ib politics essay 2012

7/28/2019 IB Politics Essay 2012

1/17

THE REGENTS SCHOOL PATTAYA THAILAND

AMERICAN INTEREVENTION IN PAKISTAN: HOW FAR IS THE GEORGE W. BUSH

ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILED PROSPECTS OF PEACE AND STABILITY IN

PAKISTAN?

CANDIDATE NAME: LI CHUN HO

CANDIDATE NUMBER: 001408-032

SESSION: MAY 2012

SUBJECT: POLITICS

WORD COUNT: 3971


2/17

IB Politics Extended Essay Li Chun Ho (Alvin)

Word count: 3971 Candidate Number: 001408-032

Page 2 out of 17

Abstract

American foreign policy towards Pakistan over the last 50 years has mainly seen Pakistan as an ally to

sustain and reach American policy aims, notably the fall of Communism. Whether their relationship

has affected Pakistans state of peace and stability is crucial in underlining if their diplomatic ties

entirely rested on the ideological needs America cherishes and the financial and military needsPakistan requires to defeat the growing radical Islamic extremism. To examine this hypothesis, the

research question, American Intervention in Pakistan: How far is the George W. Bush administration

responsible for the failed prospects of peace and stability in Pakistan? will be explored.

The essay considers:

-The dangers Al Qaeda pose to America and their significance;

-The nature of Pakistani-American relations before 9/11;

-The importance ofPakistans conflict with India and their nuclear capabilities before9/11;

-The problems between the army and the government of Pakistan that affects stability before 9/11;

-How the Bush Administration responded to 9/11 and its plans for Pakistans role;-Effects of American intervention in Pakistan on its long term peace and stability outcomes; and

-If alternatives with a lesser impact on peace and stability were attainable.

The conclusions were reached by employing primary and secondary sources. Primary sources

included speeches, interviews and memoirs of officials engaged in influencing Pakistani-American

ties. Secondary sources were chiefly defined by monographs on American foreign policy towards

Pakistan and Pakistans politics by native authors from both countries.

The essay argues that Bushs Administration was largely responsible for the failed prospect of peace

and stability in Pakistan, since the War on Terror was declared. This conclusion was the result of

examining prior American government foreign policy which instigated a violent Pakistan, the changeof governmental and military leaders in Pakistan who compromised security, and the Bush

Administrations policy towards Pakistan.

Word count: 300


3/17



Page 3 out of 17

ContentsTitle page ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Abstract............................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 4

Al Qaeda and their attacks on America .............................................................................................. 5

Pakistani and American ties prior to 9/11........................................................................................... 5

Pakistan, India and their nuclear capabilities prior to 9/11................................................................. 7

The Army and Government in Pakistan prior to 9/11......................................................................... 7

9/11, American response and plans for Pakistan ................................................................................ 8

Effects of American intervention in Pakistan during the War on Terror.......................................... 10

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendices ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 15

Appendix 2: ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 3: ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 4: ........................................................................................................................................... 17


4/17



Page 4 out of 17

Introduction

For many years, diplomatic relations bridging Pakistan and the United States has been described as

turbulent with weak predictability. During George W. Bushs presidency, the War on Terror in

2003 was steeply dependent on Pakistans logistical, geopolitical and army enthusiasm. This was

because Al Qaeda enjoyed prominent presence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although Americanintervention primarily aimed at eliminating the terrorist elements Al Qaeda and the Taliban cherished

that would harm America, there were secondary reasons. They included reducing the threat insurgents

and private Islamic armies presented towards undermining the security of Pakistans nuclear arsenal

and other important military installations.

