Eric Lebson | November 21st, 2015
Overcoming frenemies: Solutions in Pakistan require long-term commitment

Earlier this week, the world looked on in horror as terrorists attacked a school and killed over a hundred children, but few in the media and the public at large have really dug in to the historical and political context at play. It bears noting that the attack in Peshawar is yet another horrible reminder of a perverse logic about how things work in that area of the world and it is important to understand this context when making choices with an impact on national security.
As a director at the National Security Council working on Pakistan policy and, before that, as a leader of the Pakistan policy team in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I was actively engaged in multiple conversations about how to work toward a resolution on these issues. But frankly, I did not see a coherent Pakistan policy at play. As numerous colleagues and I noted, conversations about “Afg-Pak†policy tended to be 99 percent Afg and one percent Pak, underscoring the significant difficulties involved.
In Afghanistan, we had freedom of movement; in Pakistan, our military forces were restricted to the Embassy and training locations on Pakistani military bases. In Afghanistan, we had the cooperation of the host government, whereas in Pakistan we were engaged as “frenemies†that depended on each other for critical needs but fundamentally distrusted each other for good reasons. Afghanistan was ruled by a weak central government – a stark contrast to the divided government of Pakistan where civilians had virtually no control over the issues of greatest concern to the United States (nuclear weapons, counter-terrorism, foreign policy, and intelligence issues, to name a few.)
For these reasons, and for many others, Pakistan policy is hard to create and harder still to implement. The history between the United States is long and complicated, with Pakistan™’s unresolved claims that the U.S. is a fair weather friend expressing themselves in emotional terms of abandonment, lying, and betrayal. The United States, in return, has its own claims about Pakistan™’s reliability as a partner. And while this marriage has long been strained, it is one that cannot fail. As many distinguished U.S. military officers have noted and lamented, it is impossible to secure a lasting peace in Afghanistan if we cannot resolve the ability of the adversary to hide unmolested in Pakistan™’s tribal region – a loosely ungoverned space between Pakistan™’s settled areas and the largely unmarked border with Afghanistan.
These circumstances, and Pakistan™’s tolerance for extremists operating within its borders, set the stage for this week™’s attack on the school in Peshawar, but we should note that there have been similar precedents throughout our long relationship as frenemies. In 2009, the U.S. was eager to see Pakistan do more to engage against militants on its territory, but Pakistan™’s Army was reticent to do so. Pakistan™’s Army Chief started to make comments about a military operation in South Waziristan, telegraphing long in advance of the October-November peak of ground operations for any militants then in the area to take a vacation while he conducted a show of force to appease the United States and Pakistanis in the settled areas.
On December 4, 2009, as the operation was ending, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistani terrorist group attacked a mosque in the military city of Rawalpindi, killing officers who were known to frequent it along with the son of the military commander for most of the tribal areas. This week™’s attack, which comes on the heels of a ground operation Pakistan has been conducting in North Waziristan since June, harkens back to the 2009 mosque attack in many ways.
So how, then, do we solve this problem to actively encourage a more coherent Pakistan policy that accomplishes our goals and helps to prevent these unspeakable and horrific tragedies in the future? A first – and crucial – step is to work toward a more complete understanding of the history between our two nations, the actions that we need to take, and the realistic outcomes we should expect.
Despite billions of dollars in foreign aid, development assistance, military reimbursement, and security assistance provided in the hopes that Pakistan will see their long-term interests in ensuring a positive relationship with the United States, we have not gained their trust. And when they fail to come to our side, as we hoped, we revert to either offering more support or floating the idea of cutting off aid entirely. This short-term ‘pay or punish’ thinking does not a positive relationship make.
In fact, no amount of American dollars or flattery has expanded our ability to operate more freely inside Pakistan. It is when we have overstepped this line that the Pakistan Army has reacted most aggressively.
Pakistan is not comfortable being on our side, but they are also not comfortable being fully in the camp of the people we are fighting. And as long as we continue short-term methods of thinking, we will continue to entrench Pakistan further in this confusing frenemy territory. We are unprepared to hold the people of Pakistan accountable for the actions of their government, military, and intelligence service, and until we get to that point, it would be good to accept that our options are limited to finding ways to engage in a soft but effective way that focuses on their long-term economic interests.
