Q&A
Stephen Tankel
{
"authors": [
"Stephen Tankel"
],
"type": "other",
"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": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Domestic Barriers to Dismantling the Militant Infrastructure in Pakistan
Pakistan will continue to find it difficult to counter militancy more vigorously in its territory, and U.S. officials urging the country to make greater efforts should fully understand the obstacles.
Published on Sep 9, 2013
Source: United States Institute of Peace
Pakistan will continue to find it difficult to counter militancy more vigorously in its territory, and U.S. officials urging the country to make greater efforts should fully understand the obstacles. One is the Pakistan security establishment’s penchant for supporting militant groups it believes might have strategic uses while ignoring those it believes have no strategic value. But there are other obstacles, including lack of funding, bureaucratic barriers, and public opinion.Summary
- Pakistani concerns about threats to the state from a subset of its Islamist militants have been building for several years, but the military remains preoccupied with using jihadist proxies to achieve geopolitical aims. Many other barriers reinforce the status quo as well.
- Perceptions about the U.S. role in the insurgency, the belief that foreign powers support anti-state militants, that some militants will not attack if not provoked, and that others have domestic as well as geopolitical utility collectively inform the security establishment’s strategic calculus for how it engages with militants in Pakistan.
- Even sincere counterterrorism efforts are hampered by capacity shortfalls and systemic infirmities.
- Political will is also lacking. Elites remain preoccupied with power and their collective interests.
- Pakistan needs a national strategy to counter militancy, a legislative overhaul, improved coordination among counterterrorism agencies, and a coherent narrative against extremism. The recently elected civilian leadership must build its own intellectual capacity on security matters and find the political will to act.
- The election of a new civilian government in Pakistan, growing concerns about the jihadist threat to the state, and the planned NATO drawdown in Afghanistan mean the United States will need to reformulate aspects of its engagement.
- The overall U.S. approach should be geared toward maintaining influence to maximize convergence on narrow security issues and exploit opportunities to reinforce positive structural change within Pakistan.
- Specifically, the United States should revise its South Asian counterterrorism architecture, maintain a transactional military-to-military relationship focused on convergent interests, boost the capabilities and confidence of the new civilian government, modify security sector assistance, and devise more realistic metrics to assess progress.
This report, sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace, examines several underexplored barriers to dismantling Pakistan’s miltant infrastructure as a way to inform the understandable, but thus far ineffectual, calls for the country to do more against militancy. It is based on interviews conducted in Pakistan and Washington, DC, as well as on primary and secondary source material collected via field and desk-based research.
The full text of this report is available at the United States Institute of Peace.
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?Commentary
After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?Commentary
Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle EastCommentary
The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.
Nikita Smagin
- Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?Commentary
Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.
Maksim Samorukov
- Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital AmbitionsCommentary
Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.
Aruzhan Meirkhanova
