US vs. Pakistan:The web tangled…

I have an abiding superstition which prevents me from filing my story early, or even on time. My experience has been that whenever I do, something big happens which makes my previous article seem trivial by comparison. And so it was, this week, when I slipped and hit the "send" button, important events were evolving that would, once again, supersede any ruminations I may have committed to paper.

I have not often commented on US military policy, perhaps because I understand the hypocrisy of enjoying the benefits of a militarily mighty nation, yet not being completely supportive of the troops. In my own family, I am proud to say that I have a daughter who is considering serving her country out of a sense of patriotic duty, and is training at her university.

Yet, last week has highlighted all the misgivings I have about placing a great military power in the hands of the people who very rarely pay attention to what is going on overseas. The killing of children in Afghanistan, and the death of Pakistani soldiers should force patriots here to contemplate the message our military is delivering across the globe.

Americans often support the most un-American governments in the world. We do so against the admonishments of our Founding Fathers, who saw our new nation becoming one united not so much by common language, shared religious beliefs, or even mutual political positions. Instead, we were supposed to be a bastion for individualist thought, and an example for the triumph of enlightenment that all nations could follow. In practice, even at the earliest stages of our history, this has rarely been the case. We used our military power to subdue the Native American, to invade and conquer Mexican lands like Texas and California, we have sought out any provocation to extend our geopolitical influence, often at the expense of the same principles that we so highly value at home.

At the same time, I am proud that we will prosecute our soldiers for crimes they commit abroad. I was happy to see that a military tribunal could convict an American for his brutal, inhuman acts in Afghanistan, albeit a little leniently for my taste. Still, I do not think many nations would hold their soldiers accountable at all.

In the United States, many students of history believe in the "conspiracy theory", the idea that everything that occurs is intentional, and that the consequences are preplanned. I am not a believer. I think that much of history is an accident that clever people are able to take advantage of.

The souring of relations between Pakistan and the United States could be, in less dangerous times, a prelude to an American supported change of government, which would somehow deprive Pakistan of its nuclear arsenal. I have heard such rumors on the Internet. Some think the attack on the Pakistani soldiers is meant to sour our relations with Pakistan. I do not think this was the intended consequence, in fact, I believe the NATO strike more than anything else, highlights the dangers of using drones instead of "boots on the ground".

Who benefits from the tensions between Pakistan and the United States? The obvious answer is India. America's enmity toward India's declared neutrality ended with the demise of the Soviet Union. However, Bangladesh could also profit from the cooling of relations between the US and Pakistan.

Bangladesh was able to shed its military dictatorship. If Bangladesh were to prosper economically as Pakistan falls into disarray, then perhaps the Pakistani people would decide that it was time for a "Pakistani spring". The United States might support such a movement, especially if it established a system of government similar to that which exists now in Bangladesh. Because, for some unknown reason, the American people really do not understand subtleties in foreign affairs, or ever elect anyone who's read a history book, the United States may look to bolster the Bangladeshi economy in the hopes of ushering in a moderate democratic state which was not hostile to India.

Would anyone in the US State Department raised his hand and say, "but what about the Kashmir region? What about the fact that Bangladesh and Pakistan were so entirely different that Bangladesh fought to break away from Pakistan's oppression?" Our diplomats may lack the subtlety to ask those types of questions, preferring Disney endings where lions do not pray on meerkats and warthogs.

I say, "Why not just leave everyone alone?"

"But what of the War on Terror?" some Americans may ask. "And… Don't we need a foreign policy? Without a military presence on every continent, wouldn't we become…

…Canada?"

The truth is, that sticking our military nose into other people's business has cost us a great deal monetarily, and has won us no new friends in the world. Instead of attempting to manipulate the politics of far-flung regions, we should subscribe to that greatest doctrine of American foreign-policy, penned by Science Fiction Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, and applied to the United Federation of Planets: that there must never be interference with the internal development of alien civilisations. Maybe if we had followed that philosophy, instead of military bases in Afghanistan, we might already have had colonies on Mars.

The American reaction to the Pakistani situation is now important. By supporting the US, the Pakistani military has lost any modicum of credibility it may have had in the eyes of its people. I am no expert on Pakistan, I know next to nothing about the country, so my opinions are that of amateur. Nevertheless, I think that the Pakistani people tolerate the military because of the perception of a common enemy, a disputed territory, and the threat of destabilisation and chaos without a strong government in charge. But I do not think it is immaterial to the people of Pakistan that the United States at least ostensibly supports this government. The government must express outrage and close its bases or be seen as allowing a foreign power to act with impunity within its borders.

The problem for the Pakistani military is that if the United States hastens its withdrawal from Afghanistan, its raison d'être, at least in the eyes of the United States has ceased to be, and it is now simply a military dictatorship in an Islamic country (a red flag for US foreign policy), with nuclear capabilities. Just as United States once supported the mujahedin in Afghanistan and armed Saddam Hussein, the fact that interests, not principles govern our foreign policy will mean that the United States will attempt to discard Pakistan as soon as it is no longer of use. Pakistan may attempt to align itself with Iran, and with Afghanistan squarely in the middle, such an alignment could easily negate any gains made by the United States in that region of the world. My advice to the American military is: spend billions to create a time machine, jump in, and then stop the United States from participating in any military activity that did not directly involve a threat to America's borders.

And if we must get involved, let our standard be to support self-determination, whether or not it coincides with our particular way of thinking. If that were our motus operani, we may not be the target of any terrorist attacks, and we could save millions on military spending, and spare countless lives. Well, that's what this American thinks, anyway.

I am especially curious to see what you all think, since you are probably in a much better position to judge. After all, you have not just read your history books, many of you have been on the receiving end of both American and Pakistani foreign policy.

————————————–
Frank Domenico Cipriani writes a weekly column in the Riverside Signal called "You Think What You Think And I'll Think What I Know." He is also the founder and CEO of The Gatherer Institute — a not-for-profit public charity dedicated to promoting respect for the promoting respect for the environment and empowering individuals to become self-taught and self-sufficient. His most recent book, "Learning Little Hawk's Way of Storytelling", teaches the native art of oral tradition storytelling.