In the near-term, one of the programs in place to help U.S. allies to support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a reimbursement program that has yielded Pakistan about $1.2 billion per year to repay their treasury for gas, ammunition, and food expenses incurred by their military along the border. As U.S. military combat activities wind down in Afghanistan, Pakistan™’s Chief of Army Staff must be wondering whether those funds will still be forthcoming and, if not, how he will fill the hole in his budget.
It is questions like this that we need to pose to Pakistan as part of a concerted effort to help Pakistan think about the strategic value of a long-term solution to protect their interests. And we have to think about these programs as long-term, trustworthy solutions. If we have learned anything from the violence and mistrust that has fractured and complicated our relationship for years, it is that simply hoping our money will cause Pakistan to see the world through our eyes and do the right thing is not a policy, it is a dream.
This article was originally published on December 19, 2014 on TheHill.com.Â
Eric Lebson is a Senior Vice President at LEVICK and a contributing author to LEVICK Daily.
Eric Lebson | November 21st, 2015
Overcoming frenemies: Solutions in Pakistan require long-term commitment

Earlier this week, the world looked on in horror as terrorists attacked a school and killed over a hundred children, but few in the media and the public at large have really dug in to the historical and political context at play. It bears noting that the attack in Peshawar is yet another horrible reminder of a perverse logic about how things work in that area of the world and it is important to understand this context when making choices with an impact on national security.
As a director at the National Security Council working on Pakistan policy and, before that, as a leader of the Pakistan policy team in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I was actively engaged in multiple conversations about how to work toward a resolution on these issues. But frankly, I did not see a coherent Pakistan policy at play. As numerous colleagues and I noted, conversations about “Afg-Pak†policy tended to be 99 percent Afg and one percent Pak, underscoring the significant difficulties involved.
In Afghanistan, we had freedom of movement; in Pakistan, our military forces were restricted to the Embassy and training locations on Pakistani military bases. In Afghanistan, we had the cooperation of the host government, whereas in Pakistan we were engaged as “frenemies†that depended on each other for critical needs but fundamentally distrusted each other for good reasons. Afghanistan was ruled by a weak central government – a stark contrast to the divided government of Pakistan where civilians had virtually no control over the issues of greatest concern to the United States (nuclear weapons, counter-terrorism, foreign policy, and intelligence issues, to name a few.)
For these reasons, and for many others, Pakistan policy is hard to create and harder still to implement. The history between the United States is long and complicated, with Pakistan™’s unresolved claims that the U.S. is a fair weather friend expressing themselves in emotional terms of abandonment, lying, and betrayal. The United States, in return, has its own claims about Pakistan™’s reliability as a partner. And while this marriage has long been strained, it is one that cannot fail. As many distinguished U.S. military officers have noted and lamented, it is impossible to secure a lasting peace in Afghanistan if we cannot resolve the ability of the adversary to hide unmolested in Pakistan™’s tribal region – a loosely ungoverned space between Pakistan™’s settled areas and the largely unmarked border with Afghanistan.
These circumstances, and Pakistan™’s tolerance for extremists operating within its borders, set the stage for this week™’s attack on the school in Peshawar, but we should note that there have been similar precedents throughout our long relationship as frenemies. In 2009, the U.S. was eager to see Pakistan do more to engage against militants on its territory, but Pakistan™’s Army was reticent to do so. Pakistan™’s Army Chief started to make comments about a military operation in South Waziristan, telegraphing long in advance of the October-November peak of ground operations for any militants then in the area to take a vacation while he conducted a show of force to appease the United States and Pakistanis in the settled areas.
On December 4, 2009, as the operation was ending, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistani terrorist group attacked a mosque in the military city of Rawalpindi, killing officers who were known to frequent it along with the son of the military commander for most of the tribal areas. This week™’s attack, which comes on the heels of a ground operation Pakistan has been conducting in North Waziristan since June, harkens back to the 2009 mosque attack in many ways.
So how, then, do we solve this problem to actively encourage a more coherent Pakistan policy that accomplishes our goals and helps to prevent these unspeakable and horrific tragedies in the future? A first – and crucial – step is to work toward a more complete understanding of the history between our two nations, the actions that we need to take, and the realistic outcomes we should expect.
