Complicated Relationships in the War on Terror

To be blunt, the governments of the United States and Pakistan are far from kindred spirits.  Our national relationship with Pakistan is largely strategic in nature and is at best a unity of mutual benefit.  The Pakistani regime has been challenged throughout the war on terror by a need to balance its relationship with the United States with its own sovereignty and has suffered in the eyes of its people as a result.  Thus it strikes as particularly amazing to see pundits who weeks ago bemoaned our government’s failure to support our authoritarian allies in the Middle East, now  questioning Pakistan’s commitment to the war on terror in the wake of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

This strange policy of public antagonism seems illogical from just about any point of view- assuming we aren’t looking to broaden our current conflicts to include previous allies.  The termination of the United States’ most wanted target is an achievement to be pleased with, and however crass some of the week’s celebrations may seem it’s hard to be too judgmental of a jubilant US populace.   But parties at ground zero or outside the White House are much more understandable than “off the cuff” accusations of terrorist complicity from government officials.

It’s a relative rarity for me to agree with John Boehner on much of anything, but the current antagonism toward Pakistan’s government strikes me as genuinely mind-boggling.   Of our varied allies in the war on terror, few have been as critical as Pakistan.  In my ever increasing hopes that the recent death of a terrorist leader might lead to an eventual end to this costly pursuit the recent commentary of Leon Panetta certainly wasn’t reassuring.