Special Section: Terrorist Attacks on America

United States Seeks Pakistan's Assistance

Tariq Rauf

Country Profile: Pakistan Located in South Asia, Pakistan shares a 1,800 kilometers (km) eastern border with India and a northeastern border with China. On the southwest it borders Iran, and Afghanistan on the west and the northern edge. The Arabian Sea forms the southern boundary. The territory covers 796,095 square km–roughly four times the size of the United Kingdom. Its population is more than 130 million. Pakistan has tested both ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Since their independence in August 1947, India and Pakistan have been involved in three major wars (in 1948, 1965, and 1971). President William Clinton described South Asia as the world's most dangerous place with respect to the risks of a nuclear war. United States - Pakistan Relations During the Cold War, Pakistan had been an enduring ally of the United States. It was a member of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) established by the United States to prevent the spread of Soviet influence. Furthermore, Pakistan had allowed the United States to use its northern airfields to operate its U-2 reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union. These spy flights were terminated in 1962, only after the Soviet Union threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, Pakistan became a key partner of the United States in supplying arms and ammunition to the Afghanistan resistance fighters–the mujahideen. The United States considers Pakistan a valuable strategic ally for several reasons: 1) it is a moderate Islamic state, whose influence in the Islamic world could advance U.S. interests; 2) it provides an important link to Central Asia; 3) it borders Afghanistan, thus providing leverage over that country; 4) it borders Iran and could act as an intermediary in eventually promoting U.S.-Iranian relations; and 5) as a new nuclear weapon state, Pakistan's stability is important in preventing nuclear proliferation. Pakistan's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs remain a major problem area in bilateral relations, which deteriorated in 1989-1990 when the United States imposed sanctions on Pakistan (as soon as the Soviets had been driven out of Afghanistan). Nuclear weapon tests carried out by Pakistan in May 1998, in response to similar tests initiated by India, further soured relations. Moreover, the dismissal of an elected civilian government by the Pakistan military in October 1998 strained relations even more. However, the Bush administration is re-orienting its South Asia policy, tacitly recognizing the existence of two nuclear weapon states in South Asia and is preparing to remove non-military sanctions that had been imposed on Pakistan and India.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center's twin towers and the Pentagon, as the United States seeks to identify the perpetrators and contemplates its possible responses, attention is turning to the role Pakistan can play in assisting a U.S. military strike on Afghanistan and in capturing alleged terrorist leader Usama Bin Laden. Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, has condemned the terrorist attacks and assured the United States of his unstinted cooperation in the fight against terrorism.[1]

President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, meeting with newly appointed U.S. ambassador, Wendy Chamberlain, in the President's House, Islamabad, on Thursday, September 13, 2001.

On September 13, President George W. Bush sought Pakistan's cooperation in hunting down those responsible.[2] He voiced his appreciation of the willingness of President General Pervez Musharraf to assist the United States. Earlier that same day, the new U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, presented her credentials in Islamabad and had a 40-minute one-on-one meeting with General Musharraf in which details of Pakistan's cooperation were reportedly discussed at length.

U.S. Requests

Apparently, the United States has asked Pakistan to: 1) close the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to cut off all activities and transits of Usama Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" group members in and around Pakistan; 2) freeze the assets in Pakistan of Afghanistan's Taliban rulers; 3) halt the supply of fuel to the Taliban; 4) provide intelligence information on Usama Bin Laden, his "al Qaeda" organization, and the Taliban collected by its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); 5) allow the use of its air space for offensive military operations against Afghanistan; 6) permit the stationing of U.S. covert forces in Pakistan, which would go in to capture Usama Bin Laden; and 7) respond positively to further U.S. requests for assistance. This list of demands was reportedly communicated by Secretary of State Colin Powell in a telephone call to General Musharraf on Thursday, September 13,[3] and by U.S. Ambassador Chamberlain.

Pakistan's Response

In recent years, the United States has stepped up its efforts to capture Usama Bin Laden for his alleged role in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. But these efforts have thus far been unsuccessful, despite the United States' firing more than 50 land-attack cruise missiles against Usama Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan in August 1998. The United States has also pressured both Pakistan and Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to capture and turn over Bin Laden. Thus far, Pakistan has offered moral rather than tangible support. But the terrorist attacks against the United States have completely changed the picture and placed Pakistan "between the devil and the deep blue sea," in the words of a local journalist.[4] General Musharraf has promised Pakistan's full cooperation in assisting the United States in combating terrorism globally, but apparently has not yet agreed to allow the United States to deploy forces in Pakistan. He has been meeting with his corps commanders to decide what else Pakistan could do.