Despite billions of dollars in foreign aid, development assistance, military reimbursement, and security assistance provided in the hopes that Pakistan will see their long-term interests in ensuring a positive relationship with the United States, we have not gained their trust. And when they fail to come to our side, as we hoped, we revert to either offering more support or floating the idea of cutting off aid entirely. This short-term ‘pay or punish’ thinking does not a positive relationship make.
In fact, no amount of American dollars or flattery has expanded our ability to operate more freely inside Pakistan. It is when we have overstepped this line that the Pakistan Army has reacted most aggressively.
Pakistan is not comfortable being on our side, but they are also not comfortable being fully in the camp of the people we are fighting. And as long as we continue short-term methods of thinking, we will continue to entrench Pakistan further in this confusing frenemy territory. We are unprepared to hold the people of Pakistan accountable for the actions of their government, military, and intelligence service, and until we get to that point, it would be good to accept that our options are limited to finding ways to engage in a soft but effective way that focuses on their long-term economic interests.
In the near-term, one of the programs in place to help U.S. allies to support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a reimbursement program that has yielded Pakistan about $1.2 billion per year to repay their treasury for gas, ammunition, and food expenses incurred by their military along the border. As U.S. military combat activities wind down in Afghanistan, Pakistan™’s Chief of Army Staff must be wondering whether those funds will still be forthcoming and, if not, how he will fill the hole in his budget.
It is questions like this that we need to pose to Pakistan as part of a concerted effort to help Pakistan think about the strategic value of a long-term solution to protect their interests. And we have to think about these programs as long-term, trustworthy solutions. If we have learned anything from the violence and mistrust that has fractured and complicated our relationship for years, it is that simply hoping our money will cause Pakistan to see the world through our eyes and do the right thing is not a policy, it is a dream.
This article was originally published on December 19, 2014 on TheHill.com.Â
Eric Lebson is a Senior Vice President at LEVICK and a contributing author to LEVICK Daily.
- Brand
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- Here We Come
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- Public Perception & the Biden Transition
- WATCH: Reputation Management with PRSA
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Why Non-Profits are so Vulnerable to Crisis Risk
- The Threat to Free Markets
- What Happens When Nonprofits Get Caught In The Klieg Lights?
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Communications
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- Here We Come
- The Ministry of Common Sense
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Public Perception & the Biden Transition
- WATCH: Reputation Management with PRSA
- Leveraging Legal Expertise in Communications
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Company News
- Here We Come
- Recent Awards & Recognition
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- What’s a Director to Do?
- LEVICK Announces Partnership with BCG
- A New Look
- Albert Krieger, 1923-2020
- LEVICK Announces Partnership with Jipyong
- Speaking to In-House Counsel
- Childhood Lessons
- LEVICK Announces New Webinar Series with Turbine Labs
- LEVICK Launches New Website
- Crisis
- Trump’s pardons undercut a decade of foreign lobbying law enforcement. What now?
- Fighting for the Rule of Law with Marshall Harris
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- What to expect as the clock approaches midnight
- How to Stop the Madness
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- The Cost of Government Regulation and the Threat to Free Enterprise
- What Happens Next?
- Finance
- Here We Come
- The Threat to Free Markets
- Advisory & Insurance Services
- WATCH: Revolutionizing Litigation Finance
- Litigation Finance: Revolutionizing Litigation
- Consumer-Focused Solutions for Financial Health
- Event: Consumer-Focused Solutions for Financial Health
- Sports: Power and Money in a New Age of Social Justice
- The Balancing Act: The Role of Whistleblowers in American Commerce and Government
- The Evolving and More Powerful FARA
- FCPA & Compliance in a Time of Uncertainty
- Shareholders vs. Stakeholders: Is the Paradigm Shifting?
- Guest Column
- Guest Blog: The Mainstream Media Gets an A for Intellectual Arrogance, an F for Journalism
- Buckle up Directors: Cybersecurity Risk and Bankruptcy Risk Are Not Mutually Exclusive
- Buckle up Directors: Cybersecurity Risk and Bankruptcy Risk Are Not Mutually Exclusive
- South Africa: The Slow Decline of the ANC
- Why CSR Fails and How to Fix It
- What to Expect Following the European Elections?
- Buhari Inaugurated. What Now for Nigeria?
