AI Generated Summary
- The former defence adviser did not mince words in questioning Pakistan’s role in regional stability, arguing that repeated attempts to treat Islamabad as a counterterrorism partner have failed to produce results.
- Rubin also used the interview to highlight what he described as a troubling diplomatic imbalance in U.
- Bush administration, has argued that Pakistan should be formally labelled a “state sponsor of terrorism” and warned that the United States is undermining its own strategic credibility by extending honours to the country’s army chief.
A former senior Pentagon official has ignited controversy with sharp criticism of Pakistan’s military leadership and Washington’s diplomatic outreach to Islamabad. Michael Rubin, who served during the George W. Bush administration, has argued that Pakistan should be formally labelled a “state sponsor of terrorism” and warned that the United States is undermining its own strategic credibility by extending honours to the country’s army chief.
Rubin’s comments were made in an interview this week, during which he pointed directly to Army Chief General Asim Munir’s visit to the White House in June. Rather than welcoming him, Rubin asserted, U.S. officials should have taken an entirely different approach.
“There is no strategic logic for the United States embracing Pakistan,” Rubin said, insisting that Washington’s security establishment has for too long overlooked the nation’s record on cross-border militancy. “If Asim Munir comes to the United States, he should be arrested rather than honoured.”
The former defence adviser did not mince words in questioning Pakistan’s role in regional stability, arguing that repeated attempts to treat Islamabad as a counterterrorism partner have failed to produce results. According to Rubin, a clear designation would not only reflect reality but would also send a decisive message to the international community.
Rubin also used the interview to highlight what he described as a troubling diplomatic imbalance in U.S. policy toward South Asia. He claimed that Washington has, over the past year, mishandled relations with New Delhi despite India’s growing importance in global security, economic cooperation, and democratic partnerships.
“What we need is quiet diplomacy behind the scenes,” Rubin said, adding that a renewed commitment to India would require more than symbolic gestures. He went so far as to call for an explicit acknowledgement of past missteps. “At some point, a more vocal apology from the United States” is necessary, he argued, noting that personal pride should not outweigh national interests. “World democracies are much more important than one man’s ego, no matter how inflated it is.”
Rubin’s remarks arrive at a moment when Washington continues to balance strategic competition with China, counterterrorism goals in Afghanistan, and shifting power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. As Pakistan navigates political turbulence and India deepens ties with Western partners, the former official’s comments underscore a larger debate in U.S. policymaking circles: whether old alliances should be reassessed in light of new security realities.