Dilemmas for Pakistan

The dilemma for Pakistan is that, on the one hand, a wounded superpower is seeking retribution against the perpetrators of the deadliest attack against U.S. territory. On the other hand, however, domestic religious forces could destabilize the country in protest–if Pakistan's bases are used to strike against Bin Laden–as they consider him a soldier of Islam. The decision for General Musharraf is further compounded by crippling sanctions imposed against Pakistan by the United States for its nuclear weapon program and the lack of a democratic government. Secretary Powell noted, in this context, on Thursday, "They're sanctioned up to the eyeballs and they don't have that much aid now."[5] But the United States is considering the easing of sanctions in return for Pakistan's cooperation in apprehending Usama Bin Laden.

Pakistan can benefit economically by withdrawing its support for the Taliban and helping to capture Bin Laden. But it can lose in a big way domestically, if it accedes to U.S. pressure as powerful Islamist groups in Pakistan consider Bin Laden a hero and could destabilize Pakistan.

One of the consequences of the tragic events of September 11 is that Pakistan has run out of time and options. It now has to choose. But the choice is clear. Given the magnitude of the casualties in New York and Washington–history's deadliest terrorist attack–if it can be credibly established that Bin Laden is implicated in the attacks, Pakistan's only viable option would be to join the emerging international coalition against terrorism, and against Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban. It could assist the United States in capturing Usama Bin Laden and in delivering him either to the newly established International Criminal Court or to U.S. courts for trial.

U.S. Options

Secretary Powell has promised a multifaceted attack of many dimensions against the scourge of terrorism. But in exercising offensive military actions against Afghanistan and Bin Laden, the United States faces many difficulties. Any U.S. military retribution will be geographically complex and carries the risk of a wider war. Invasion or occupation of Afghanistan would be very difficult, as the Soviet Union discovered to its peril. And an invasion would require staging bases in Pakistan. The only other route open to the United States would be north through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan–a logistical and political nightmare. Afghanistan remains a rugged land, whose tenacious fighters have a history of bleeding and defeating invaders. It is not a place conducive to high-tech warfare. As U.S. forces discovered in Mogadishu, Somalia, it is very difficult for modern standing armies to oppose dispersed groups of guerilla fighters. An offensive military action in Afghanistan will require insertion of ground forces, thus risking servicepersons' lives.

The United States has three main options: The first option would be a well planned and well executed "surgical" air strike against Bin Laden's scattered bases. This would require precise intelligence information on the location of Bin Laden's whereabouts, accurate bombing in a geographically challenging environment, basing in Pakistan or at least refueling in its airspace, and defenses against U.S.-supplied Stinger shoulder-fired air-defense missiles left over from the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. The second would be a sustained air bombing campaign supported by ground forces and paratroopers. The drawbacks here include reliance on bases in Pakistan and the risk of heavy casualties given the mountainous terrain and asymmetric warfare. The third option would consist of a broader global war against terrorism that would take time, clandestine operations, and international cooperation. The chances of achieving meaningful successes probably would be low given the difficulty of sustainability. All three options would likely incur further terrorist strikes on U.S. territory and against those who assist Washington.

Current Developments

Already events are moving fast. On Thursday, September 13, Pakistan closed its airspace for several hours grounding all commercial flights. Speculation is rife that this might have been done to enable the United States to prepare to deploy a small group of forces at northern military bases in Pakistan. A day earlier, on September 12, U.S. Army General Tommy Franks, commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, arrived in Pakistan to discuss intelligence cooperation and possible military action. At the same time, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, met with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Furthermore, reportedly, Pakistan has frozen the accounts of the Taliban, has deployed an estimated 45,000 troops on high alert along the border with Afghanistan, and has provided updated information on Bin Laden's whereabouts. The United States has deployed two carrier battle groups in theater, which normally include fighter-bombers, and nuclear-powered attack submarines, battle cruisers, and destroyers armed with land-attack cruise missiles. And, for their part, the Taliban apparently are moving into battle positions.

There seems to be general nervousness in Pakistan and even among the United States' closest allies that it might act prematurely or disproportionately. There is also fear that the retaliation might not contain or defeat terrorism, thus leading to more terrorist incidents.