Pakistan's New Tack on Fighting Terror

{
  "authors": [
    "Ashley J. Tellis"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "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": [
    "Pakistan",
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Pakistan's New Tack on Fighting Terror

By setting consistent groudn rules, Pakistan could gain public support for the war on terror.

By Ashley J. Tellis

Published on May 9, 2008

Source: Yale Global

While the election of a civilian government in Islamabad has been universally welcomed as part of Pakistan’s democratic transition, the new government’s approach to counterterrorism has evoked misgivings in Washington. Reacting to what is viewed as President Pervez Musharraf’s U.S.-backed militarized effort to defeat terrorism, the elected government headed by Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani has sought a more balanced policy combining force with a “civil dialogue” with misled extremists. Instead of dismissing this as yet another bound-to-fail approach, Washington should be patient and let Gillani recover the legitimacy of Pakistan’s counterterrorism policy...

Click here to continue reading.

About the Author

Ashley J. Tellis

Former Senior Fellow

Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Recent Work

Paper
Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power Future
- Ashley J. Tellis
Commentary
India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence. That Could Backfire.
- Ashley J. Tellis

Security Military Foreign Policy Pakistan South Asia

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 Russia Eurasia Center

Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?
Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.
Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Georgia’s Fall From U.S. Favor Heralds South Caucasus Realignment
With the White House only interested in economic dealmaking, Georgia finds itself eclipsed by what Armenia and Azerbaijan can offer.
Bashir Kitachaev
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?
If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.
Nikita Smagin
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
How Trump’s Wars Are Boosting Russian Oil Exports
The interventions in Iran and Venezuela are in keeping with Trump’s strategy of containing China, but also strengthen Russia’s position.
Mikhail Korostikov
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?
Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.
Nikita Smagin

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?

Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.

Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Georgia’s Fall From U.S. Favor Heralds South Caucasus Realignment

With the White House only interested in economic dealmaking, Georgia finds itself eclipsed by what Armenia and Azerbaijan can offer.

Bashir Kitachaev

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?

If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.