Complicity or Incompetence: Which way the Wind is Blowing Now

By Raza Habib Raja

.Ever since killing of Osama Bin Laden, the subsequent analysis has largely been dominated by the following question: Was Pakistani Intelligence apparatus guilty of complicity or incompetence? Now this question has so far been intensely debated in the Media, Western and Local, and various journalists, anchors and analysts have come up with their theories and “verdicts”. However much more interesting are policy and “informal” statements given by the US officials.  Immediately after the death of Osama Bin Laden and till the time these sentences are being written, the “art” of diplomacy characterized by giving seemingly conflicting and confusing statements has been in full swing. It is hardly surprising as diplomacy has seldom been an art of “clarity” as it is a tool for ensuring realpolitik concerns and hence would try to deliberately vague. Even seemingly categorical and clear statements are merely a tool and often counterchecked by contradictory statements to dilute the effect.

However the gradually the stance of US has tilted towards “incompetence” rather than complicity through a series of carefully crafted at times “blunt” coupled with some apparently “convoluted” statements. And I believe that it is the right strategic approach by USA as its our common interest to fight this war together. You can deal with “incompetent” people but complicity has virtually NO room for further cooperation.

Immediately after the raid, President Obama appreciated the Pakistani efforts in the following words

“But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, Bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people”

After carefully worded statement of President Obama came a blunt accusation by CIA chief Leon Panetta showing mistrust of Pakistani intelligence community. In his interview to Times magazine, he stated “it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets”

And then subsequently in order to once again dilute the effect he again rose to Pakistan’s “defense’ by playing up “incompetence” aspect versus complicity and in fact made it even more convoluted and complex for anyone to understand and consequently develop a clear perception. In an interview he gave the following plausible explanation:

“I’m not giving an alibi for the Pakistanis, but it’s virtually inconceivable that Osama and those close to him would have voluntarily allowed their presence to be known by Pakistani officials, especially given the large number of his followers captured by Pakistan. We don’t trust the Pakistanis. Why should he?” On the other hand, he adds, “If his whereabouts were discovered by the Pakistani officials, I can envision them saying, ‘He’s keeping a low profile, and if we turn him over to the Americans, it will create a real firestorm for us.’

And then President Obama again propped up complicity by saying “We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan”. This statement once again alleged of complicity rather than incompetence though wording tried to create an impression of “doubt” rather than certainty.

The US dilemma is that it still needs Pakistan and while it would need proper answers from Pakistan regarding presence of Obama near military academy of Kakul, it perceives the importance of Pakistan in a war which is of mutual interest for both the countries.  It has to pacify its own public’s broiling anger at Pakistan which is being voiced through calls for stopping aid to Pakistan while at the same time ensuring that there is NO slackening of pressure on Pakistan.

And consequently the statements keep on giving mixed signals though such vagueness is carefully crafted for pressing just the right amount of pressure on Pakistan while ensuring that US public mood does not go totally against USA’s key though “unreliable” ally.

The conflicting signals approach rather than outright rebuke approach followed by USA nevertheless reveals that a lot can still be salvaged as far as alliance between the two countries is concerned.

Now although there are many doubters about validity of “incompetence” versus complicity and there are some who think that army actually depicts both but I do think that USA may be right in taking this line for strategic reasons and also because it is actually more plausible also.

Yes it is true that Osama was discovered a few hundred yards away from Pakistan Military Academy but a “double gaming” army would never ever take such a risk of hiding Bin laden at such a place. A double gaming army is basically a very clever outfit and factors in the probability that the espionage ability of the USA may eventually discover Osama. Therefore while hiding such a fugitive, it would ensure that in case of his eventual discovery, it (the army) can at least have a face saving excuse.

Moreover let’s not forget that Pakistan has in the past hunted and successfully captured several Al Qaida operatives like Khalid Shiekh Muhammad. Those operatives have yielded valuable information including that which eventually led USA to bin laden. If in case of Bin Laden, army was REALLY playing a double game then it would have never handed over such key operatives in the first place. It would have simply tried to satisfy USA by arresting minor fugitives rather than those which would subsequently help USA in tracing Osama.

And moreover lets not forget that army has lost thousands of its own men also in this war against extremism and there have been suicide attacks against FIA, navy and key army personnel. Even General Musharraf, the army chief cum President escaped death by a fraction. The suggestion that high command is involved in this kind of double gaming where suicide bombers are attacking them also is somewhat hard to believe.

Having said so, I do believe that basically it is the case of home grown terror (Taliban) and their accomplices (Al Qaida) now out of control and turning against its own masters. And yes there is also a strong possibility that intelligence establishment may be selectively supporting some of the Taliban factions particularly those in Afghanistan to weaken Hamid Karzai government. However, to suggest that army was providing refuge in such a naïve manner to Osama Bin Laden , a person directly or indirectly also responsible for killing military personnel, appears to be a bit farfetched.

Having said so incompetence, if proven should yield to proper accountability of the intelligence agencies. And yes finally the time has come for us to concentrate in our own problems rather than what is happening in Afghanistan. While there will always be a dispute whether Pakistan was “sheltering “ Osama or not, there is none whatsoever  with respect to our doctrine of “strategic depth” and continued interference in the issues of Afghanistan.

It is important for us to move forward from here and the US authorities are on the right track as is evident by their recent statements. However Pakistani counterparts, particularly those in establishment and their proxies in this jingoistic rightwing media need to show maturity. Rather than whipping up typical anti American frenzy, we need to get our act together and try to work with them in getting things back on track. Senator John Kerry is about to visit Pakistan  and he made a very pertinent statement when said, “There are some serious questions, obviously, there are some serious issues that we’ve just got to find a way to resolve together. And our interests and their interests I think are well served by working through those difficulties.”