World Political Blog » Taleban

The timetable for US withdrawal from Afghanisation going beyond the declared 2011 timeline

Ashish — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:45:19 +0000

Barrack Obama inherited a huge can of worms from his predecessor, George Bush, in terms of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And his political base, the Democrats, consists of a large number of more liberal supporters who abhor the US military presence in these countries and want the military to get back. Obama has been lucky in Iraq, with the country slowly settling down into an uneasy peace (and with a lot of political jostling); the US military has been disengaging and not facing too much pressure during this process. However, it is in Afghanistan that things are not going to plan. The US cannot just up and leave from the country, since that would effectively mean turning the country over to the Taliban, with a huge chance of re-emergence of the country as a terrorist training ground, it would mean that the US would be seen as a defeated rival and militant Islam will get a huge face lift from such a step, and the credibility of the US as a force that is capable of staying will be lost.
It would be pretty clear that Obama realizes this, and sought to reassure all sides of opinion by declaring that the US will stay, but will move towards withdrawal from Afghanistan by July 2011. However, this had an immediate negative effect on the field of operations by letting the Taliban know about the long term plans of the US, and also letting them gain the upper hand by threatening the populace that with the US going to leave in a matter of months, they better not support the US, or they would face a reaction from the Taliban later. The US military was pretty understanding of this reaction, and also passed on the same sentiments, since it got more difficult to get the Taliban on their side.

And now we see that the US is slowly changing their projection of this date as a important milestone, with the US already talking about a 2014 date (which is a further 3 years) (refer article)

In a move away from President Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.

This is a welcome change. Even though one would not want the US to be in Afghanistan and lose more military members (and also the Afghanistan population who are suffering the confrontation between the US and the Taliban), the mission that the US has set for itself in Afghanistan in terms of ensuring that the country is not a center for terrorism will need this time and effort to come to a result.

Talking peace with the Taliban – will it work ?

Ashish — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:04:58 +0000

The United States and some other allied countries (who have forces in Afghanistan) have been battling the Taliban for many years now, and they are not winning the battle. The Taliban get a lot of support among the embittered people of Afghanistan who have seen only years of fighting, who are conservative by themselves, who see a corrupt Government that provides zero development and supports the warlords; and in addition, the Taliban have a base in the neighboring country Pakistan where they can regroup, get the required rest and sanctuary (even though the US has drones forever attacking from the sky and killing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda where they can find them).
For many years now, the US has recognized that there can be negotiation with the Taliban since the Taliban has the aim of wresting control of Afghanistan and then would be back to its tactics of promoting its stringent code of Islam, its promotion of the practice of developing Islamic warriors; however, now that the US is becoming war-weary of the Afghanistan conflict, it seems to be silently supporting defining some sections of the Taliban as people who can be negotiated with and who can be made part of a solution to the problem in Afghanistan.
This is a tough call, since for the sake of ending the war, the US looks to be giving up the war; and this is not a fight against some rational but different ideology, this is a fight for the future. If the US, in any way, seems to be losing the war to the Taliban and gives up, it will show up in a wide-spread resurgence of Islamic fervor throughout countries in the whole region, and demonstrate to them that they are on the winning track.

Having to defend the decision of announcing the withdrawal from Afghanistan

Ashish — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:55:41 +0000

Afghanistan is a country which has a long history of not giving an easy time to foreign armies. From the time of the British who spent many battles in there, but could never claim that they had an easy control, to the Soviets who spent a huge military effort over there but finally had to retreat in the face of a harsh and determined, religion-fired insurgency, to the Pakistanis who used proxies (Taliban) to control the country, but could never claim that Pakistan ran Afghanistan. The history of the US in terms of running military campaigns in foreign countries after the Second World War has been bad; they had to retreat from Vietnam, retreated from Beirut after a huge truck bomb killed many marines, the Iraq war had seen a huge amount of internal opposition, a balanced Somalia effort was stopped after a street fight in Mogadishu killed 18 US soldiers, and so on. There is a huge internal debate in the US about evaluating the needs of sending troops to battle overseas, even if there is a need; and the sight of body bags of fallen soldiers causes this debate to get even more heated and emotional.
In Afghanistan, the US has a bad reputation; they were heavily involved till the Soviets left, and then the US abandoned the area, only picking it up after it started sensing terrorism efforts originating from there, and finally after the 9/11 attacks. Now, after President Obama did a balance of the military needs and political needs by announcing more troops, but also announcing a deadline, he has to balance multiple reactions.