Although peace and stability have common connotations, their significance in Pakistans context is

interpreted differently. Peace can be defined as the privilege of enjoying life at any given point in a

place without possible threats against human life because of the strong predictability of the future

imposed by governmental norms and society.1Time span is not considered as a factor. Stability, on

the other hand, takes account of duration of time, and questions the possibility of a sudden change in

events, from a time of peace to a declaration of emergency, and perhaps war.2 It is likely to havepeace in an unstable society, such as Pakistan. Although there was no formal declaration of a war in

Pakistan during the War on Terror, the actions from the strong presence of Islamic armies and the

Taliban have mitigated stability. This was attributed by their frequent skirmishes between the borders

of Pakistan and India, especially prominent in Kashmir. Their threat to Pakistani nuclear security

carries the perilous potential to strike the match instigating an unintended nuclear war. This definition

may also connote with political stability, as military coups in the past were also candidates for

threatening stability.

In order to answer the question, American Intervention in Pakistan: How far is the George W. Bush

administration responsible for the failed prospects of peace and stability in Pakistan? consideration

must be given to the American policy executed by past administrations as well as the prior stability of

Pakistan.

The essay will explore:

-The dangers Al Qaeda pose to America and their significance;

-The nature of Pakistani-American relations before 9/11;

-The importance of Pakistans conflict with India and their nuclear capabilities before 9/11;

-The problems between the army and the government of Pakistan that affects stability before 9/11;

-How the Bush Administration responded to 9/11 and its plans for Pakistans role;

-Effects of American intervention in Pakistan on its long term peace and stability outcomes; and-If alternatives with a lesser impact on peace and stability were attainable.

To argue justifiably whether the Bush administration was responsible for the failed prospects of

peace, crucial decisions made by Presidents prior to Bush that affected the US-Pakistani relations will

be considered.

Word count: 465

1Culture of Peace (2005) Definition of Culture of Peace [online]. Culture of Peace [cited 13

thNovember, 2011].

Available from

2 World Bank Group (no year) Political stability and absence of violence. World Bank: United States of America.

Available from


5/17



Page 5 out of 17

Al Qaeda and their attacks on America

The primary objective of the War on Terror was the elimination of Al Qaeda, a prominent Islamic

orientated terrorist group committed to waging aJihad, or holy struggle.3The group was based in

Afghanistan, neighboring west of Pakistan. Although Al Qaeda embraces several ideologies, Islamic

fundamentalism is best represented in Osama Bin Ladens writings, who founded and was chiefly

responsible for its behavior. An extremist form of the fundamental values of Islam, Islamic

fundamentalism attributes enemies who imposed negative impact on Muslims. These are economical,

political and cultural collisions that undermine Muslims, the most oppressive including the dominance

of oil in the Middle East, supporting the disintegration of Palestinians as an ethnic entity, stationing

armed army installations in Middle Eastern countries and the diplomatic encouragement of economic

sanctions against Iraq during the Gulf War, roles America substantially played in. It is argued that

these interventions defined them as enemies of Islam by Al Qaedas default, also interpreted similarly

by former CIA Intelligence officer Michael Scheuers contention, They hate us for what we do, not

who we are.4 Often debated whether its initial momentum was encouraged by the writings of SayyidQutb, Al Qaeda has been indiscriminate to capacity, targeting individual journalists to governments

and societies that undermine Islamic values.

Bin Ladens success to manipulate Muslims in waging a jihad against the United States lies in

introducing five other values to the religious five pillars of faith taught in Islamic religious schools.

Those values were organization, listening, obeying, performing hijra (journey) and jihad for God.

They all together called for the collective action to commit ajihadthrough sacrifice. This was openly

expressed in February 1998 when bin Laden issued afatwa, a religious ruling that ordered Muslims to

indiscriminately target Americans: either civilians or government officials.

Through persuasion and training, Al Qaeda repetitively organized their followers to commit large

scaled attacks on anything representing American integrity worldwide. Although the September 11th,

2001 quadruple attacks on American soil was the massive short term flare that instigated the start of

the War on Terror, the cause for retaliation had deeper roots stemming from the 1990s. Over 3,200

lives were lost from Al Qaedas orchestrated attacks of two truck bombs outside the American

embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and the horrific attacks on American soil on

September the 11th.

