Pakistan’s political and power
structure has always been deeply influenced by its military. Since
independence, the country has witnessed several military regimes, and even
during democratic periods, the army has remained a decisive force behind the
scenes. This reality raises a critical question: Is the United States ruling
Pakistan indirectly through its Army Chief?
The answer is not a simple “yes” or “no.” It requires a balanced understanding
of Pakistan’s historical, political, military, and economic realities.
Historical
Background
Soon after independence, Pakistan
aligned itself with the Western bloc, particularly the United States. During
the 1950s, Pakistan joined military alliances such as SEATO and CENTO, which
allowed access to American military aid, equipment, and training. While this
cooperation strengthened Pakistan’s defense capabilities, it also sowed the
seeds of long-term American influence.
During the Cold War, the U.S. saw Pakistan as a strategic bulwark against
communism. This relationship deepened during the Afghan Jihad (1979–1989)
when Pakistan, under General Zia-ul-Haq, became Washington’s key partner in the
region. U.S. funds, CIA operations, and military coordination with Pakistan’s
intelligence agencies made American influence over the country’s military
leadership undeniable.
Political
Dimensions
Pakistan’s democratic journey has
been fragile and frequently interrupted by military takeovers. Each military
regime received tacit or open approval from Washington.
- Under General Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s relations
with the U.S. reached new heights of economic and defense cooperation.
- During General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, American
interests were directly served through the Afghan conflict.
- Under General Pervez Musharraf, after 9/11,
Pakistan became a “major non-NATO ally,” aligning its internal and
external policies with U.S. objectives in the War on Terror.
This pattern reflects a consistent
reality: whenever Washington needed to implement its regional strategies
quickly, it preferred to rely on Pakistan’s military leadership rather than
its civilian governments.
Military
Relations and Strategic Influence
The Pakistan Army is among the most
organized and powerful institutions in the country. A significant number of its
officers have received training in U.S. military academies, fostering a
professional and ideological alignment.
While the U.S. may not directly dictate Pakistan’s defense policies, it
maintains influence through military assistance, weapons supply,
intelligence sharing, and training programs.
This creates a dependency that subtly ensures Pakistan’s defense outlook often
remains compatible with American strategic interests — particularly concerning
Afghanistan, India, and China.
Economic
and Diplomatic Pressure
American influence is not limited to
defense and politics — it also extends to Pakistan’s economy.
Pakistan has long depended on institutions such as the IMF, World
Bank, and Asian Development Bank — all heavily influenced by
Washington.
Whenever Pakistan faces an economic crisis, obtaining financial assistance
becomes difficult without U.S. support.
This gives the United States a silent yet powerful lever to shape Pakistan’s
internal and external policies.
Hence, many analysts argue that America doesn’t rule Pakistan directly — it governs
through financial dependency, diplomatic leverage, and strategic manipulation.
The
Role of Civilian Government
Constitutionally, Pakistan is a
parliamentary democracy, but in practice, the real power often lies within
the military establishment.
When Washington needs a swift policy shift or strategic cooperation, it usually
bypasses civilian leadership and engages directly with the Army Chief or senior
military officials.
This dynamic marginalizes elected governments, making them appear subordinate
to both the military and external pressures.
Thus, critics often remark that “Islamabad governs, but decisions are made
in Rawalpindi — with Washington’s consent.”
Analysis
and Reality
The United States does not rule
Pakistan directly through the Army Chief, but it certainly exerts deep and
consistent influence over Pakistan’s policy-making.
This influence rests on three major pillars:
1.
Military
cooperation and intelligence sharing
2.
Economic
leverage through global financial institutions
3.
Regional
strategic alignment with American interests
The real problem is not America’s
influence per se, but Pakistan’s institutional weakness that allows such
influence to thrive.
Until Pakistan develops strong democratic institutions, economic independence,
and policy autonomy, external influence will remain a defining feature of
its governance.
Conclusion
The U.S. acts not as a ruler, but as
an influential power that shapes Pakistan’s decisions from behind the
curtain.
It does not govern through the Army Chief, but it often influences
governance through him.
This influence manifests through financial aid, diplomatic relations, and
military cooperation — each serving as a tool of control without formal
authority.
True independence for Pakistan will only emerge when power genuinely rests
with the people and their elected representatives, not with foreign
interests or military intermediaries.