Internally, the US President is coming under huge strain; his fellow Democrats don’t support adding more troops to the Afghan war since it is highly unpopular with their base; the Republicans did not support his announcing of a deadline to commence withdrawal of troops. The biggest fear of everyone is that by announcing a date, the Taleban, which has been out of power for 8 years now and fighting the insurgency, can afford to wait 2 more years and then make the effort to overthrow Karzai when the US leaves. Pakistan would no longer be willing to invest in an effort to fight the Taleban if it sees the US disengaging from the area, and needs a friendly Afghanistan to counter India.
So now, you have US officials trying their best to persuade leaders from all over that the US has not announced a disengagement, that the withdrawal would only happen if the Afghan army and security services are in a good enough condition, and that the end date for the withdrawal is not decided. Further, the US would set up bases in the area to ensure that it retains a sizable balance. However, Obama is also being accused of making decisions based on politics by ensuring that a withdrawal is in place when he is fighting for re-election.

What will Obama do in Afghanistan ? More troops, or … ?

Ashish — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:40:40 +0000

When people talk about Afghanistan and its history, there is unanimity that no outside country can win inside Afghanistan. The British tried it in ‘The Great Game’s in the 19th century, and they lost troops, but never looked to be in a position where they could claim that they had repressed all discontent. The Soviets tried it in the 1980′s, but they were defeated by the terrain, by the fierce Afghans (although aided by the combined weight of Saudi Arabia, the US, and Pakistan); all together, it has always been claimed that no outside force can take control of Afghanistan, and it is predicted that the same will happen to the Americans in their effort in Afghanistan.
After the 2001 WTC attacks, the US supported the Northern Alliance in their battle against the Taleban, and literally bombed the Taliban into giving up their entire occupied territory. However, after that the Americans forgot all about history. George Bush gave up the effort in Afghanistan for the war in Iraq, and the unrest in Iraq made sure that Afghanistan did not get enough troops to protect against a resurgent Taleban, there was not enough support to ensure that development of the incredibly backward regions would happen, and the combination of a weak President Karzai supported by former warlords ensured that development and reform would not happen even though it was incredibly needed.
On the other hand, the Taleban, after taking its knocks in 2001, used a strategy of getting support and medical help for its fighters in Pakistan, and slowly started assuming enough strength to attack the US soldiers.

Now the situation in Afghanistan is that there are just not enough troops on the ground to support the cities, forget the countryside where the Taleban reigns supreme. The US military commander in Afghanistan (Gen. Stanley McChrystal), who was given charge earlier this year, has now asked for 40,000 – 60,000 troops more, making clear that less number of troops than that will lead to a defeat. Obama is already facing many of his own supporters who are asking for a reduction of troops from Afghanistan, or even a complete removal. It is difficult for him to add the number of troops requested, but any refusals (or even going with his veep’s half-baked proposal of less troops, and more missiles and UAV’s) will open him upto the charges of being weak on national security. And if the US now withdraws or reduces its presence, or allows the Taleban to control more territory, this will be a sign of weakness that the US cannot really exhibit, given that it has foes such as Al-Qaeda (and its linked organizations), enemy states such as Iran and North Korea. For these foes, a US withdrawal means that the US does not have the stomach to go in for fights, and is an open invitation to attack it closer to home. Obama needs to take the correct decision, looking into mind the long term, and disregarding the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.

