US’ F-16 deal with Pakistan not revival of ties, but anti-terror strategy

Just when everything seemed hunky dory in India-American relations and even in a perception of the bilateral relations getting to dizzy heights, the Joe Biden administration threw a curveball. Washington quietly informed New Delhi that some $450 million had been sanctioned for upkeep and maintenance of an “ageing” F-16 fleet in Pakistan. 

Under the aegis of the Foreign Military Sales Program (FMS) the package goes to hardware, software and spares for the Fighting Falcons, some of which date back to the 1980s.

Package elements

In delivering the required certification to Congress, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency mentioned about a dozen elements that went into the package that would include participation in F-16 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program – electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program; International Engine Management Program; Engine Component Improvement Program, and other technical coordination groups; aircraft and engine hardware and software modifications and support; aircraft and engine spare repair/return parts; accessories and support equipment; classified and unclassified software and software support; precision measurement, calibration, lab equipment, and technical support services; and other related elements of aircraft maintenance and program support.

Opinion: Rishi Sunak’s loss leaves Tories sharply divided in Liz Truss regime

The notification also had the usual rhetoric: that the proposed sale did not include new weapons, capabilities or munitions; that it would support the national and security objectives of Washington so as to allow Islamabad to retain inter-operability with the US; sustaining the F-16s fleet that “greatly improves” Pakistan’s ability to support counter-terrorism operations through a robust air-to-ground capability. 

And finally the kicker: “The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region”.

‘Just maintenance, no new weapons’

That India officially did not raise the issue when it surfaced does not mean that objections were not put forth. The F-16s package came at a time when two senior officials of the State and the Defence Departments were in New Delhi as a part of a routine dialogue of senior officials; but some in the media were highly critical and bent out of shape that the Biden administration would take this step without informing its Quad ally especially when the upgrades went on to improve and enhance different platforms including electronic warfare capability besides communication and radar jamming functions. 

Opinion: The Queen is dead; British soft power remains globally all-pervasive

The notion that the  $450 million sale would not alter the “basic military balance” in the region had few takers, especially in a context of the sagging strategic fortunes of the Indian Air Force squadrons and in its operational requirements.

While he was in New Delhi ostensibly for the meeting of Quad senior officials David Lu, the Assistant Secretary of State, has apparently parroted the standard line that the maintenance deal was a part of a global American policy for maintaining defence sales for the entire lifecycle of a product. In this case, some of the F-16s are at least 40 years old and date back to the regime of Ronald Reagan who started the “sale” in 1981.

“We heard several concerns from the Indian government. Let me say this very clearly, this is a safety and maintenance program. There is no new aircraft being considered, no new capability and no new weapons system,” Lu has been quoted.

F-16s, war on terror  

There is something about the F-16s, maintenance program and war on terror that requires looking beyond one’s nose to see the twisted logic and reasoning dished out by Washington, not just by the Joe Biden team but successive administrations that knew and continues to be aware of the track record of Islamabad for at least four decades. The Reagan administration wanted to humour the Generals and the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) of Pakistan because of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan for close to a decade starting 1979.

Opinion: Overtaking UK economy – Been there, done that, nothing to cheer about

It was not just the F-16s, but all kinds of weapons and shoulder-fired missiles were shipped to the Mujahideen via Pakistan. The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew very well where much of this hardware was going to and who were laughing their way to the banks.

After a short hiatus – the F-16s remained a thorn for President Bill Clinton – came 9/11, the Bush administration’s war on terror and Afghanistan. And suddenly the “indispensability” of Pakistan in fighting terror outfits, conveniently forgetting that the South Asian country was itself the epi-centre of terror, not only playing host but generously funding and backing anti-Indian terrorist groups indulged in cross border terrorism. 

Free ride for Islamabad

For all the occasional tough talk of former US Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama that in the event of “actionable intelligence”, if Pakistan did not act America will, Islamabad continued to have a free ride. And suddenly everyone seemed to forget that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, known as KSM and the mastermind of 9/11, and Osama bin Laden were comfortably living in Pakistan under the very nose of the Generals until such time the former was captured and the latter killed

In 2018 President Donald Trump momentarily dropped the bombshell, accusing Pakistan of having done little to nothing on terror and wasting some  $33 billion of American tax payers money since the war on terror began and froze the nearly $2 billion aid package, only to resume much of it the following year. The reason: Afghanistan again and in roping in Pakistan vis-a-vis the Taliban, the Haqqani group and what not. 

And today it is the Central Asian country again that is forcing the Biden administration to re-evaluate and re-calibrate its policy to Pakistan that had fallen victim to the strident anti-US rhetoric of then Prime Minister Imran Khan including accusing Washington of conspiring to get rid of him.

The real deal

The F-16s are back in the picture, not because of their utility in the war on terror — as it is some strategists are laughing away at the theory of using air-to-air missiles in hunting down thugs holed on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or in some hideout in the North East Frontier Agency. When Ayman al Zawahiri was killed by a drone attack in Kabul, very few were willing to touch the US-Pakistan nexus with a bargepole, maintaining it was highly speculative. But over a period of time, the pieces seem to be falling in place.

“In all likelihood, the $450 million package to the PAF is payback for Islamabad providing information to Washington that resulted in al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri being eliminated by the US military in a dawn drone strike in downtown Kabul on July 31,” Christine Fair, Security Affairs specialist at Washington’s Georgetown University has been quoted as saying.

Further it has not gone unnoticed that the Director General of ISI was in Washington in May and that the Army Chief had publicly called for US help in a bailout package at the International Monetary Fund. Authorities in Pakistan and the US are highly unlikely to comment on sensitive security issues; but analysts are looking at events beyond the realm of pure coincidence or happenstance

To take out high profile terrorists, the American drones can take off from anywhere in the Middle East but apparently they need to hang around Pakistani airspace; and the brass hats in Islamabad have not wasted time in cashing in on yet another opportunity. Only this time around the bounty payout was  $450 million, not the  $25 million the FBI had on Zawahiri’s head. And perhaps there is much more to follow. Stay tuned!

(The writer was a senior journalist in Washington covering North America and United Nations)

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)