Panetta: Patience with Pakistan ‘reaching limits’
Thursday, June 7, 2012
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The United States stepped up pressure on Pakistan Thursday as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said “we are reaching the limits of our patience” with a nominal ally that continues to provide a safe haven to al-Qaida-linked militants.
It was the latest sign that the U.S. is now getting tougher with Pakistan after years of muting criticism and looking the other way on the premise that an uneasy friendship was better than making the nuclear-armed country an outright enemy. As U.S. forces draw down in neighboring Afghanistan, the Americans appear to be pushing Pakistan harder than ever before to squeeze insurgents who find sanctuary within its borders.
Panetta, in the Afghan capital, told reporters he was visiting Kabul to take stock of progress in the war and discuss plans for the troop drawdown. But he used a press conference to strike across the border instead, saying the Pakistani government needs to do more — and soon — to root out the al-Qaida-linked Haqqani terrorist network.
Panetta repeatedly emphasized U.S. frustration with attackers crossing the border from Pakistan. It is essential that Pakistan stop “allowing terrorists to use their country as a safety net in order to conduct their attacks on our forces,” he said alongside Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak.
“We have made that very clear time and time again and we will continue to do that, but as I said, we are reaching the limits of our patience,” Panetta said.
The U.S. clearly wants Pakistan to take on the Haqqanis before the bulk of U.S. troops have left the region by the end of 2014. After that, the Afghans would have more trouble contending with the militants, who carry out large-scale attacks in Kabul and elsewhere.
In Washington, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference that the U.S. needs to continue working with Pakistan, despite frustrations.
“It’s our view that those Haqqani, notably, the Haqqani network, is as big a threat to Pakistan as it is to Afghanistan and to us, but we haven’t been able to find common ground on that point. So that’s been very frustrating,” he said.
He added that the U.S. is “extraordinarily dissatisfied with the effect that Pakistan has had on the Haqqanis,” but also mindful that Pakistan has taken on other insurgent groups at great cost to their own troops.
“There may be an increasing realization within the U.S. government that we have a few more years to really go after this problem and time is running out,” said Jeffrey Dressler, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington.
Panetta’s remarks capped a week of some of the boldest language and actions by the administration against its stated ally. Just a day before, he stood in the capital of Pakistan’s arch rival, India, and declared that drone strikes against terror suspects would continue, dismissing Pakistan’s claims of sovereignty by noting that U.S. sovereignty was jeopardized by terrorists as well.
A senior U.S. official acknowledged Thursday that the recent increase in drone strikes on insurgents in Pakistan — targeting mostly al-Qaida but other militants as well — is partly a result of frustration with Islamabad. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations.
And earlier this week, NATO sealed agreements to ship tons of supplies out of Afghanistan through northern and western countries, bypassing Pakistan, which has kept its borders closed to NATO trucks in response to the killing of 24 Pakistani troops by NATO forces.
Perhaps most pointedly, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was not invited until the last minute to the NATO summit that President Barack Obama hosted in Chicago last month, and did not get the private meeting with the U.S. leader that he wanted.
Obama also publicly thanked Central Asian nations and Russia for recent help in war supply. He did not mention Pakistan’s years of help doing the same thing before the gates were closed last fall.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting