Feb 3, 2010
The Kayani Doctrine
On Monday, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani briefed foreign correspondents in Rawalpindi and was unusually candid.
In the briefing, Kayani articulated his Afghanistan doctrine. Pakistan, he said, seeks a friendly government, stability, and ”strategic depth” in Afghanistan. He also added that Pakistan does not seek a Talibanized Afghanistan and offered to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.
Kayani, like many others in the region, is preparing for a post-American and post-ISAF Afghanistan. Many actors fear the emergence of a security vacuum in such a context. Kayani is expressing Pakistan’s willingness (or better put, desire) to fill the void, prevent an outbreak of instability, and even come to support the Karzai government. His message to Karzai is: if you become our ally (because strategic depth really calls for an alliance, not just friendship) and ditch India, we can help keep you alive and in power. And, it seems as if there’s an implicit message to the Afghan Taliban — key as both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia try to pull the group away from al-Qaeda: you are not our only option, so don’t take us for granted.
Kayani’s doctrine is not revolutionary. Its objectives are no different from Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy from the past thirty years. But, for the first time, he is publicly demonstrating great flexibility in terms of choice of alliances. Kayani is essentially a cold realist. He believes Pakistan has permanent interests, not permanent alliances, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And he and the Pakistan Army will do business with the entity that best facilitates achieving those objectives. Behavior, not personalities, is key.
Pakistan’s army chief also said that he impressed upon NATO that Pakistan’s “strategic paradigm” needs to be realized. In that strategic paradigm, India remains a natural, long-term threat and Afghanistan is part of Pakistan’s sphere of influence – the latter being a perspective no different from America’s Monroe Doctrine. Pakistan’s desire to be the predominant foreign power in Afghanistan is, as I said on a recent radio appearance, a policy that began in the late 1970s with military ruler Zia-ul-Haq. But the key difference between the two is that the Kayani doctrine is largely agnostic, while the Zia doctrine was heavily religious.
The Pakistan Army’s behavior since 9/11 and India’s isolation from the two recent conferences on Afghanistan in Istanbul and London, demonstrate that Rawalpindi, at the very least, has a veto power on the key decisions regarding Afghanistan’s future. Pakistan is not simply a nuisance or basketcase, but a regional power that has the capability to leverage a superpower’s depedency on it and check the regional growth of India, a rival, neighbor, and potential superpower.
In the midst of this high wire act, Pakistan neared bankruptcy. It has mastered the art of making a dollar out of fifteen cents. Some would say, it’s done this by getting the United States to pay the remaining eighty five cents.
[...] The Kayani Doctrine [...]
“Pakistan is not simply a nuisance or basketcase, but a regional power that has the capability to leverage a superpower’s depedency on it and check the regional growth of India, a rival, neighbor, and potential superpower”
This is a never ending question for me. Why the heck does the US depend on and support Pakistan anymore. Why not align with India? What can Pakistan give it that India can’t? A border with Afghanistan? I see Pakistan’s policies as much of the problem of the region.
If the US keeps aligning with Pakistan on things like the Kayani doctrine then India will get annoyed. In the long term India is a (mostly) stable democracy with a bigger market and a free media. Whats not to love?
I don’t think Arif meant the US is perpetually dependent on Pakistan. But it is clearly dependent on it at the moment considering there will be 100,000 troops stationed in their neighborhood pretty soon.
Plus it’s clear that the US has towed a rather harsh line with Pakistan all the while cozying up to India and its markets.
We have to remember that any reluctance to be seen as more strategically or militarily aligned with India isn’t curtailed by the prospect of a jealous Pakistan, rather a further strain in relations with the World’s largest exporter and increasingly advantegous consumer market: China.
China and India have unresolved issues on many fronts and certainly have bad blood between them. Needless to say it’s rather intelligent from an American perspective not to wedge ourselves headlong into an unpredictable rivalry between the world’s two largest nations.
Hence the apparent collusion and dependence with Pakistan, and the apparent distance from India.
Nice post! Pakistan army is one of the sharpest and daring army in the world. Kiyani is a good leader and he has taken great decisions for keeping peace in Pakistan. I think Kiyani has rightly briefed foreign correspondents.
[...] at foreign minister level for a while. It seems to have gone reasonably well; in the light of the Kayani doctrine speech, in which the General said that Pakistan would be satisfied if Afghanistan wasn’t [...]
US cannot afford to displease Pakistan. Without Pakistan’s cooperation the whole Afghan war become meaningless. Destsroying AlQuaeda and making US safe is just a piece of poetic imagination sold by US. The real purpose is oil. Here laying an oil pipe line from Central Asian republics to the Arabian sea through Pakistan which is the shortest. If Pakistan is discarded it is to be taken through India which is longer route. So just putting a friendly regime in Afghanistan, friendly to US, alone will not solve the problem. US has to take Pakistan as well in the deal. Hence the inaction by US against Pakistan even after knowing well of its double dealings.
Just catching Osama or other top echelon of AlQuaeda will not do. It has spread to other parts of the world. US cannot wipe out all those cloned outfits. US must be well aware of this.
The other option is through Iran. It looks by the way US is flexing its muscles at Iran shows that that option is not a closed one.
[...] at foreign minister level for a while. It seems to have gone reasonably well; in the light of the Kayani doctrine speech, in which the General said that Pakistan would be satisfied if Afghanistan wasn't [...]
Doctrines should be left to Politicians,Policymakers etc to make.Job of the Civil & Military bureaucracy is to implement those.
Pak Military consistent interference in Pakistan Politics has left the Country shallow & devoid of any political culture.
Most surprising is most Pakis side so do the U.S.buttressing the former ISI boss at every opportunity.
Afghanistan problem is not going to cease in a hurry neither
for Pakis or big brother.
US cannot afford to displease Pakistan. Without Pakistan’s cooperation the whole Afghan war become meaningless. Destsroying AlQuaeda and making US safe is just a piece of poetic imagination sold by US. The real purpose is oil. Here laying an oil pipe line from Central Asian republics to the Arabian sea through Pakistan which is the shortest. If Pakistan is discarded it is to be taken through India which is longer route. So just putting a friendly regime in Afghanistan, friendly to US, alone will not solve the problem. US has to take Pakistan as well in the deal. Hence the inaction by US against Pakistan even after knowing well of its double dealings.
Just catching Osama or other top echelon of AlQuaeda will not do. It has spread to other parts of the world. US cannot wipe out all those cloned outfits. US must be well aware of this.
The other option is through Iran. It looks by the way US is flexing its muscles at Iran shows that that option is not a closed one.
[...] who refuse to participate, it will produce a sweeping change in the war.Then, Arif Rafiq:In my previous post, I speculated that Kayani’s overtures to the Karzai government possibly contained the following [...]
I like Gen K’s overall approach. He has kept himself away from the blame game, still achieveing what is in Pakistan’s best interest without mud throwing.