Not that I dont' think an imperfect ally is better than no ally. But what if we no longer need Pakistan to fight and win in Afghanistan? This is intriguing:
Three suspected U.S. missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan in less than 12 hours killed at least 38 alleged militants, an unusually heavy barrage at a time when relations between the two countries are badly strained, Pakistani intelligence officials said Tuesday.
The strikes follow the Obama administration's announcement that it is suspending more than one-third of U.S. military aid to Pakistan until disagreements are worked out. The attacks indicate the White House has no intention of stopping the unmanned drone program even though the attacks have increasingly caused tension with Pakistan.
So we cut off aid because we now have the luxury of demonstrating our unhappiness with Pakistani efforts? And we strike jihadis in Pakistan to prove the point?
Could be:
The United States is beginning an interesting new dimension to the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan. Counter-insurgency efforts will be complemented by an expanded unconventional warfare campaign in many insurgent-controlled areas. This change in approach may have a considerable impact on the stalemate and hasten meaningful negotiations.
The US is training scores of special forces teams to infiltrate into and operate in areas that the Taliban and other insurgent forces have gained control of in the past few years. Such operations have been in effect for a few years now, but the program is enjoying greater support. ...
Special forces teams might be used in cross-border operations into Pakistan, especially into the North Waziristan tribal area where the Haqqani network, al-Qaeda and kindred groups enjoy safe havens. Another prospective area would be in the northern part of Pakistan's Balochistan province, which is another insurgent base area and only 150 kilometers from the reasonably secure towns of Kandahar and Lashkar Gah.
United States special forces personnel have trained Pakistani militias along the frontier and so already have knowledge of the terrain and the troops operating there. Furthermore, the US has built its own intelligence network inside Pakistan, which has been successful in targeting leaders of the Haqqani network and most notably in finding and killing Osama bin Laden.
Ah, so we have built a network inside Pakistan that might replace the official Pakistani intelligence that has helped guide our drone strikes?
And we may go further than just intelligence?
That makes sense. It made sense to me three years ago, in fact:
If we can't get Islamabad to control the frontier area, it is time to bypass Islamabad and deal directly with the tribes who don't recognize the control of Islamabad in the first place. We cannot allow the fictions of sovereignty to keep us from defending ourselves from fanatics who straddle the gray boundary that lies between reality and international law.
Using limited military assets such as special forces and drones to back civilian armed assets such as the CIA or contract personnel (with either former or seconded special forces from Western countries, or perhaps even hiring security companies to provide the personnel) or even Arab special forces that would live and work inside the frontier areas, we may be able to turn the frontier tribes against the jihadis who target us.
We should be able to start at the Afghan-Pakistan border and extend the network of anti-al Qaeda tribes toward the interior of Pakistan.
Would Pakistan actually go to war against our network? Or will they back down to get our aid restored with the impression that we will do what it takes to win in Afghanistan and will do it over Pakistan's dead body if we have to?
UPDATE: Apparently, we're already defending our network against Pakistan:
The U.S. has managed to maintain its informant and intelligence networks in North Waziristan, despite Pakistani efforts to find and arrest or kill Pakistanis working for the CIA (to find terrorists.)
Great.
