U.S. moves threaten turmoil inside Pakistan

“I think possibly we’ve reached a turning point,” said Mustafa Alani, the director of security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. “Insurgents now are more active, more organized, and the political environment, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, favors insurgent activities.” (AP, June 30)

If Alani’s assessment is accurate, it means that Washington’s aggression in the entire region now threatens to spread conflict to another country, this one with a population estimated at 170 million. Far from bringing democracy, development and progress to Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. intervention has brought war, chaos and inter-ethnic fighting, and it has aroused anti-imperialist resistance. The same can be expected for Pakistan.

For the past two months, more occupation troops have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Pakistan is currently the supply route from the Indian Ocean to the 60,000 U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan. These war supplies, whose route runs through the border regions of Pakistan, are obviously legitimate targets for the Afghan resistance.

For these reasons alone, Alani’s comment must be taken seriously. A major background article in the June 30 New York Times—based on off-the-record interviews with many top U.S. officials in the region—reinforces the idea that Pakistan itself is a crisis area, that the war is spreading there from Afghanistan, and that even more direct U.S. intervention is in the works.

U.S. officials in Afghanistan also say the Pakistani border regions are a base area for the Taliban, which is what Washington calls all factions of the Afghan resistance movement, and for Al Qaeda. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan allegedly drove Al Qaeda leaders into the mountains on the border with Pakistan. Since the spring of 2002, Washington has demanded that Pakistan allow U.S. Special Forces to operate from bases inside Pakistan.

According to the Times, despite pressure from President George Bush, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf only agreed to allow certain U.S. Special Forces to accompany Pakistani troops. By 2003, complaints from the local Pakistanis ended this arrangement.

People of the Pashtun ethnic group live on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border, which is an arbitrary line imposed by the British Empire in the 19th century. People on both sides are hostile to U.S. occupation.

U.S. bombs Pakistani army unit

The failure to crush the resistance forces in Pakistan’s so-called “tribal regions” has led to U.S. criticism of the Pakistani army. According to the Times, there were even angry arguments between the CIA bureaus in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, and in Virginia. That officials discussed these problems with the media indicates the depth of the problems.

The Pakistani army points to its loss of 1,000 troops fighting in the tribal regions, double the losses of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as proof it is sharing in the “war on terror.” Despite these losses, on June 11, U.S. forces acting from Afghan bases bombed a unit of the Pakistani army, killing one officer and 12 soldiers. Many Pakistanis believe this bombing was no accident, just part of U.S. pressure on the Pakistan government to step up its intervention.

As June ended, there have even been reports in the corporate media that “Taliban forces” have surrounded Peshawar, a city of 3 million people only 90 miles from Islamabad. According to these reports, “Many of the rich have fled their mansions and left for Dubai. Middle-class families are packing for other places in Pakistan, and the poor are vulnerable to the militants’ entreaties.” (New York Times, June 28) Though it uses distorted language, this article indicates that poor people around Peshawar are supporting the resistance.

The current U.S. push to pressure the Pakistani army to attack in the border regions and to allow more direct U.S. intervention threatens to destabilize Pakistan. The new Pakistan parliament elected this year had attempted, with some success, to sign a peace agreement with forces in the border regions. The army had pulled back from positions in this territory, and both sides had exchanged prisoners.

The U.S. and NATO opposed this agreement, arguing that it would allow pro-Taliban forces to carry out attacks against the “coalition” forces inside Afghanistan.

On June 30, as Pakistani forces entered a border area, an explosion destroyed the house of a Pakistani leader of the armed struggle, killing some residents. Witnesses say this attack came from rockets inside Afghanistan. A pro-Taliban leader told Samma TV that the peace agreement would be voided and that his fighters would carry the fighting to urban areas in Pakistan.

If Washington succeeds in sabotaging the peace agreement, it will mean increased turmoil and suffering for the people of Pakistan. Whether this turmoil allows the Pentagon to capture or kill some of its supposed enemies in the border areas, or further extends Washington’s Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, is still to be seen.