Barack Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan is worrying Islamabad, writes Graham Usher in New York On 10 December Pakistani President Asif Zardari wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times. He pledged his country's support to America's latest strategy to defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. "The free world stands with President Obama in the effort to defeat the extremism that threatens us all," he said. But he also expressed anxiety. "A history of inconsistent United States policy undercuts our fight against extremism," he added. Of all Kabul's neighbours, Islamabad is most alarmed by Barack Obama's decisions to augment by 30,000 soldiers the US military strength in Afghanistan and then "drawdown" those forces by July 2011. Pakistan's powerful military is opposed to the "surge". Its weak civilian government is worried by the "exit", fearing that Pakistan will lose its status as a frontline state and the largess that goes with it. And its people fear both. Unveiling the strategy on 1 December, Obama was clear about Afghanistan and opaque about Pakistan. For Kabul the purpose of the surge is to roll back the Taliban and build the Afghan military and police so that America can gradually turn the counterinsurgency over to them. For Pakistan the purpose is a mix of velvet and steel. "America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent," vowed Obama. But it would "not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear." This includes the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, "the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by Al-Qaeda," he said. Privately, the threat is explicit. In a visit to Islamabad last month, US National Security Adviser James Jones offered Pakistan a choice: either go after the Afghan Taliban and other insurgents on its side of the border or the US would act independently. "Jones's message was if Pakistani help wasn't forthcoming, the US would have to do it themselves," said a Pakistan official. According to American press reports, Obama has already approved a new CIA plan that would not only widen the scope of US drone attacks to include Baluchistan, deep inside Pakistan, where Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is said to be based. It would also permit US Special Forces to invade Pakistan territory in pursuit of Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda fighters. "Obama would not see the border dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan as a barrier if he was responding to [Taliban] strikes emanating from Pakistan," Jones reportedly told Pakistan leaders. This is no bluff. In his ten months in office Obama has authorised more drone attacks and killed more Pakistanis, Afghans and others inside Pakistan than did George W Bush in eight years. Elsewhere the president has said that "no amount of additional troops would succeed" in Afghanistan "if the Taliban could retreat to Pakistani havens". Despite this enormous pressure the Pakistan military has yet to yield to the American dictate. Few Pakistani analysts believe it can. The army fears an influx of US troops will push Taliban and other insurgents into Pakistan, inflaming a border region already wracked by separatist and Islamist violence. In South Waziristan -- near the Afghan border -- the army is embroiled in a fight against the Pakistan Taliban. This has involved 30,000 troops, 40,000 refugees and retaliatory strikes in cities that have left more than 400 people dead. Islamabad has no desire to become an anvil to the American hammer. Widening the drone attacks to deep within Pakistan would also raise anti- American sentiment to toxic levels, warn analysts. Several of the drone attacks have been coordinated with Pakistan's intelligence forces, especially those targeting Al-Qaeda fugitives. But others have not. Many have killed civilians. And all are "counterproductive" to military efforts to separate the militants from the tribes, says Army spokesman General Athar Abbas. In essence the US is asking Islamabad not only to go after Al-Qaeda and Pakistan Taliban militants fighting the Pakistan state but also the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani faction that uses Pakistani territory to fight the US in Afghanistan. This is too wide a front, says General Abbas. "If we take on all the tribal militias, including the Haqqani and [other] groups, and the US leaves Afghanistan tomorrow, then we will be alone to face a tribal uprising. We do not want their short-term gain to be our long-term pain." Historically Pakistan has used the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani to fight its proxy war with India for influence inside Afghanistan. That was why Islamabad was one of the few state supporters of the Taliban regime in the 1990s. It is why the army has ties and provides sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban today. With American withdrawal now in sight, the idea the army will abandon these alliances is illusory. On the contrary, they will be nurtured not so much to resist Obama's surge but to project the army's interests in the wake of America's departure. "We have a problem on our eastern border [with India]," says General Abbas. So "we are concerned by India's over involvement in Afghanistan. We see it as encirclement. What happens tomorrow if American trainers [of the Afghan army] are replaced by Indian trainers? The leadership in Afghanistan is completely dominated by an India-friendly Northern Alliance [the Afghan militia that helped topple the Taliban in 2001 with US Special Forces]. The Northern Alliance's affiliation with India makes us very uncomfortable. We see in it a future two-front war scenario."
