Trump's Good Idea: Conditional Aid to Pakistan

President Donald Trump announced that the US would withhold aid to Pakistan in a January 2 tweet. While conditional aid, particularly with regards to Pakistan, is part of the solution to creating a more stable region, Trump's tweet lacked any semblance of diplomacy. It also exposed his lack of understanding of the power structures in Pakistan.

Trump initially tweeted:

The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies, deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!

It's true that beginning with Pervez Musharraf in the fresh moments after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Pakistan has been playing a "double game" of sorts. While the government promises to work in tandem with the U.S. to fight terrorism, the intelligence service, ISI, and the military have trained and funded terrorist groups.

Trump is not only wrong when he says Pakistan has given the U.S. nothing, his statement is impolitic. Pakistani soldiers have fought terrorist groups such as the TTP in remote areas in which the US military is unwilling to engage. They've provided the US with logistic support. They have turned over some members of al Qaeda. Trump's statement calling out Pakistan's "lies" ignores the country's support in the fight against terrorists in the region.

Whether led by Musharraf, Asif Ali Zardari, or Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani government has been ineffectual and less powerful than the military and the ISI. So Pakistan isn't so much playing a double game as it possesses different power centers with competing interests.

The military and the ISI have two primary goals: combating India and instituting a policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan. The purpose of training and funding terrorist groups is to create instability and weakness in India. However, these groups' ideology isn't limited to anti-Indian sentiment. Some are also anti-Western, an unfortunate reality of ISI's anti-India campaign. Pakistan most closely aligns with the ethnic Pashtuns of Afghanistan. Pashtuns inhabit both sides of the border with Afghanistan. The most powerful Pashtun group is the Taliban. Thus, Pakistan has had a hard time distancing itself fully from the Taliban since the group ensures a Pakistani ally on its western border. The military's biggest fear is a pro-Indian government in Afghanistan.

Conditional aid in Pakistan could be an effective policy. Previous US administrations have felt that the alliance is more positive than negative despite the unfortunate reality that some US aid to Pakistan will indirectly be funneled to terrorist groups. If Trump disagrees, then the US could withhold military aid and instead tie aid to the strengthening of the government and the implementation of the rule of law.

One downside to providing conditional aid to Pakistan is that we don't live in a vacuum. China and Pakistan have fostered a close relationship since the 1960s and Pakistan will simply turn to their neighbors for aid in the absence of support from the US. It may also leave room for Russia to widen its net of influence.

Trump's policy of conditional aid to Pakistan is a good idea, but it has its pitfalls. It must be part of a larger approach and undertaken with a delicate touch as to not push Pakistan away from the US and into the arms of China and Russia. However, Trump's aggressive tweet has shattered the hope tactful diplomacy. Instead, the tweet provoked outrage. The result has been waning American influence within Pakistan. The best course for Trump in the short term is to backtrack and apologize.