Zofeen Ebrahim

On Jan 23, days after Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, a series of missiles slammed into Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border — in continuation of Washington’s policy of targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban elements regardless of sovereignty issues.

“The drone attacks anger Pakistanis because the government, in cahoots with the media, refuses to explain that Pakistani governments have been complicit in seeking rent from Washington to fight what now appears to be America’s war,” said military analyst, Ayesha Siddiqa.

Siddiqa, who got into military’s crosshairs after the publication in 2007 of her book “Military Inc, The politics of Military’s Economy in Pakistan”, said Obama was only protecting US interests. “His understanding is that despite payment of 12 billion US dollars Pakistan has not delivered on its commitment.” Obama’s policy appears to be one of using a smaller carrot and a bigger stick to get the Pakistan army to stick to its side of the bargain. President Asif Ali Zardari said, in an article in the Washington Post published on Jan. 28, that this country did not “need lectures” on its commitment to the war but “assistance”.

All through 2008, following every air-strike, the Pakistan government was seen vehemently protesting to the United States about collateral damage. “They are controlled and conducted by CIA deployed in Afghanistan along the border and the Pakistan army is not informed of the attacks,” said Taizi. “The US intelligence agency is sceptical of the integrity of ISI.” Mistrust between Washington and Islamabad deepened in September 2008 when the Pakistan’s military stated that it had issued orders to “open fire” on American soldiers crossing the border in pursuit of militants. On Nov. 19, after a drone attack was carried out in Bannu, deeper into Pakistani territory and beyond the tribal areas, the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, was summoned to the foreign ministry and a formal protest lodged with her. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani emphasised that attacks on targets within Pakistan were “counterproductive” and a “violation of the country’s sovereignty”.

But Ayaz Amir, a seasoned journalist and parliamentarian, suggested that Gilani’s words were meant only for “public consumption”. “There is no point in shedding crocodile tears. If we had any guts, we could have at least threatened to withdraw all cooperation to the United States henceforth,” said Amir. His reference was to a tacit understanding between Islamabad and Washington on how to stem militancy in the tribal areas. There is now a growing fear that the militants are not only gaining ground in the remote tribal areas but also moving into the settled areas.

Rahimullah Yusufzai, resident editor of English-language daily, The News, says the people of the tribal areas no longer trust anyone and suffer from what is akin to a “battered-child syndrome”. “The drone attacks send different messages to the tribal people,” said Yusfazia. “One, that they have to fend for themselves and two, that the only force willing to fight the Americans are the Taliban.” Yusufzai, an expert on Taliban and Afghan issues, predicted that continued drone attacks will stoke anti-US sentiments, and warm the local people to the Taliban in their fight to rid the region of foreign troops.