In an unprecedented statement, the Afghanistan President, Hamid Karzai, on 15 June, issued a threat to send his troops across the border to fight the militants in Pakistan. This evoked a bitter reaction within Pakistan and deep concern in the international community. According to Karzai, "Afghanistan has the right of self-defence. When [militants] cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and to kill coalition troops it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same." Karzai specifically targeted Pakistani Taliban (Tehreek-i-Taliban) commander Baitullah Mehsud and its spokesman Maulvi Omar threatening them with a crushing defeat on their own home ground.

What could the various motivations behind the statement be?

It is ironic that Karzai never used such harsh words when Musharraf was in power in Pakistan as military dictator. However, the newly-formed democratic government in Pakistan has been pursuing a policy of engagement with the Taliban in FATA and Swat valley and has even offered to withdraw its troops from South Waziristan on the condition of the latter releasing kidnapped Pakistani soldiers. Given the historical ineffectiveness of peace deals in Pakistan, this policy has evoked misgivings both within Afghanistan and the US. There is growing distrust in Washington and among the US military commanders in Afghanistan of the Pakistani security forces, particularly about the loyalties of the Pakistani Frontier Cops fighting the Taliban. The recent US air strike in Mohmand agency killing 11 Pakistani soldiers is illustrative of this, strengthening, in turn, the speculations over an imminent launch of US operations in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Kabul, too, has for long blamed Pakistan's polices for the continuing instability in Afghanistan, particularly its southern provinces. Official sources in Afghanistan report a 50 per cent increase in Taliban raids into Afghanistan from Pakistan's tribal areas in April over the previous year. The massive escape of nearly 400 Taliban prisoners on 13 June in Kandahar seems to be the triggering point for Karzai issuing such a provocative threat. Moreover, the latest resolution by Baitullah Mehsud during a press conference in early June to continue the jihad against coalition forces in Afghanistan further incensed the Afghan President. Notably, Karzai has garnered support across Afghanistan for such an incursion. Situating the statement in light of these developments, and given the repeated denial by Pakistan that it is providing a safe haven to Taliban in the tribal areas, it becomes clear that the US and Afghanistan are sending a tough message to Pakistan to adopt a more robust military campaign against the Taliban.

Is the threat to send Afghan troops across the border into Pakistan justifiable?

Karzai's statement underscores growing frustration and dissatisfaction over the lack of power on part of the government and military in Pakistan to establish control over the tribal areas. The outcome of the Afghan-Pak Peace Jirga held in August 2007 offered nothing for reconciliation and cooperation between the hostile neighbours. Furthermore, Pakistan's decision to fence the joint border has been vehemently opposed by the Pashtuns on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border. Given the continuing attacks by the militants from Pakistan on Afghan and coalition forces, and the peace agreements between the Pakistan government and the Taliban yielding no results, Karzai's threat of sending troops on the grounds of self-defence is probably understandable. However, Karzai's threat at a moment when the internal situation is at its worst in both Afghanistan and Pakistan will only lead to, if anything, a regional nightmare. Today, the Taliban is as much a dilemma to Pakistan as it has been and is to Afghanistan.

Will Karzai be able to enforce his threat?

According to the report "Afghanistan's National Army: The Ambitious Prospects of Afghanization," (Jamestown Foundation, May 2008) the Afghan National Army (ANA) has 37,000 soldiers. In spite of efforts to allow for a gradual withdrawal of foreign troops, the report points out that the ANA is still extremely dependent on embedded trainers and its ability to plan and conduct complex operations on its own has not yet been tested. Against this background, Karzai's statement can be inferred either as being more reactive than offensive; else there is American military backing for his threat. Washington has voiced its impatience over the Pakistan government's efforts to negotiate with the militants and there have been reports of a of a US intervention in the tribal areas. It is just as possible that Karzai's statement does not necessarily mean that Washington is backing him. One thing however, is clear, the ANA will not be able operate in the tribal areas minus US assistance even if the public in eastern Afghanistan have voiced their support for Karzai's threat.

The last thing that Pakistan and Afghanistan can afford is a war between them. There is wisdom in trying to defuse tensions between them and developing a consensual strategy to tackle militancy along the borders.