Baitullah Mehsud dead in a drone attack – and his successors are now fighting

Ashish — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:07:36 +0000

For Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud has been one of the people who have caused it the most grief. Baitullah was the leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the leader of what has been called the Pakistani Taliban. He first became internationally famous when he was blamed for being behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and in an ironic revenge, he was killed by a missile fired by a US operated drone when Benazir’s husband, Asif Ali Zardari is the President of Pakistan.
Baitullah was hiding in Waziristan, a rugged and difficult terrain that the Pakistani Army has always been reluctant to attack. This was even when Baitullah was blamed for a majority of the suicide attacks (including huge bomb attacks that made international news) that happened inside Pakistan, and yet he seemed to be always ahead of the Pakistani military. It was only in the recent past that the US operated drones (with their fearful missile launching capability) started striking fear in the hearts of these terrorists. The drone with their video coverage meant that these terrorist leaders always had to be on the move; and it was only recently that the drones also started tracking the Tehrik-i-Taliban; earlier the drones would be attacking the Al-Qaeda leadership hiding out in these remote areas as opposed to taking on the Pakistani Taleban. This had created a divergence between the US and Pakistan since Al-Qaeda was threatening Pakistani interest, while Baitullah was attacking Pakistani interests.
Now, the question is what are the next steps ? With recent reports of his potential successors having indulged in severe infighting and firing at each other, there is an opportunity for the Pakistani Government and military to step in and try to clean up. However, it seems much easier to try and strike a deal, since that would ensure that the hard steps of fighting in a difficult terrain can be avoided (link to article):

On an immediate basis, the Pakistan Army needs to decide whether or not to go ahead with a fully fledged military operation in South Waziristan, the headquarters of the TTP. But before that, Pakistan’s government, army and intelligence agencies will have to undergo some existential angst articulating Pakistan’s absolute stance on militancy. The outcome of that thought process will determine what happens next. The Pakistan Army should not make the mistake of sitting back and hoping that a battle of succession will lead to rampant infighting that will forever fragment the TTP.
The US, meanwhile, has expressed concern that Pakistan will try to negotiate with Baitullah’s successor. After all, reports suggest that Baitullah’s father-in-law Malik Ikramuddin had been in touch with government officials looking to strike a new peace deal. Striking now will indicate a genuine desire to rid Pakistan of militancy. Talking, on the other hand, will suggest that Pakistan is still engaged in a double game.

Past deals with terrorists have always led Pakistan into more trouble, with the terrorist seeing such deals as being reflective of the inability of Governments to fight with them (or of having the stomach to take losses), and using this time to regroup and build up into being a formidable force again. The international community also suspects the intention of the Government when it strikes such deal.

Pakistan finally takes on the Taliban

Ashish — Sat, 09 May 2009 10:47:15 +0000

For months now, people in Pakistan and the world have wondered about the inaction of Pakistan in dealing with the Taliban. The Pakistani Taliban (hard to differentiate between the Afghan and the Pakistani Taleban since they both respect Mullah Omar as the supreme leader), already present in the hard regions of Pakistan that touch Afghanistan, suddenly in the last few months attacked a beautiful tourist valley called Swat (not very far from the capital) and started a campaign of attacks, hardline Islam, and general targeting of Government institutions such as schools, police stations, etc. The Government, far from fighting this force effectively, backed down and after a sort of retreat, signed a peace treaty in which they agreed to the terms of the Taleban, with the only condition being that the Taleban will not bear arms in Swat after the deal. However, this was a compromise comparable to the buckling down to Hitler in Munich, and had effectively the same effect.
The Taleban saw this buckling down of state authority as a show of its weakness in front of the Taleban (and maybe a sign that the state was having problems in getting the army to fight against an Islamic inspired force), and started expanding the campaign, thereby using the Swat valley as a base from which to overrun nearby districts. In their next target, they reached close to Islamabad, and the Government let loose a volley of talk at them, accusing the Taleban of violating the terms of the accord and hoping that the Taleban could be persuaded to back down. There was still no direct action that the militia understand.

At the same time, this inaction was something that the western backers of Pakistan were not able to understand; it seemed like a vindication of the fact that the Taliban was not something that the government or the military seemed to want to tackle; and the pressure exerted was incredible. There was a huge flurry of articles and interviews about how Pakistan is on the verge of collapse, that the institutions have lost credibility and were not able to ensure social justice in the country (which encouraged the growth of a force such as the Taleban), that the nuclear arms hosted by Pakistan were in danger of being taken over by the Taleban, and so on.
There is also another view that is seeming to emerge, that action taken by the Government on the urging of western Governments would turn the population further against the west and against the actions of their own Government; already there is a feeling that this is not Pakistan’s war and that forcing the Pakistani army to fight their own Muslim brothers is just not done. The view was that it needed for people to hear more about the kind of society that the Taleban is bringing on, and that as the Taleban occupied more areas of the country and that people realized that now they were in mortal danger, that this was not something that was happening far away, they would finally turn against the Taleban. This would be a time for the Government to take action.
Currently, the Pakistani Government has declared that the pact in Swat is dead, and fierce military action is underway against the Taleban. There is no common thoughts on whether the Government did indeed plan it this way, or whether the action was taken because the pressure on the Pakistani Government and the army was proving impossible to face; indeed, the fact that the Pakistani military has always been a proponent of the strategic depth option in Afghanistan makes it hard to say either way. It needs to be seen whether the action will go all the way, or will end when Zardari comes back to Pakistan.

Why the Taliban seems to be rolling through the countryside

Ashish — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:37:13 +0000

It has always puzzled a large number of people as to why the Taliban seem to be generating a lot of support in the Pakistani countryside. After all, a group that believes in a harsh interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence and acts to implement their beliefs should not be succeeding at this rate. Even in a society where women are not supposed to have equal rights, are not supposed to show their faces (or their bodies) to strangers, or come out in the open, the customs imposed by the Taliban are draconian. Women cannot come out of their homes unless escorted by a male relative (even if it is an emergency), cannot study in schools, and numerous other such practices are enforced by the Taliban in the area that they control. However, even men are not left untouched – music is deemed un-Islamic unless it is music in praise of Allah, men are forbidden to shave and should have turbans, no watching movies, be sure to follow the calls to prayer during the day, and so on. Recently, they killed both the man and woman who had eloped and whose families had reported them.
So, a bit of research, and one started reading a lot more about the society where the Taliban thrive. The rural areas of Pakistan are societies that are extremely backward; there is little economic development, feudalism and the power of the moneyed and the landlords is immense, the instruments of the state (bureaucracy, police, judicial, etc) are not of much help to the common man and corruption is immense. In such areas, the promise of bringing in Islamic law (sharia) that does not distinguish between the rich and the poor can attract a huge number of people, can make them converts. As a bonus, the people who make up the Taliban are people who resemble the poor rural folks a lot; they are less educated, poor; the difference is, they are part of a movement that can look the moneylender / police man / feudal lord in the eye and not have to back down. Here is an article that explains the Robin Hood type of image (link to article):

In radio broadcasts and sermons, Taliban militants have been promoting themselves as Islamic Robin Hoods, defending Pakistan’s rural poor from a ruling elite that they describe as corrupt and oppressive. That message has been resonating throughout the Pakistani countryside, where the culture is deeply conservative and the people are desperately poor. “Justice [in Pakistan] is only for people who have money,” Daoud said, while slicing through handfuls of grass with a small scythe. “We are illiterate,” he added, “but we are hoping that with Islamic sharia law, our lives will get better.”
Enforcement of sharia law is the platform the Taliban have been using to justify recent land-grabs, such as last week’s armed occupation of the district of Buner, some 60 miles from the Pakistani capital. Militants have slowly taken over territory in northwestern Pakistan by first targeting unpopular landlords and bureaucrats, according to Amnesty International, the human rights watchdog. “Its systematic. The Taliban move into an area, they use local existing resentments. They often go in with the guise of being Robin Hoods,” said Amnesty International representative Sam Zarifi. “They scare away some local thieves, they impose very, very quick justice, very harsh justice, and initially in some places they are even welcomed.”

And how are the Taliban fought ? Attempts to reform society to make it more even and less corrupt do not go anywhere (or are not even made); the military has fought the Taliban in parts, but the battle is a battle in which innocents are affected and make them resentment of the efforts of the military; the presence of the US drones that make frequent bombing runs of villages in order to eliminate terrorists are seen as invasions of Pakistani sovereignty, and killing of innocents only serves to inflame the population even more.
What can be done ? The effort has to be bring down the Robin Hood image of the Taliban by reducing corruption levels, by making more development in these regions, and at the same time, confronting them militarily. One wonders whether Pakistan can do all this ?