Word count: 389

Pakistani and American ties prior to 9/11

The decisions that the Carter and Reagan administration made in Pakistan perhaps shaped, if not

dictated, the future paths of the Pakistani-American relationship. The Cold War between America and

the Soviet Union had dramatically escalated by the time President Jimmy Carter took office, and the

battle against Communism has spread to Afghanistan before his term ended. Pakistans geopolitical

3CNN (2001) Transcript of President Bush's address - Page 4 CNN[online]. CNN [cited 13

thNovember,

2011]. Available from 4

N. Asthana., A. Nirmal (2009) Urban Terrorism: Myths And Realities. Pointer Publishers: India. Page 35


6/17



Page 6 out of 17

advantage to the United States prompted President Carter to name Pakistan as the, frontline State in

the global struggle against communism.5

Under the Reagan Doctrine, Pakistan received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency to end

Soviet occupation in Afghanistan from 1979. The Reagan Doctrine funded anti-communist fighters to

rollback the communists. Operation Cyclone was the biggest CIA funded operation, supplying $5.3billion worth of army aid and training to facilitate Afghan mujahedeen in defeating Soviet troops.

However, following successful Soviet withdrawal in 1988by Pakistans part, and later the liberation

of Muslim republic from the Soviet Union, supplies to Pakistan abruptly ended, leaving behind armed

men prepared for futurejihads, and in part contributed to the rise of the Taliban. Because Reagan was

heavily affixed in defeating the Soviets, calls for Pakistan to end its nuclear weapons program that

began in January 1972 or its assurances not to enrich uranium to weapons grade were fruitless in

outcome and casual in manner.

During the Clinton Administration, Pakistan helped America capture and extradite Islamists who

followed bin Ladens fatwa against America, notably Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two CIA

employees, and Ramzi Yousef, who carried out the World Trade Center bombing, respectively in

1993. No help was ever returned to Pakistan for economical and political grounds. Perhaps the worst

humiliation Pakistan faced was during an army reception between American General Ralston and

Pakistani General Karamat on August 20th, 1998 where General Karamat, seen by America as

representing Pakistans interests, was informed of a series of tomahawk strikes that would go over

Pakistani airspace into Al Qaeda training camps in America in 10 minutes time.6 How agitated

Pakistan was in being told under such short notice was intensified upon learning the missiles

destroyed 2 Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence training camps, missing some of the Al Qaeda

targets, further undermining the trust and respect between the two nations.

It was also during this administration that America became harsher on the emerging nuclear weaponsprogram that Pakistan was building. President Clinton established precautions against proliferation of

nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, treating Pakistan similarly with the threat to label Pakistan

as a state sponsor of terrorism by 1992. President Clinton was keen for the United States Senate to

ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, whose outcome was sensitive towards nuclear proliferation

between India and Pakistan. President Clintons assertion that, our national security people were

convinced that, unlike the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, India and Pakistan

knew little about each others nuclear capabilities and policies for using them implies that the nuclear

conflict between the two South Asian countries placed the world at greater peril compared the nuclear

brinkmanship during the Cold War.7

Although a discussion with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the ongoing Kashmir dispute with India

in July 1999 yielded plans to de-escalate the tension was encouraging without nuclear warfare,

Pakistans ties with America otherwise went dire. In October, an army coup ousted Prime Minister

Sharif as head of state, replaced with General Pervez Musharraf. This drastic change to civilian

5Library of Congress, Federal Research Division (2001) Afghanistan: a country study. Claitor's publishing

division: United States of America.6

Weaver, M. (2010)Pakistan: Deep inside the World's Most Frightening State. Farrar Straus & Giroux: United

States of America. Page 32-347

Clinton, B. (2004)My Life: Bill Clinton. 1st

ed., Alfred A. Knopf: United States of America. Page 639


7/17



Page 7 out of 17

control disregarded Americas democratic values and violated the Foreign Appropriations Act,

prompting President Clinton to impose economic sanctions on Pakistan.

