Time to Get Serious With Pakistan
The circumstances of Osama bin Laden's death put into stark relief the need to address the gross power imbalance between Pakistan’s generals and politicians.
AQIL SHAH is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Society of Fellows at Harvard University. He is writing a book about the Pakistan Military and Politics in Historical and Regional Perspective.
An annotated Foreign Affairs syllabus on Pakistani politics.
Pakistan is unlikely to collapse anytime soon, but the imbalance of power between its civilian and military branches needs to be addressed if it is to become an effective modern state. Washington must stop coddling Pakistan's military and instead work patiently to support the country's civilian authorities.
Sunday’s sudden capture of Osama bin Laden in close vicinity of the Pakistani army’s premier training academy has raised some troubling questions. By all appearances, he had been hiding in plain sight for almost six years. It remains unclear whether the Pakistani military was colluding with al Qaeda or really had just overlooked his compound. If the military knew his whereabouts, it most likely kept the civilian government in the dark. If it had no clue, it was because finding the al Qaeda chief was not a top priority.
Either way, the episode has put into stark relief the urgent need to address the gross power imbalance between Pakistan’s generals and politicians, whose views of the scourge of terrorism diverge. As I wrote in "Getting the Military Out of Pakistani Politics" (May/June 2011), whereas the government, led by the Pakistan People’s Party, unequivocally opposes violent extremists, the military continues to view some groups (such as the Haqqani network and the Lashkar-e-Taiba) as strategic foreign policy tools.
Suspecting Pakistan’s complicity in hiding bin Laden, some U.S. lawmakers, including Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.), have questioned the utility of sending additional aid to the country. Others, such as Representatives Ted Poe (R-Tex.) and Allen West (R-Fla.), have even authored legislation that would halt U.S. assistance to Pakistan if its deceit in hiding bin Laden is proven. But nuclear-armed Pakistan needs international assistance to keep its economy afloat and meet its long-term development needs. And, at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations today, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) urged caution, saying, “A legitimate analysis concludes that it is undeniable that our relationship with Pakistan has helped us pursue our security goals.”
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Related
The United States has long had evidence that Pakistan's ISI backs the Haqqani network, but it took an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul for Obama officials to condemn it publicly. If Islamabad does not clean up its act, Washington needs to follow up rhetoric with military sanctions.
Beyond its implications for religion and free speech, Pakistan's recent ban on Facebook holds a deeper story -- that of the country's changing power structure and the shifting roles of its three institutional pillars: the government, the judiciary, and the military.
Conventional wars are won by capturing territory, but counterinsurgencies are won by holding it. Rather than rushing to open new fronts against the Taliban, Pakistan must now focus on keeping the territory it has already cleared.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.