Pakistan in the midst of political turmoil

Ashish — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:04:25 +0000

Pakistan is again in the middle of incredible political turmoil, something that the country thought it had escaped from after the previous election that brought Zardari and the Pakistan Peoples Party to power. Zardari has made a strong pitch for keeping his powers strong and unchallenged, by trying to crush the movement led by Sharif against the Government. The issues are politically inter-locked and very complex.
This movement was precipitated by the judgment by the Pakistani Supreme Court that ruled the Sharif brothers ineligible to stand for elections, a judgment that deals a death blow to the political ambitions of Nawaz Sharif and which he is blaming on influence by the Zardari Government. The latest reports from Pakistan are that Nawaz Sharif has been placed under house arrest for 3 days in an attempt to quell the movement and stop the campaign. The political paralysis can cause the Pakistani Government to take its eye off the major problems that face Pakistan.

- Pakistan is facing an incredible movement by the terrorists and Islamic fanatics to take over increasingly large sections of the country and bring these regions under their influence. This is a violent campaign that is very brutal, and which the army and the political leadership are unwilling to fully face (and supposedly because the army is unwilling to abandon the religious warriors, seeing them as an instrument that can help shape the strategic aims of Pakistan in Afghanistan and Kashmir). The takeover by the Taliban of the Swat valley is still unfolding before the international community, and everybody is still shocked.
- After the latest terror attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, Pakistan is now thoroughly dubbed as a very unsafe place, and all sort of tourism and foreign interest is now off.
- The traditional tensions between the 3 power centers, the Army Chief, the President and the Prime Minister are again escalating. Gilani, the Prime Minister, is trying to make political space for himself by aligning with the interests of the army and moving away from Zardari. Army chief Kayani in turn is starting to make his pressure public now, with increasing reports about warning the politicians to settle things down
- The tussle between Zardari and Sharif is the biggest problem. These 2 had made an uneasy truce and alliance when they wanted to bring down General Musharraf, but then separated soon after (and they have a long history of animosity – Zardari after all spent about a decade in jail during Sharif’s rule)
- The US and other western countries want the country to be focused on fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and have a great deal of influence and are not wanting in exercising authority. Hence, constant use of missiles from drones that attack inside Pakistan even though it is unpopular in Pakistan, and using their influence to try to arrange political deals inside Pakistan (to the extent that no politician can be truly anti-American and be a strong leader)
In these times, this tension between Zardari and Nawaz Sharif is a truly dangerous escalation of the political conflict, and one that can only lead to a worsening of the situation.

Pakistani authorities take action against LeT

Ashish — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:05:09 +0000

After the devastating attacks in Mumbai late November 2008, the pressure on Pakistan escalated tremendously. For the last 2 decades, Pakistan has been using the policy of sponsoring terrorists (not only Pakistan, since after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan along with the US and Saudi Arabia armed people to fight against the Russians, using religion as the driving force), and this is something that is confirmed by the intelligence agencies of many countries as well as by Pakistani politicians at different periods. As with many other Frankensteins that get created, this is one creation that is hurting people across the globe, including the state of Pakistan where the terrorists believe that the state is under the control of the infidel United States and that a pure religious state needs to come into existence.
All this was highlighted with dramatic effect on November 26th when a band of terrorists came to the Indian city of Mumbai, and with precision, caused major damage to the city and killed almost 200 people. Now, investigations that have been carried out (by Indian investigators and those of other countries (since nationals from other countries have also died)) have come to a conclusion that the attacks were planned by the Lashkar-e-Taiba and supported by many former intelligence officials and ex-army men. Inspite of Pakistani denials (maybe to provide the effect that the Pakistani nation does not buckle under pressure), the United States and other countries have applied a lot of pressure, and this pressure seems to be having effect:

After mounting pressure from the United States and India, Pakistani authorities raided a camp run by the militant group suspected of carrying out the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani and American officials said Monday. The operation on Sunday appeared to be Pakistan’s first concrete response to the demands from India and the United States to take action against the militants suspected in the attacks, which have raised tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors to their highest point in years.
A senior Pakistani security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said about a dozen people had been arrested in the raid, which took place in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The raid on Sunday appeared to be the first step by the Pakistanis that at least tacitly recognized the American and Indian claims. Counterterrorism experts familiar with the behavior of the Pakistani security services said there was a need by Pakistan to be seen to be doing something to alleviate the American and Indian pressure, as well as to avert the possibility of an Indian military strike.