The mood of the political climate imposed by the Clinton administration would continue to sour

Pakistani-American relations up to the September 11th attacks. It is therefore suggested unreservedly

Americas intervention from the Afghanistan War to imposing economic sanctions in Pakistan waslargely unwelcomed by the Pakistan majority.

Word count: 638

Pakistan, India and their nuclear capabilities prior to 9/11

As many believe that American officials did not properly understand the importance of Pakistans

conflict with India, this has put their ties with Pakistan at a disadvantage. Kashmir, a predominant

Muslim region north to both Pakistan and India has been the primary source of tension between the

two countries since 1947. It is the second longest cease-fire mandated by the UN in the world along

the, Line of Control border. The dispute began subsequent to the independence of India from British

colonial rule, which instigated two wars out of many between India and Pakistan. What has

complicatedly transformed the dispute from a territorial to a religious one was the rise of Islam in

Pakistan, notably by the pressure exerted on Prime Minister Bhutto as well as the aftermath of the

Afghanistan war, leaving behind uncountable Islamic armies. This is supported by a State Department

officials assertion that, 40 percent of the militants fighting Indian troops in Kashmir are not

Kashmiris: they are Pakistanis and Afghans.8 Together with the buildup of militants who, enraged by

allegedly rigged 1987 presidential elections, escalated the tension has weakened Pakistans economic

stance, which in turn expanded the black market economy dominant on the northwestern region of

Pakistan, with a higher net worth compared to Pakistans official GDP. This black market created a

stagnant effect on the economy and radicalized the use of arms such that it became rife.

Due to the mounting insecurity Pakistan faced, Prime Minister Bhutto resorted to Weapons of Mass

Destruction; a nuclear weapons program began in 1972, following Indias pursuit of the same

weapon. The pairs successive nuclear testing in May 1998 gravely concerned the world of a nuclear

brinkmanship. Americas foreign response to this sudden development only intensified anti-American

sentiments in Pakistan and was testimony to the insensitiveness of American foreign policy. The

Clinton administration initially imposed sanctions on both Pakistan and India, however they retracted

the sanctions enforced on India shortly afterwards, by reinstating non-army aid through President

Clintons executive power.

Word count: 332

The Army and Government in Pakistan prior to 9/11

The separation ofpower between Pakistans army and the government was another assault on

maintaining a proper strategy to scale down the threats a host of issues posed to the troubled nation.

Pakistans army in is technically is ruled by a group of commanders, whose views may contradict

those held by the Prime Minister, who possesses authority over military matters. However, the

military commanders, notably General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff, are responsible for

executing his instructions. This meant there were no civilian controls over the army. Tensions and

8

Weaver, M. (2010)Pakistan: Deep inside the World's Most Frightening State. Farrar Straus & Giroux: UnitedStates of America. Page 31


8/17



Page 8 out of 17

dislocation of communication between the two factions were first demonstrated during the

administration of Nawaz Sharif on a visit to the United States in an attempt to resolve the land dispute

pertaining to the Line of Control between the two countries. President Clinton had played the role

of arbitrator between India and Pakistan over conflicting land disputes. General Musharraf recalled

his agitation, upon learning Prime Minister Sharifs agreement to withdraw Pakistani troops from the

Northwestern region of Pakistan, a decision the army was never discussed with, claiming that, the

decisions taken in Washington were totally his.9 The growing disparity of strategy over India

between the pair resulted in a coup attempted by Sharif to oust General Musharraf. This strain

followed four previous coups during Pakistans independent years. The Generals long record of

ruling Pakistan during its 62 independent years made him a powerful candidate to be approached in an

effort to stop Pakistan from falling into complete chaos contributed by the divided military and

various private Islamic armies. This failed, resulting in Musharraf taking stances which ultimately

allowed him to assume presidential power in June 2001. This further stained US-Pakistani ties, with

Americas frequent calls for democracy. However, this was not Americas primary concern.

