More on "Bye, Bye Zardari", Hello Pakistan Military

Related Post: Bye Bye Zardari (Again)? Washington Considers The Political Alternative in Pakistan

A few hours after I wrote Washington's latest political strategy to isolate Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, I read this from Washington Post columnist and de facto Government spokesman David Ignatius:

President Obama convened a crisis meeting at the White House last Monday to hear a report from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had just returned from Pakistan. Mullen described the worrying situation there, with Taliban insurgents moving closer to the capital, Islamabad.

"It had gotten significantly worse than I expected as the Swat deal unraveled," Mullen explained in an interview.

So Ignatius has revealed not only that the Obama Administration sees Pakistan as the priority crisis, beyond even Afghanistan, but how eager the Government is to show its concern.

Once again, Admiral Mullen is using the columnist to put out his views. More importantly, and in contrast to the inter-Administration divisions over Iraq and Afghanistan, his President shares the pessimism: that is why Obama came down so hard on Islamabad in his press conference on Wednesday.

But Ignatius, even as he makes a mockery of the notion of an independent (let alone critical) journalist, does far more. He channels the Administration's praise for recent Pakistani operations --- "what encourages U.S. officials is that recent events have been a wake-up call for a Pakistani elite in denial about the Taliban threat" --- and tips off Washington's increasing reliance on Islamabad's military:

"My biggest concern is whether [the Pakistani government] will sustain it," Mullen said. He has told his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that "we are prepared to assist whenever they want." During his recent visit, Mullen toured two Pakistani counterinsurgency training camps and came away impressed.

There's also a tip of the hat to the political dimension, which we've noted and The New York Times confirmed yesterday: "Politically, the United States is looking increasingly to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif....Officials note that 60 percent of the Pakistani population lives in Punjab and that Sharif's popularity rating there is over 80 percent."

Ignatius does reveal one possible US scrap that might be thrown to Zardari, some semblance of a Pakistani involvement in US drone airstrikes. Even that, however, should be seen as a signal to Pakistan's military, which has been uneasy about the American attacks, rather than the President.

Ignatius concludes his piece with the pretence that he is critiquing American policy:

The growing crisis mentality in Washington poses its own threat to a sound Pakistan policy. It could produce red-hot American rhetoric and a corresponding U.S. impatience -- and that, in turn, would only make the Pakistanis more uneasy.

Don't be misled: The Post columnist is just a mouthpiece for Washington's message. When he finishes, "Success depends on Islamabad's recognition that it's their problem and that they must act decisively," you might as well add: "in doing what we want".

It's a message that no doubt will be delivered, not by a newspaper, but by Obama's officials when Zardari visits Washington this week.

Aid and Warning: Clinton Backs Abbas, Gives Zardari Space, Puts Karzai on Notice

Video and Transcript: Robert Gates Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)
Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)

Quick question: which of these three --- President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai (pictured), or former President of the West Bank Mahmoud Abbas --- should be feeling most secure this morning about support from Washington?

If you went for one of the two who are legally in office at the moment, you need to do some homework, maybe watching the entire 140 minutes of the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. On the other hand, if you voted for Abbas (something will not be occurring in Palestinian elections in the near-future), take a bow and join the Clinton/Gates team.

The clear backing of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, unnoticed by the media this morning, came in Clinton's opening statement:

At Sharm el-Sheikh last month, on behalf of the President, I announced a pledge of $900 million for humanitarian, economic, and security assistance for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.

Notice, not to Gaza, which suffered the damage from the recent war --- as we have pointed out repeatedly, 2/3 of this aid is earmarked for the West Bank. And most definitely no assistance which benefits or has any connection with the Gaza Government of Hamas: "[There are] stringent requirements to prevent aid from being diverted into the wrong hands."

Put bluntly, this aid is not primarily, as Clinton claimed, for "humanitarian" purposes; the objective is political and the primary beneficiary is Mahmoud Abbas.

As we wrote yesterday, President Zardari in Pakistan might want to watch his back, but he did get off lightly yesterday. Clinton and Gates played nice with him in their statements. Their primary purpose was to get Congressional support for the initial tranche of $500 million in military and economic assistance, so they did not raise doubts that America's partner in Islamabad might not be reliable. Instead, they stuck with general references for "diplomacy and development, to work with the Pakistani Government, Pakistani civil society, to try to provide more economic stability and diminish the conditions that feed extremism".

The recent Pakistani military operations to push back Taliban operations in Buner province seems to have given Zardari a bit of breathing space, even if he's not the prime mover behind that offensive. Clinton said:

The Government of Pakistan, both civilian and military leadership, is demonstrating much greater concern about the Taliban encroachment. We're getting a much more thoughtful response and actions. It was heartening to see  the military sent into Buner province this weekend.

Afghanistan President Karzai was not so lucky. Consider this from Clinton's opening statement:

Bringing stability to [Afghanistan] is not only a military mission; it requires more than a military response. So we have requested $980 million in assistance to focus on rebuilding the agricultural sector, having more political progress, helping the local and provincial leadership deliver services for their people.

Hmmm, which level of government is not mentioned in that passage? I'm thinking "national".

And, if you believe that was just an oversight, Clinton made her distrust of Karzai more than clear in response to a question from Senator Barbara Mikulski about "cronyism and corruption", narcotics, and "the status and security of women" 50 minutes into the hearing. Clinton responded:

With respect to the Government, its capacity, its problems providing services, its perception of being less than transparent, straightforward, honest: it's a problem, I'm not going to tell you it's not.

Clinton immediately mentioned "significant pockets of progress we want to build on", such as the building up of the Afghan Army, but then returned to putting Karzai on notice: "We have made it very clear that we expect changes. We expect accountability, and we're going to demand it."

This, however, was not the stinger in Clinton's response. That came instead in this phrase, "Several members of the Cabinet are doing an excellent job.". It's notable and far-from-subtle that Karzai, facing re-election in August, was not named amongst those members.

Of course Clinton was shrewd enough not to name any of the "excellent" members. Open American endorsement of any Cabinet Minister who challenges Karzai would be the kiss of electoral death, and Clinton made clear, "We are not taking a position in this Presidential election. We are neither for nor against

However, when Mikulsi asked if Karzai would co-operate with the US in its effects against the Taliban and narcotics, Clinton was not so cautious: "That is what we are demanding of him."

So, in Ramallah in the West Bank, an ex-President can breathe easily this morning. A current President in Kabul, however, best be sleeping with one eye open tonight