American foreign policy has traditionally treated Pakistan as a security-seeking state, but C. Christine Fair suggests in Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War that Pakistan is an ideological and greedy state.
Fair has observed the statements and actions of Pakistan’s military and has produced a seminal work that challenges conventional wisdom on the Pakistani military and provides a scathing critique of U.S. policy toward this complicated, yet pivotal nation.
At a recent book launch at The Heritage Foundation, Fair explained that while Pakistanis claim that Kashmir is at the heart of their dispute with India, in reality, resolution of the Kashmir dispute would not reduce long-standing tensions between India and Pakistan. This is because the Pakistani army operates on the basis of ideology as opposed to a security-seeking strategy. This is evidenced by Pakistan’s continued military adventurism and reliance on terrorist proxies to threaten India, despite the fact that Pakistan has lost three Indo–Pakistani wars.
Similarly, as a greedy and ideologically motivated state, Pakistan will consistently seek territory, as in Kashmir, regardless of whether the acquisition of territory has positive security implications for the country, says Fair. Thus, a resolution to the Kashmir dispute will not placate Pakistan and may even serve to invigorate its desires for territorial acquisition.
Agreeing with Fair’s overall thesis, Heritage Foundation senior fellow for South Asia Lisa Curtis noted that Fair’s book “defines, in a very methodical fashion, the strategic/ideological culture of the Pakistan military and debunks the myth that Pakistan needs Kashmir resolved in order to feel secure in South Asia.”
Curtis further noted:
We are faced with a paradox with the Pakistan military because, frankly, as troublesome as their policies are—and as divergent as their strategic interests are from ours in the region—they are all we have to work with in terms of fighting the militants in Pakistan.… For that reason, it is essential that we remain engaged with Pakistan.
Despite advocating for U.S. engagement with Pakistan, Fair and Curtis supported conditioning assistance to Pakistan and questioned the Obama Administration’s decision to use its national security waiver authority to bypass conditionality on aid.
Fair’s work on the Pakistani army offers great insight to policymakers and academics, and her work is likely to impact the future of U.S. policy in Pakistan.
