Q&A
Stephen Tankel
{
"authors": [
"Stephen Tankel"
],
"type": "testimony",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"Pakistan"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
Testimony
LeT Unlikely to Take al-Qaeda’s Place
The Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba—while unlikely to replace al-Qaeda at the forefront of global jihad even with bin Laden’s death—has the capability to threaten the U.S. homeland.
Published on May 3, 2011
Source: May 3
U.S. Policy Recommendations:
- Deliver a clear message to Pakistan: The United States should continue to signal to Pakistan the severe repercussions that would result if LeT or elements within it were involved in an attack against American interests at home or abroad.
- Improve intelligence sharing: The United States should push Pakistan to provide intelligence regarding LeT’s international networks and begin taking steps to dismantle LeT’s training apparatus in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
- Push for a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militants: The United States should partner with a third country, possibly Saudi Arabia, to spur Pakistan’s launch of a formal program to reintegrate LeT fighters back into society. Such a program could then be used to deactivate militants from LeT as well as other extremist organizations within Pakistan.
“Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of Pakistan’s oldest and most powerful militant groups,” concludes Tankel. “Dismantling LeT must be a gradual process in order to avoid provoking a major backlash that could destabilize Pakistan or cause the group’s transnational operatives to be unleashed.”
About the Author
Stephen Tankel
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Tankel was a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, where his research focuses on insurgency, terrorism, and the evolution of nonstate armed groups.
- Restoring Trust: U.S.-Pakistan Relations
- LeT’s Global RiseQ&A
Stephen Tankel
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The Iran War’s Global ReachCollection
As the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran continues, Carnegie scholars contribute cutting-edge analysis on the events of the war and their wide-reaching implications. From the impact on Iran and its immediate neighbors to the responses from Gulf states to fuel and fertilizer shortages caused by the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, the war is reshaping Middle East alliances and creating shockwaves around the world. Carnegie experts analyze it all.
- Amid Iran War, Gulf Countries Slow the Pace of ReformsArticle
The return of war as the organizing factor in Middle Eastern politics has predictable consequences: governments are prioritizing regime stability and becoming averse to political and social reform.
Sarah Yerkes, Amr Hamzawy
- Taking the Pulse: Can NATO Survive the Iran War?Commentary
Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and European allies, threatening to annex Canada and Greenland and deploring their lack of enthusiasm for his war of choice in Iran. Is this latest round of abuse the final straw?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Kindred Nations, Uneasy Neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian Relations in the Crucible of Russia’s WarArticle
The full-scale invasion cemented Ukraine’s determination to sever its ties with Russia; reimagining the Poland-Ukraine partnership can accelerate Kyiv’s westward alignment and improve the security of both countries.
Eric Green
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