- Marketing- It’s Up To You…
- Crisis Management lessons from the air-crash investigation model
- The Future of War
- Health
- Food Issues & the Biden Administration
- Covid-19: The Pandemic that Never Should Have Happened
- Pharma’s Post-Pandemic Policy Outlook
- Keeping Hope Alive
- Real Herd Immunity
- The Fiction of College Sports Amateurism
- Mac Summit: Crisis Communications in a Post-Covid, Post-Election World
- Travel Industry Communications in the Age of Covid-19
- Track of Time
- Is C-19 Taking Women Lawyers’ Careers Back to the 1950s?
- Post-Pandemic PR Strategy
- Bankruptcy: A Culture of Transparency
- In Memoriam
- Snider’s Super Foods: Locally World Famous
- Speak Truth With Love, Not Anger
- In Memoriam: Stephen Susman
- Letter to the Movement
- John Lewis’ Life Bridged the Best of America
- Albert Krieger, 1923-2020
- In Memoriam of Marcia Horowitz
- Jim Lehrer Passes Away
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Harold Burson Passes Away
- Interviews
- CommPRO: Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Life & Legacy
- Richard Levick on “My Wakeup Call”
- Primerus Webinar: Into the Wind
- The Future of Baseball Post-Pandemic
- Webinar: The End of Brand Neutrality
- Thought Leadership & Organic Growth
- Man & Superman
- LEVICK Announces New Webinar Series with Turbine Labs
- Navigating Coronavirus Challenges in the Insurance Industry
- VIDEO: How to Anticipate & Avoid a Crisis
- What’s Next? with Julie Chase
- What’s Next?: California Electoral Behavior
- Law Firms
- Fighting for the Rule of Law with Marshall Harris
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Beyond Black Swan: Positioning the law firm for the new normal
- A Salute to Personal Courage and the Rule of Law
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- When a client becomes a law firm’s PR nightmare
- The General Counsel’s Dilemma
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- The Latest Top Class Actions
- Trust on Trial: How Communicators Succeed in a World No Longer Trusted
- The Latest Settlements, Class actions, Investigations & More
- Litigation
- Fighting for the Rule of Law with Marshall Harris
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Leveraging Legal Expertise in Communications
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Beyond Black Swan: Positioning the law firm for the new normal
- A Salute to Personal Courage and the Rule of Law
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- When a client becomes a law firm’s PR nightmare
- The General Counsel’s Dilemma
- WATCH: Revolutionizing Litigation Finance
- Litigation Finance: Revolutionizing Litigation
- Our Work
- Recent Awards & Recognition
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- Crisis Communications & The Age of Cancel Culture
- Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
- Video: Conversations with American Legends
- Staying Ahead of the Crisis
- A New Era of Insurance Marketing
- Infographic: Judgment Free Zone
- Infographic: Barriers to Entry
- Infographic: History Meter
- Assistance for Law Firms Engaged in Pro Bono
- Webinar: The End of Brand Neutrality
- Public Affairs
- Trump’s pardons undercut a decade of foreign lobbying law enforcement. What now?
- Fighting for the Rule of Law with Marshall Harris
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- What to expect as the clock approaches midnight
- How to Stop the Madness
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- Food Issues & the Biden Administration
- The Cost of Government Regulation and the Threat to Free Enterprise
- What Happens Next?
- Risk
- Ingredients of Decency
- ESG Performance and Credit Markets
- The Coronavirus Saga is Just Beginning
- No. 1 Risk of the Decade
- The Risk Evolution of Corporate Risk
- Extend Risk Management Reach
- Collective Action
- Risk Identifying Software
- The New Risk of Doing Nothing
- Political Unrest In Hong Kong
- High-Profile Kidnaps in African National Parks
- Cyber Resilience
- Social
- The Ministry of Common Sense
- How to Stop the Madness
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- CSR & Sustainability
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Dropping the Mic
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- Crisis, Covid, DEI & the Election
- MLK’s Memphis Address
- Technology
- Constella Intelligence Announces Hunter for Improved Investigation Capability
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- Digital Politics: The Future of Voting Technology
- Ethics in Electronics
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- The Pause
- Cybersecurity Incidents of the Summer
- The Changing Digital Economy and Cyber Risks
- The Future of U.S. Manufacturing
- Tech CEO Summer Superbowl hearing
- Technology & Privacy Alert
- This Week
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Dropping the Mic
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- What We Hear
- Track of Time
- Video: Conversations with American Legends
- Conversations with American Legends
- A New Era of Insurance Marketing
- American Legend