As emphasized by President Clinton, the manner in which nuclear weapons were controlled byPakistan crucially affected global security. Upon General Musharrafs succession to presidential

office, the Commander-in-Chief was no longer under civilian control, as was the case with Prime

Minister Sharif, who never joined the army. By the end of Sharifs administration in October 1999,

the Taliban were dominant in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, with a third of Northwestern Pakistan

bordering the Line of Control borderunder Taliban control. More frustrating is the addition of up to

40 small Islamic armies, many whom contributed to the series of proxy wars against India and have

factions in the Pakistani army. This created the fear of possible attacks to capture the 40 or so nuclear

warheads spread around Pakistan, which was the similar scenario America feared with the Soviets

during the Cold War, where Soviet officers might launch offensive strikes against America without

Moscows consent.

Accusations alleging Pakistans army and its ISI unit were assisting the Taliban stemming from the

United States, has also been a tense issue between the two ruling factions of the country, an issue that

would prove to have more futile results after the War on Terror had been declared.

Word count: 497

9/11, American response and plans for Pakistan

On September 11th, 2001 Al Qaeda Jihadists carried out a series of aviation-orientated attacks on key

American symbols and federal government facilities, successfully causing the collapse of the World

Trade Center Towers and partial structural collapse to the Pentagon, taking the lives of 2977individuals, which devastated a wide majority of the American population and was the worst terrorist

attack on American soil to date.

Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda affiliates were quickly established as responsible for the attacks

barely hours after the terrorist acts. President Bush called them, an act of war, promising not to,

9

Weaver, M. (2010)Pakistan: Deep inside the World's Most Frightening State. Farrar Straus & Giroux: UnitedStates of America. Page 31


9/17



Page 9 out of 17

relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.10Secretary of State

Colin Powell also warned, We have to make it clear to Pakistan and Afghanistan this is show-

time.11 War is centrally defined as a direct conflict between two or more countries, when there is a

clear link of intention. By suggesting the attacks were, an act of war, it would require the mounting

of one since it encouraged war. However, Al Qaeda orchestrated the acts in the capacity of a terrorist

organization with no enforcement from a specific country that is primarily hidden within Pakistan and

Afghanistan. This gives American response against Al Qaeda two possible strategies; either

generalize Pakistan and Afghanistan as equally guilty for sponsoring terrorism, or setting an alliance

with them in defeating Al Qaeda. Colin Powells comments did not rule out the possibility of one of

them, where show-time may suggest the era of stronger cooperation and willingness from the two

countries to support Al Qaedas defeat, or to go to war against them.Americas initial position from

the executive command was made clearer with Bushs further comments by the evening that, We

will make no distinction between those who planned these acts and those who harbor them,12

confirming the generalization of host terrorism states as terrorists themselves. This, however, proved

to be a positive turning point in the US-Pakistani ties that arguably was not possible without the

economically undeveloped status the country held.

Following several addresses to the State of the Union, the Bush administration released the National

Strategy for Combating Terrorism in February 2003 that defined the goals and objectives set by

declaring a War on Terror. A number of these objectives were inter-correlated with mutual interests

where one must be attained in order to reach the following ones. Out of the many, particular ones

requiring Pakistan as a major ally were:

-Locate terrorists and their organizations;-Destroy terrorists and their organizations;-End the state sponsorship of terrorism; and

-Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.13

This series of objectives and goals shaped what became the, Bush Doctrine, a strategy against theWar on Terror. With this, the Bush administration clearly expressed a much different policy approachthan that adapted by predecessors, by breaking the traditional characteristics of American policywhich was Isolationism and being a non-interventionist to affairs outside its sphere of influence of thePacific Ocean which does not affect the values it cherishes, such as democracy. This dramatic turnwas likely to affect Americas ties with Pakistan.