However, the reality is that Pakistan is facing tremendous pressure, which is limiting the ability to do much:
- For the first time, US and other western tourists were targeted, and given the soft nature of these targets, a successful attack such as this will make these tourists seem more susceptible to such dangers
- Pakistani politicians, because of their past projection of India as the enemy, cannot afford to be seen as acting against so-called Kashmiri freedom fighters under US pressure
- The Pakistani military as well as the Government are financially strapped and need desperate financial support (especially when China and Saudi Arabia have refused to provide support)
- The military has just shown how powerful it is in the running of the country, and it would seem that the civilian leadership is buckling under the pressure, especially with the ISI being seen as a rogue party
- These militants, at the same time attack many Pakistani interests (including a much higher rate of suicide and other bombings)
- The incoming US administration comes in with the understanding that Pakistani was deceiving them in terms of previous efforts against the militants, and a lot of the aid was not used as the way that the Americans intended
- The US remains dependent on the Pakistani authority for the war against the Taleban, given that the last few days have seen the support convoys for the Americans in Afghanistan getting attacked in Peshawar

With all these factors, many of them at cross-purposes, it is hard to really guess what the Pakistanis will do. For their own survival, and under tremendous US pressure, they need to show action, while carrying the military along, and yet the public projection should be as low key as possible to avoid being seen to be acting under foreign pressure.

Another US strike against Pakistani terrorists

Ashish — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:22:19 +0000

It seems that a line has been drawn after the first attack in September where US troops crossed the Afghan-Pakistan border and killed people inside Pakistan. This was supposed to be based on a decision by US President which allowed US troops to cross the border and attack inside Pakistan without asking permission from Pakistani territories. This decision was publicly strongly opposed by both the Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Kayani, and the President Asif Zardari. The attack led to massive protests inside Pakistan and would have been indefensible for Pakistani authorities.
It seemed pretty clear that a public line had been drawn in the sand whereby US troops could not land inside Pakistan and do operations. However, at the same time, it seems clear that missile strikes by American drone aircraft are permissible. There is only token protest, and the attacks keep on happening at regular intervals.

What seems probable is that a decision has been taken whereby the extent of engagement has been decided. It would also be clear that there must have been tremendous US pressure on Pakistan to do more, or to stand aside and let US troops in (and also forego the massive financial support). It cannot be a coincidence that the last few days have seen a major escalation of the conflict between the Pakistani army and its own Taleban (even though the Pakistani army has lost a lot of its sheen in this conflict):

Missiles, believed to have been fired from US drone aircraft, killed as many as 21 people in one part of Pakistan’s tribal area yesterday. Pakistani intelligence officials said most of the dead were militants, but the attacks will aggravate strains between the two countries over American military assaults on targets in Pakistan. Pakistani officials said two villages in the North Waziristan area were hit just before dusk by the missiles. News reports identified 16 of the dead as “foreigners”, a term which usually describes fighters from Arab countries or Central Asia.
Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have complained that missile attacks violate the country’s sovereignty and anger the local population, making it harder to crack down on the extremists. US commanders have spoken of respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty but have suggested they would not stop cross-border strikes on militants whom they suspect of aiding the Taliban insurgency across the border in Afghanistan.

These strikes are also hard for the Pakistani establishment to defend, but they must have calculated that this is a position that can be defended. Not letting the Americans do so otherwise would lead to a much major problem in terms of a confrontation with an enraged nation (the US has concluded that Pakistan under Musharraf did not live upto all its promises of acting against terror).