Pakistan And The ISI

Posted on July 31st, 2008 by Daniel Larison

Despite its great importance for U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the region, the failed, rather clumsy attempt by the Pakistani civilian government to rein in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and place it under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior has not received nearly as much comment as it should.  Coming in the wake of the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul earlier this month, which was backed by elements within the ISI (detailed in the 7/28 TAC print edition), and the recent coordinated bombings in Ahmedabad in Gujarat, both the issuing and the reversal of the administrative order are particularly ominous.  Having attempted to assert control and been rebuffed under pressure from the military, the civilian government has shown its limitations and exposed itself to a backlash from the same forces that are trying to foment disorder in Afghanistan and India.  The inability of Gilani’s government to control the ISI is at the heart of the ongoing threat to the security of Afghanistan and the unreliability of Pakistan as an effective ally. 

In The Times of India, Prof. Sumit Ganguly of Indiana-Bloomington describes the extent of the problem:

The Pakistani military having wielded decades of political power has weakened every other institution within the Pakistani state. In aggrandising its extraordinary prerogatives from Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan to Zia-ul-Haq and most recently, Pervez Musharraf, it has used the ISI to serve a variety of political ends well beyond the tasks of espionage and counter-intelligence. Consequently, any civilian regime hoping to make the organisation more accountable will first have to think about how best to limit the privileges of the Pakistani army.

Until they can devise some institutional means to make the army more accountable to civilian authority, any attempts to control the activities of the ISI will not only be futile but dangerous.

The situation also calls for a reassessment of U.S. policies that disregard Pakistani sovereignty, whether they are advanced by President Bush or Sen. Obama, not least since PM Gilani has already declared this unacceptable.  Any association of his government with compromises of Pakistani sovereignty will further undermine civilian rule.  The recent attacks against Indian interests should also cause us to remember that the Pakistani military itself, and not simply rogue elements in the ISI, have been diverting American military aid to building up its conventional forces against India.  If the Pakistani military continues to use U.S. support in this way and if elements within the ISI continue to exploit the “war on terror” to pursue an anti-Indian agenda at the expense of U.S. interests, Washington will need to reconsider the level of military aid our government provides and Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally.

Cross-posted at The Daily Dish

2 Responses to “Pakistan And The ISI”

  1. Messing around in Pakistan is a recipe for disaster. It’s a very populous, distant, and unstable place, with a collection of nukes to boot.

    And no oil.

    Truly an entanglement to be eschewed.

  2. Mr. Larison,

    What do you propose the US to do in regards to Pakistan? The US cannot disentangle from the region, at least till its troops remain in Afghanistan. They cannot reign in Pakistan’s ISI (indeed, the govt of Pakistan in a way is bound up with the ISI) but they have to maintain diplomatic relations with Pakistan. I am at a loss myself thinking about this situation so I would like your opinion on it.

    I am also very puzzled by the “Pakistan is so unstable” meme that has been floating around since the Bhutto assasination. Pakistan is unstable but no more so than many South Asian countries. I would say that the most unstable region in Pakistan tend to border Afghanistan with the Pashtuns being the group delivering most of the the unstability. Other regions, especially the Punjab and Sind are relatively homogenous and peaceful (and they keep their bitterness to themselves instead of creating a defacto Pastunistan). So, its not uniquely unstable - many regions in India, for instance are much more heterogenous and much more unstable.

    That being said, getting involved in Pakistan militarily would be a disaster of unproportioned precendence and would make Iraq look like a joke. Not because of nukes - the only nation in danger of Pakistan’s nukes would be India- but because of the breakdown of law and order which would make Partition look peaceful.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.