What happened after 9/11 perhaps was the key turning point in Pakistani-American ties. Since theseobjectives required Pakistans support, both logistically and militarily, as early as the next day after

10The History Place- Great Speeches Collection (no date) The History Place George W. Bush Speech to

Congress Sept. 20, 2001 [online]. The History Place - Great Speeches Collection [Cited August 2nd

, 2011].11

Abbas, H. (2006)Inside Story of Musharraf-Mahmood Tussle [online]. Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University [Cited November 13th

, 2011].Available from12

Abbas, H. (2004)Pakistan's Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America's War on Terror. Yale

University Press: United States of America. Page 217

13 The White House (2003)National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. The United States Federal

Government: United States of America.


10/17



Page 10 out of 17

9/11 important officials of the Pakistani government were invited to a discussion with CIA officials.The officials, prominently General Mahmood Ahmed was asked whether Pakistan would cooperatewillingly with the United States, who asked for either a positive or negative response. GeneralMahmoods reply that Pakistan, along with General Musharraf, then President of Pakistan, waswilling to cooperate was made for a number of reasons. Going against the United States would likely

highly result in continued economic sanctions, the addition of Pakistan onto the terrorism sponsorstates as well as possible diplomatic isolation from the West. These factors would further placePakistan at a disadvantage in respect to its military position to India; due to the fact India might jointhe coalition with the United States. This possible scenario would further weaken Pakistan on theglobal stage.

Following the generals unanimous willingness to cooperate, American officials presented the

Pakistani government with a list of instructions requiring complete compliancy. The majority focused

on undermining the central elements of terrorism in Pakistan. Some of the notable ones included

refusing to supply fuel for the Taliban, preventing Pakistanis from becoming Taliban members and to

end support with Afghanistan should it be determined that bin Laden is in Afghanistan. The Pakistani

government was also urged on extinguishing public opinion that encouraged acts of terror. Theseproposals posed a significant dilemma for the Pakistani government in particular. Not only would the

diplomatic ties with Afghanistan worsen, it was highly probable that government support for America

would contribute to a rise of Anti-Americanism among Islamists.

Word count: 810

Effects of American intervention in Pakistan during the War on Terror

Consistent American intervention in Pakistan worsened the search for the defeat of Al Qaeda, withjournalist and writer Mary Weaver branding the War as a, war of contradictions and confusions.14

This declaration was made amid the military intervention America subjected Pakistan to, includingpredator drone strikes. Remotely manned by pilots in army bases, these drones are typically used forsurveillance and elimination of militants and terrorists, with Hellfire missiles. Although this distancesAmerican soldiers from casualties, it has placed Pakistani civilians at higher risks as victims to theWar on Terror. It created outrage from the Pakistani population, who opposed American interventionof this magnitude. This reached the heights of incompetency to the Pakistanis by January 2006, wherea suspected American drone intending to strike a structure with Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior highranking Al Qaeda official, failed, and instead created great collateral damage that with the loss of 18civilian lives.15These attacks were carried out by the CIA, under instruction from President Bush.This was the last draw for Pakistani endurance, as the biggest Anti-American protest wave since theWar on Terror began further generated greater American resentment. By the end of Bushsadministration, one out of three drone strikes wouldve killed a child, with civilian casualties of 385-

775 losses.16

The Pakistani government, in an effort to quell a possible uprising of irate Pakistan

14Weaver, M. (2010)Pakistan: Deep inside the World's Most Frightening State. Farrar Straus & Giroux:

United States of America. Page 5

15Hussain, Z. (2010) The Scorpion's Tail : The Relentless Rise of Islamic Militants in Pakistan-and How it

Threatens America. First Free Press: United States of America. Page 82-83

16The Bureau of Investigating Journalism (2011) Drone War Exposedthe complete picture of CIA

strikes in Pakistan: TBIJ [online]. The Bureau of Investigating Journalism [Cited 25th

of August, 2011].

