threatening to cut off US aid, despite calls from lawmakers for a tougher line over accusations that Pakistani intelligence supported strikes on US targets in Afghanistan. [caption id=“attachment_77863” align=“alignright” width=“380” caption=“Just how much worse can things get between the US and Pakistan? Reuters”] [/caption] Wading into a diplomatic fight that has threatened an already testy security partnership, Obama sought to calibrate his words to make clear US resolve on the issue while avoiding further escalation of tensions. “There is no doubt that there’s some connections that the Pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling,” Obama told a White House news conference. His comments followed accusations by outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that Afghanistan’s Haqqani militant group was a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency. Pakistan’s government has vehemently denied this, and last week Obama made remarks suggesting some doubt or debate about the intelligence behind Mullen’s allegation. Obama did not explicitly endorse Mullen’s assertion and spoke only of Pakistani links to individuals, not to the whole of the Haqqani network, one of the most lethal Taliban-allied groups fighting US-led forces in Afghanistan. ‘Hedged their bets’ But Obama made clear that future US-Pakistani relations will depend heavily on whether Islamabad complies with Washington’s demands to sever connections with insurgents. “They have hedged their bets in terms of what Afghanistan would look like,” Obama said. “And part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left.” Obama said the United States remained committed to helping Pakistan confront its problems and that he would “hesitate to punish … aid for flood victims in Pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services.” But he said the United States would constantly evaluate its relationship with Pakistan based on whether it was “helping to protect Americans and our interests.” Obama wants to stabilise Afghanistan as US forces are drawn down with the goal of ending their combat mission by 2014. “There’s no doubt that we’re not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with Pakistan if we don’t think that they’re mindful of our interests as well,” he said. Obama said the United States and Pakistan were cooperating on a “whole range of issues” and that recent successes against al Qaeda-linked forces in the region would not have been possible without Pakistani help. But he also said that Pakistan, fearful of traditional foe India and anxious to maintain its influence in Afghanistan as the US military withdraws, had been “more ambivalent” about some US goals in the region.- US-Pak time may never be the same again Analysts reckon that after the very public falling out between Pakistan and the Pentagon, the US military’s new leaders are unlikely to replicate the close bond that the outgoing US military boss had with his Pakistani peer. The “Pakistani problem,” at least as far as critical security ties go, is now in the hands of General Martin Dempsey, who became US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman this month, and Leon Panetta, who became defence secretary in July. As mutual hostility deepens and many US officials resign themselves to a narrow, arms-length alliance with Pakistan, the two men’s ability to forge ties with security officials in Islamabad is unlikely to count as much as it once might have. “The United States is turning a corner with Pakistan and entering uncharted territory, and Dempsey and Panetta will represent the new realism with Pakistan,” said retired US General David Barno, who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. Absent in the new era will likely be anything approaching the famous friendship that Admiral Mike Mullen, Dempsey’s predecessor, had with General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan’s army boss and arguably the country’s most powerful man. That shift echoes a hollowing of civilian ties since the sudden death last year of Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke’s death left Obama without a rock-star diplomat to lobby for peace talks and try to twist Pakistan’s arm on pursuing militants. ‘Fundamentally at odds’ “Relations with Pakistan are (now) less about the personalities involved than they are the factual nature of the relationship,” said Jeff Dressler, a regional expert at the Institute for Study of War in Washington. “We have apparently come to the realisation that the US and Pakistan do not have the same objectives in Afghanistan and that, fundamentally, we are at odds on many issues.” The bond Mullen shared with Kayani was an important channel in an often troubled relationship – until just days before Mullen stepped down, when he bluntly accused Pakistani intelligence of supporting a 13 September militant attack on the US Embassy in Kabul. Putting the past behind them? Panetta, a plain-talking veteran politician, now faces the challenge of moving beyond past ties fraught with suspicion and mutual distrust. As CIA director from 2009 to 2011, Panetta was a foil to the more conciliatory Mullen. His role spearheading US intelligence on alleged Pakistani links to militants made for prickly talks with ISI boss Ahmed Shuja Pasha. ISI officials say Pasha felt slighted by Mullen’s accusations, and similar comments from Panetta, whom Pasha used to consider a ‘good friend.’ They voice disappointment with both Panetta and his CIA replacement, former Afghanistan commander David Petraeus. Panetta is associated in Islamabad with the covert drone strikes on militants’ border hide-outs, which have increased sharply since Obama took office in early 2009. “In Pakistan, they don’t like Panetta, period,” said Joshua Foust, a fellow at the American Security Project. “It could be because he knows a lot of dirt, but also just by running the drones program – which everyone thinks is the exclusive domain of the Director of Central Intelligence, whatever the reality is – he garnered a lot of ill-will.” “There have been moments of tensions, but by the same token the Pakistanis have seen Panetta as an honest broker,” a senior US official said on condition of anonymity. “That’s our perception, someone with whom they may disagree but someone with whom they can work.” It was that ‘honest broker’ reputation, the official said, that helped the two nations weather the storm that followed the secret US raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden deep inside Pakistan in May. Order of magnitude If Panetta may struggle in putting the past behind him, his uniformed counterpart Dempsey could grapple with building deep ties, given his lower profile and limited on-the-ground regional experience. “My estimate is that you’re going to see Dempsey much less engaged by an order of magnitude than Mullen,” said Barno, who attended the U.S. Army Command and Staff College in Kansas at the same time as Dempsey and Kayani in the 1980s. As acting and deputy head of Central Command in 2007-2008, Dempsey made at least half a dozen trips to Pakistan and met with Kayani a number of times. But he has not served in Afghanistan and his combat views may have been shaped more by his extensive on-the-ground experience in Iraq. “Yes, (the relationship) is strained, and yes, we are working on overcoming a deficit of trust,” Dempsey said through a spokesman. “However, I expect Pakistan to act against terrorists like Haqqani that kill Americans and threaten our interests,” he said, referring to the insurgent group that Washington blames for attacks on U.S. targets in Afghanistan. Dempsey and Panetta may share a reluctance to sidle up too closely to Pakistan, fearing domestic political fallout from new revelations about Islamabad’s ties to militants. Both will have to focus on close-to-home issues such as shielding the military from massive budget cuts. The man who appears to be already working to develop closer ties with Pakistan’s military is General James Mattis, who heads US Central Command, the job that Petraeus departed to become Obama’s pinch hitter in Afghanistan in 2010. Since becoming the regional boss a little over a year ago, Mattis has visited Pakistan six times, and he will likely take a more hands-on approach with Pakistan as he lets the field commander in Afghanistan manage the day-to-day war there. Yet if the relationship takes another sharp turn for the worse, it will be up to Panetta and Dempsey to scramble to hold it together. REUTERS