The relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been fraught with tension and mistrust for decades, fueled by Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan. Former US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster’s recent book, “At War With Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House,” sheds light on the challenges faced by the Trump administration in trying to hold Pakistan accountable for its actions. McMaster details a particular instance where the White House faced resistance from the Department of State and the Pentagon in implementing President Trump’s directive to cut off all aid to Pakistan.

The Trump Administration’s Stance on Pakistan

President Trump’s policy towards Pakistan was clear: he wanted to cut off all aid to Islamabad until they stopped providing safe havens for terrorist groups. This directive stemmed from concerns that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was actively supporting these groups, which posed a significant threat to US interests in Afghanistan and the region.

Trump’s Zero-Tolerance Policy

Trump’s stance on Pakistan was rooted in his frustration with Islamabad’s perceived lack of cooperation in combating terrorism. He felt that Pakistan was taking advantage of US aid while simultaneously harboring groups like the Haqqani network, which was responsible for numerous attacks against US troops and Afghan civilians. Trump’s “zero-tolerance” approach aimed to force Pakistan to change its behavior and fully commit to fighting terrorism.

Trump’s Actions

Trump’s policy towards Pakistan went beyond mere rhetoric. He took concrete actions to demonstrate his resolve. One such action was suspending all aid to Pakistan until they showed a genuine commitment to fighting terrorism. He also ordered a significant reduction in US military support, signaling that he was serious about holding Islamabad accountable for its actions.

The Internal Resistance to Trump’s Policy

Despite Trump’s clear directives, the implementation of his policy faced significant challenges from within the US government. The State Department and the Pentagon were hesitant to cut off all aid to Pakistan, fearing the consequences of such a drastic move. This hesitation stemmed from a number of factors.

The Importance of Pakistan’s Strategic Location

Pakistan occupies a strategically important location in South Asia, bordering Afghanistan, Iran, China, and India. Its strategic position makes it an important partner for the US in the region. For decades, Pakistan has been a vital partner in US counterterrorism efforts, allowing US forces access to its airspace and facilitating communication with Afghan allies. Cutting off aid to Pakistan could potentially jeopardize these strategic partnerships.

Concerns About Instability and Regional Consequences

The US was also concerned about the potential consequences of destabilizing Pakistan. The country is facing a complex mix of challenges, including internal security threats, economic instability, and political turmoil. Cutting off aid could further destabilize the country and potentially lead to the rise of extremist groups. This could create a dangerous situation for US interests in the region.

The Pentagon’s Position

While the Pentagon acknowledged the seriousness of Pakistan’s support for terrorist groups, they also believed that continued military cooperation was necessary. They were reluctant to cut off aid completely, arguing that it could hamper ongoing counterterrorism operations and disrupt US strategic interests in the region.

McMaster’s Intervention

General McMaster, as the National Security Advisor, found himself at the center of this tug-of-war between the White House and the Pentagon. He was determined to enforce Trump’s policy on Pakistan and ensure that the US wasn’t supporting a country that was simultaneously harboring groups responsible for attacks against US soldiers and civilians.

McMaster’s Concerns

McMaster was deeply concerned by the Pentagon’s plan to deliver a military aid package to Pakistan, despite President Trump’s clear instructions. He saw this move as a blatant disregard for the president’s directive and a potential weakening of US leverage with Islamabad.

McMaster’s Confrontation with Mattis

McMaster confronted then Defense Secretary Jim Mattis directly, arguing against the proposed military aid package. McMaster’s strong stance, coupled with his determination to uphold Trump’s policy, forced Mattis to ultimately relent and halt the planned shipment of aid. This victory was a testament to McMaster’s dedication to executing the president’s agenda and ensuring that US foreign policy wasn’t undermined by internal divisions within the government.

The Evidence of Pakistan’s Complicity

McMaster also cites evidence of Pakistan’s direct involvement in supporting terrorist groups. He highlights the case of Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind behind the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, who was released from Pakistani custody just before Mattis’s visit to Islamabad. This release was seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the US’s efforts to pressure Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups operating within its borders.

The Undeniable Complicity

McMaster goes further, stating that events in Pakistan, such as the hostage crisis, had “exposed the undeniable complicity of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence with the terrorists.” He argues that the Pakistani government’s actions, and its apparent willingness to support terrorist groups, contradicted its commitments to fighting terrorism and eroded any trust that the US had in its partner.

The Wider Context

The events outlined by McMaster in his book illustrate a deeper conflict at the heart of US policy towards Pakistan. The US wants to be a friend and ally to Pakistan, but its reliance on Pakistan to support counterterrorism efforts is continuously hindered by Pakistan’s willingness to use its strategic location and its ISI to support certain terrorist groups that have undermined US security objectives.

Balancing Strategic Interests and Counterterrorism Concerns

The US has faced a constant dilemma in trying to balance its strategic interests with its counterterrorism goals. Pakistan’s strategic importance is undeniable, and cutting off all ties would have severe consequences for the US in the region. But Islamabad’s alleged support for terrorist groups undermines US efforts to combat terrorism and destabilize the region.

Take Away Points

McMaster’s book provides valuable insights into the complexities of US-Pakistan relations. It sheds light on the difficulties the Trump administration faced in trying to hold Pakistan accountable for its actions and reveals the deep divisions within the US government on how to manage this relationship.

Key Takeaways

• President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy toward Pakistan was met with resistance from within the US government, highlighting the difficult balance between strategic interests and counterterrorism objectives.
• McMaster’s intervention was instrumental in halting the planned delivery of military aid to Pakistan, but this was just one instance of the challenges faced in implementing Trump’s policy.
• The evidence presented in McMaster’s book points to a long-standing issue: Pakistan’s continued involvement in supporting terrorist groups.
• The events described underscore the need for the US to find a new approach to dealing with Pakistan, one that addresses both the strategic importance of Islamabad and its long history of supporting terrorism.