Cheap talk on Pakistan
In recent days, a number of press stories have strongly conveyed U.S. officials’ demand that Pakistan go after not just the Mehsud tribal grouping, a.k.a. the Pakistani Taliban, but also Siraj Haqqani’s network next door in North Waziristan. The messages have been delivered in public and in private from the highest levels — President Barack ...
In recent days, a number of press stories have strongly conveyed U.S. officials' demand that Pakistan go after not just the Mehsud tribal grouping, a.k.a. the Pakistani Taliban, but also Siraj Haqqani's network next door in North Waziristan. The messages have been delivered in public and in private from the highest levels -- President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, Adm. Mike Mullen, and presumably others. (Jane Perlez of the New York Times reports on Pakistan's exasperation with all this pressure here.)
In recent days, a number of press stories have strongly conveyed U.S. officials’ demand that Pakistan go after not just the Mehsud tribal grouping, a.k.a. the Pakistani Taliban, but also Siraj Haqqani’s network next door in North Waziristan. The messages have been delivered in public and in private from the highest levels — President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, Adm. Mike Mullen, and presumably others. (Jane Perlez of the New York Times reports on Pakistan’s exasperation with all this pressure here.)
Yes, Haqqani is bad news and his people are killing U.S. troops and probably harboring al Qaeda. But I’m a little puzzled by the impatience the Obama administration is showing. For one thing, Pakistan is still mopping up in South Waziristan, and bombs are still going off in Pakistani cities. And let’s also keep in mind that the Pakistani Army had to cut a deal with Haqqani just to safely get to South Waziristan. So it’s a little premature for Pakistan to start multiplying its enemies.
Then there’s the point that Peter Feaver raises here, which is that Pakistan is hedging its bets because it isn’t sure the United States is going to stick around in South Asia and is paranoid about India’s rising influence in Afghanistan. Thomas Johnson and Chris Mason, writing for FP, relayed the following anecdote, sourced to "a highly placed Pakistani official":
Pakistan’s reaction to Obama’s speech was to order its top military intelligence service, the ISI, to immediately begin rebuilding and strengthening covert ties to the Afghan Taliban in anticipation of their eventual return to power[.]
My point here is that no amount of hectoring from U.S. officials is going to change Pakistan’s strategy — there has to be a change in how Islamabad sees its interests. A couple stars have to align: India has to somehow allay Pakistani fears, the United States has to convince Pakistan that it’s staying in Aghanistan for the long haul, and Pakistan needs to feel confident that it has the situation in the tribal areas well in hand. It would be foolish for Pakistan to rush into a new conflict in North Waziristan based on America’s word alone.
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.