< http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/most-complete-picture-yet-of-cia-drone-strikes/>


11/17



Page 11 out of 17

civilians, often attempted to cover up such incidents by shifting the blame to the ISI or itself, withlittle or no credibility at all.

However, it was not only Americas default in military strategy that threatened stability. In late 2006,President Musharraf, with General Ali Jan Aurakzai recommended to Washington a change of tactics,

where declared cease-fires with the Taliban could encourage early withdrawal for American soldiersin Afghanistan, as they were not permitted to be in Pakistani soil. Although this was initially agreedwith President Bush, the strategy had mounting problems, as it encouraged the border transitioning ofthe Taliban between the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with many deaths attributed by theretaliation that the Taliban sought against government informants. In addition, the Pakistanigovernment, notably General Musharraf, had been reluctant in fighting the Taliban due to thegeographical disadvantage of opening two fronts, one on the West to fight the Taliban while anotherone on the East against India.

Pakistans position with India has also affected American contingency efforts in Pakistan. This isprimarily due to the fear of an impending attack, which results in the tying up of a large number ofPakistani soldiers to be stationed near the Line of Control, overseeing the disputed region of

Kashmir. In this respect, there was wide spread sentiment in Pakistan that America showedindifference towards Pakistans interests of security against India regarding nuclear brinkmanship. Asearly as 2002, the Bush Administration forcibly demanded that the army withdraw its troops from theLine of Control, to the Western frontier of Pakistan, facing the Taliban. A huge price was also givenby the Bush administration to secure Pakistans nuclear arsenal with $100 million from possiblesabotage and raids from the Taliban and the many private Islamic armies, for by 2001, Pakistan wasestimated to possess around 40 to 60 nuclear warheads.

Word count: 537

Conclusion

The comments of General Anthony Zinni, the peace envoy to the Middle East during the Bush

administration generally summed up the belief that America has indeed pressured Pakistan into its

current state through past administration policies, by saying, Through our sanctions, through our

attitudes toward them, were forcing the Pakistani army inward17 Such a collapse was first

constructed by the Reagans Doctrine that left capably armed men who were prepared for another

jihad, which ultimately contributed to the Talibans rise. Whereupon, the Clinton Administration, in

an effort to reduce nuclear proliferation and also the high risk of a possible seizure of nuclear

weapons, imposed heavy sanctions, both economically and militarily on Pakistan. Therefore, without

Reagans intervention in Pakistan, the peace and stability would not have had to be attempted to be

regained during the War on Terror. This is because the War on Terror also included the Taliban in itswipe-out list.

However, attention must also be paid to the stability of the government and the military of Pakistan.With 4 coups in 62 of its independent years that resulted in the absence of civilian control, theinterests of the army became diverged, evidence of a disintegration that led to private radical Islamicarmies. Taking the complex nature of this power struggle into account, it has made Pakistan difficultto fully benefit from American intervention. Therefore, it seems appropriate to suggest that while

17 Weaver, M. (2010)Pakistan: Deep inside the World's Most Frightening State. Farrar Straus & Giroux :

United States of America. Page 35


12/17



Page 12 out of 17

Bush may be held responsible for failed prospects of peace and stability with Pakistan, theAdministrations responsibility also lies with Pakistans army and its unstable past political climate.Recognition that the nature of the sources collected are mainly on extreme sides of the spectrum,either from the American or Pakistani point of view must be given in order to reach a unbiasedconclusion of the merits of the arguments given.

Word count: 303


13/17



Page 13 out of 17

Bibliography

Abbas, H. (2004)Pakistan's Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America's War on Terror.

Yale University Press: United States of America.

Abbas, H. (2006)Inside Story of Musharraf-Mahmood Tussle [online]. Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University [Cited November

13th, 2011]. Available from

Ali, T. (2009) The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power. Scribner: (country of

publication unknown).

