Provocations in Pakistan

The recent US military incursions into Pakistan seem to be happening out of frustration with the Pakistani government's apparent inability to stop militants from crossing into Afghanistan, even though elements of the Pakistan army are fighting tribal militants in border regions. These US raids always struck me as extremely dangerous violations of Pakistan's sovereignty because they risked upsetting the internal stability of a nuclear power. I mean, why on Earth would anyone think that's a smart thing to do.

Then something occurred to me: we're not dealing with the cleverest of people.

Then something else occurred to me: what if stirring up a hornet's nest in Pakistan is intentional?

Now, put yer tinfoil hat on and follow my raw thinking.

Crudely:

In Afghanistan we have desperately under-resourced US and NATO missions that are, by nearly all accounts, failing. Part of the US/NATO failure is that insurgency in Afghanistan has a logistical base in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The other part is, as I said, a complete lack of coherence and resources. Some say the Western forces are under-sourced by several hundred thousand troops. Given this situation, there seems to be very little chance of the US/NATO defeating the local insurgency and accomplishing the development mission. They aren't going to get the troops, they aren't going to get the money, and the insurgents are still hopping along like so many electric rabbits. Military commanders and politicians know this regardless of their public spin.

So, what do you do to win? Shift the war to somebody else's country.

In Pakistan, the UN and other countries are pulling out the families of their diplomatic staff (never a good sign) in response to a spreading insurgent bombing campaign inside Pakistan's borders. This insurgent campaign is in turn a response to greater US and Pakistan military strikes against insurgents in Pakistan. These strikes kill both insurgent and civilian alike. Attacking the Taleban in what was a mostly safe area for them makes military sense in that it disrupts their logistics and planning. In the context of Pakistan's tribal hinterland, it may also trigger righteous anger and drive more people to the [insurgent] cause. Given that the fighting is inside Pakistan and not Afghanistan, and that the Pakistan military is also involved in more or less the same campaign purpose as the Americans, it makes sense for the rebels to respond by doing in Pakistan what they do across the border.

What does this do? It creates a [more urgent] national emergency in Pakistan.

At the worst, it reaches a point where the Pakistan government is forced to declare universal martial law rather than let the country slide in anarchy, then suddenly a very large army of more than 500 000 (twice that if the reserves are called up) is forced to fully mobilise to fight the same folks NATO and the US are with our 40 000 troops and their baby-sat ANA proxies. The focus and locus becomes Pakistan.

At the best, it forces Pakistan to try harder as per US wishes, before it turns into the worst.

When US politicians say they want to put more pressure on Pakistan to crack down on militants, this is perhaps what they mean.

Of course, what it really means is that a few thousand more of the other will die while we still flail about processing 9/11.