When examining the anti-Americanism in Pakistani societythat currently dominates the mainstream discourse under which a third force hasbeen unleashed by the powerful security establishment- known for making andbreaking governments- in Pakistan. The history of using enemy image inPakistani politics dates back to its struggle for separate homeland premised ontwo-nation theory where perceived Hindu majority threat was advanced to supportits demand. Principally, after the creation of Pakistan threat perceptionshould have diminished and principle of co-existence should have prevailed butproved to be otherwise. And soon after its creation the very idea of enemy (Hindu)was used to orchestrate the tribal invasion to capture Kashmir that ended intodivision of State and resulted into protracted conflict. As a result, anti-Indianismbecame litmus test for its nationalism, patriotism and, ideology for every maininstitution including military, education, media and politics. Anti-Indian narrativesproved to be such a double edge weapon for military that used it indiscriminatelyinternally to overthrow civilian governments; penalize their critics bydemonizing them as Indian agent, and now also dubbed as US agents too; andexternally unleashed proxy wars in the name of security threat and hatredagainst the neighboring states.

 Prior to recentlygrowing anti-Americanism successive US administrations were viewing Pakistanmilitary’s anti-Indian focus in the context of threat perception originating fromIndia over Kashmir conflict; as they widely propagated. But merit of thisargument was questioned by reports carried out by Pakistan governments’different commissions such as Hamood-ur-rehman Commission report and even some retiredmilitary Generals now, concluded that all four wars with India were initiatedby Pakistan: 1947, 65,71 and 1999 Kargil War.  However, using enemy image has been common practicein nations’ history for variety reasons including maintaining internal socialcohesion; diverting attention from internal governance failures; gatheringsupport for military adventures against adversary. But in Pakistan’s case itsuse was mainly motivated by military’s institutional vested political intereststo justify and legitimize their rule, and control over power and resources.

The anti-American narratives are not different fromanti-Indian when closely examine its political motives; where same forces areexploiting same nationalist and religious sentiments of people once again in thename of threat to security, nuclear assets and sovereignty.  This time bitterness in relations between USand Pakistan military was not caused by drone attacks or threat to Pakistan’s security,as is suggested or propagated by Pakistan government. Rather tension between USand Pakistan was caused by the double role Pakistan military and its spy agencywas playing on war against terrorism, for which they received over $20 billion. US administration repeatedly raised thisissue officially with Pakistan Army and government, and also expressed itsconcerns over for supporting anti-Afghan groups publicly, and asked its spyagency to end ties and support to these groups. Islamabad denied all US claimsabout their alleged support to these groups and called accusations baseless todefame Pakistan army, exactly in the same manner Islamabad has been denying NewDelhi’s accusations for last two decades.

 Relationsfurther deteriorated when Osama Bin Laden was found and killed in the backyardof Pakistan military area in a US operation that not only validated US claimsand exposed Pakistan military’s complicity but also caused them internationalembarrassment. Military Generals tried to turn the table around by incitinganti-American sentiments over the issue of violation of sovereignty to divertthe attention from their own complicity and accountability. Internally, theyincreased pressure on civilian government lest they shouldn’t join hands withopposition for their accountability and entire parliament was made protect andhide their guilt.

The fact remains that Pakistan was and would never be genuineally on war against terrorism as long as military is in control powers. At thevery outset this partnership was premised on conflicting objectives,perceptions and goals with regard to Afghanistan vis-à-vis Taliban-Alquaedagroups. The US foes (Taliban-Al-Qaeda) were Pakistan’s army’s strategic assets,and US war for stable Afghanistan was and is running against Pakistan military’slongstanding notion of strategic depth lying in control of Afghanistan.  However, in spite of these conflictinginterests and realities, then military ruler Pervez Mushraf was forced by 9/11circumstances to agree on war against terrorism but that declaration against terrorismhad not changed the focus, perception and intentions of Pakistan military. Theyremained convinced and focused to protect Taliban and Al-Qaeda groups in orderto re-control post-America Afghanistan, and rushed their aircrafts to liftthese groups from Afghanistan. In addition, Musharraf government adopted preemptivestrategy to maintain pressure on US by facilitating anti-US MMA religiousalliance to win elections in two strategically important Provinces that wereknown as safe heavens of terrorism.

Keeping this background in view, inform us about thepossible trajectory of present anti-Americanism unfolding in the form of newMMA-like religious “Defense Pakistan council” DPC, led by extremist andreligious parties including LeT supremo Hafiz Saeed, whose name andorganization is on global terrorism’ radar, and Imran Khan PTI, share commonanti-American narratives. This new development clearly suggests that establishmenthas not changed its Afghan and Indian focus. As, DPC alliance and rallies aredirected at US and India to resist growing pressure from US for dismantlingterrorist and extremist infrastructure that still exists in Pakistan and isused against Afghanistan and India.

While PTI’s Imran Khan factor, which launched hispolitical campaign from anti-drone attacks; but latter broadened its focus byadding corruption issue in it, has directed his campaign to dislodge thecivilian government and sideline the PML (N) serves military establishment interests.As, military establishment harbor strong disliking about both leaderships, and byfacilitating Imran Khan’s campaign it has conveyed message externally andinternally that they have, will and means to reshape the domestic politicallandscape and external policies whenever they decide to do so. Primarily, anti-Americanpolicies are aimed at to convey message to US that path of Afghanistan’ssolution goes through Pakistan GHQ, not any civilian government or party. Inaddition, they are making it clear that any attempt to by-pass or to underminethe interests of military institution will complicate the US goals inAfghanistan and in the region. In nutshell, military’s present confrontationwith US suggests to review all its policies from Kerry-Lugar bill to India-USrelations, and role of Pakistan in post-America Afghanistan that are deemed vitalfor their institutional vested interests. Is US ready for making suchconcessions to Pakistan military and dump civilian government, and India too? Ifnot, what would be the future course of military in Pakistan, to push it intofurther chaos and crisis or to change its focus that has been the root-cause ofevery problem.