Bush, G. and Dietrich, J. (2005) The George W. Bush foreign policy reader: presidential speeches

and commentary. M.E. Sharpe Press: United States of America.

Clinton, B. (2004)My Life: Bill Clinton. 1st ed., United States of America: Alfred A. Knopf.

CNN (2001) Transcript of President Bush's address - Page 4CNN[online]. CNN [cited 13th

November, 2011]. Available from

Cohen, C. (2007)A perilous course: U.S. strategy and assistance to Pakistan. CSIS Press: United

States of America.

Culture of Peace (2005)Definition of Culture of Peace [online]. Culture of Peace [cited 13th

November, 2011]. Available from

Daalder, I. and Lindsay J. (2003)America unbound: the Bush revolution in foreign policy. Brookings

Institution Press: United States of America.

Greenstein, F. (2003) The George W. Bush presidency: an early assessment. JHU Press: United States

of America.

Hilali, A. (2005) US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. MPG Books Ltd: Great

Britain.

Hussain, Z. (2010) The Scorpion's Tail : The Relentless Rise of Islamic Militants in Pakistan-and How

it Threatens America. First Free Press: United States of America.

Library of Congress, Federal Research Division (2001)Afghanistan: a country study. Claitor's

publishing division: United States of America.

Ministry of Defense, Government of Pakistan (2011)Defense Budget. Pakistan: Ministry of Defense,

Government of Pakistan. Available from

N. Asthana., A. Nirmal (2009) Urban Terrorism: Myths And Realities. Pointer Publishers: India.


14/17



Page 14 out of 17

Sathasivam, K. (2005) Uneasy neighbors: India, Pakistan, and US foreign policy. TJ International:

Great Britain.

Schaffer, T. (2004)Pakistan's future and U.S. policy options: a report of the CSIS South Asia. CSIS

Press: United States of America.

The Bureau of Investigating Journalism (2011)Drone War Exposedthe complete picture of CIA

strikes in Pakistan: TBIJ[online]. The Bureau of Investigating Journalism [Cited 25th of August,

2011].

< http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/most-complete-picture-yet-of-cia-drone-

strikes/>

The Guardian UK (2011) US assistance to Pakistan 1948-2010 (millions, constant 2009 $US). Great

Britain: The Guardian UK. Available from < http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-

development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan>

The History Place- Great Speeches Collection (no date) The History PlaceGeorge W. Bush Speech toCongress Sept. 20, 2001 [online]. The History Place - Great Speeches Collection [Cited August 2nd,

2011]. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/gw-bush-9-11.htm

The White House (2003)National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. The United States Federal

Government: United States of America.

United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations: Cartographic Section (2004)

Political map of countries surrounding Pakistan, 1:5,00,000. Place of publication not given: United

Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations: Cartographic Section.

United States Government Accountability Office (2009)Afghanistan and Pakistan: Oversight of U. S.Interagency Efforts. GAO-09-1015T, GAO: United States of America.

United States Institute of Peace (2005) U. S. -Pakistan Engagement: The War on Terrorism and

Beyond. USIP: United States of America.

Weaver, M. (2010)Pakistan: Deep inside the World's Most Frightening State. Farrar Straus & Giroux:

United States of America.

World Bank Group (no year)Political stability and absence of violence. World Bank: United States of

America. Available from


15/17



Page 15 out of 17

Appendices:

Appendix 1: Political map of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Map courtesy of United Nations Department of Cartographic Section (2004).


16/17



Page 16 out of 17

Appendix 2: The costs of American assistance to Pakistan (1948-2010).

Courtesy of The Guardian UK (2011).

Appendix 3: Spending of Pakistans National versus Defense Budget (2001-2012

projected)

Courtesy of the Pakistan Ministry of Finance (2011).


17/17



Page 17 out of 17

Appendix 4: Nature of casualties resulted from CIA drone strikes in Pakistan

(2004-2011)

Courtesy of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (2011).

ib politics essay 2012

Documents