On Monday, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jim Banks of Indiana introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives welcoming Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to Washington and recommitting the United States to “continuing support and commitment to the long and enduring friendship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Far from accomplishing anything for U.S. national security, diplomacy, or peace and stability in South Asia, the resolution should become a case study in what happens when congressmen apparently allow lobbyists to write legislation for them.

Its obsequiousness insults U.S. servicemen who have fought and died in Afghanistan.

For example, after praising Khan, the Jackson Lee-Bank resolution declared, “Pakistan and the United States have a shared interest and are cooperating in efforts to establish lasting peace in Afghanistan.” Here’s the problem: In 2009, Khan wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama defining the United States as an occupying power in Afghanistan and thereby suggesting that the Taliban was Afghanistan’s legitimate government. He blamed the U.S. presence in Afghanistan for a supposed al Qaeda resurgence at the time when Pakistan itself was covertly sheltering, aiding, and protecting al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. When U.S. forces killed Bin Laden, Khan’s main criticism was that the U.S. raid violated the U.N. Charter.

During a subsequent fundraising trip in the United States, Khan praised and justified the Taliban’s “jihad in Afghanistan.” While Jackson Lee and Banks declared, “Pakistan and the United States have a shared interest and are cooperating in efforts to establish lasting peace in Afghanistan,” Khan’s followers have worked to prevent vital resupply of U.S. and NATO troops fighting the Taliban. Blocking NATO supply through Pakistan in contravention of diplomatic and contractual agreement which saw aid and fees flood into Pakistani accounts was a position directed by Khan himself.

Banks admirably served in Afghanistan in 2014-2015. Many of the problems he witnessed were a direct result of Pakistani duplicity. Wanting to end America’s longest war is one thing; doing it on an enemy’s terms is quite another. The Jackson Lee-Banks resolution urges greater investment in Pakistan, but it was again Khan who argued that taking American money made Pakistan a “stooge.” This was not a one-time utterance, but a constant Khan theme .

Resolving difficulties between the United States and Pakistan would be in the interests of both countries, but such resolution must be based on reality:



Pakistan continues to shield, support, and sponsor terrorist groups .

. Pakistan consistently undermined Afghanistan’s security and stability.

Afghanistan’s security and stability. While Trump, with whom Jackson Lee bizarrely makes common cause, pursues a peace process in Afghanistan, Khan has double dealt , diplomatically feigning cooperation with Trump and his envoy Zalmay Khalilzad , while smelling blood and positioning the Taliban for the kill.

Khan may seek money, but his track record over a long career suggests that humiliating the United States and promoting its assailants is his chief goal. Khan is a leader and must be dealt with, but to embrace him sycophantically and ignore the fact that the policies he espoused and continues to promote are responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and an exponentially higher number of Afghans.

The problem is not just Khan’s embrace of the Taliban and support for anti-Afghanistan and anti-India terror, however. Rather, it is that by mixing a cynical stew of populism and religious radicalism, Khan is setting Pakistan down the path to state failure. Pakistani political elites and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency have long believed they could harness the power of religious radicalism as a foreign policy tool to achieve Islamabad’s short-term goals. The elite bubbles in which Khan has lived his life are wrong, however. Religious radicalism may well be past the tipping point in Pakistan, and may very well be a danger that risks overwhelming more traditional Pakistani politics and moderation.

If Jackson Lee and Banks really cared about Pakistan, they would speak truth to Khan, rather than seemingly use their offices to allow Pakistan a free pass to launder it position papers through Congress.

Congressmen may regularly assail President Trump’s vanity and naïveté, but the Jackson Lee-Banks resolution suggests a dangerous lack of strategic vision in both parties and a failure on Capitol Hill to honor the legacy and sacrifice of American troops who have made so many sacrifices to promote a better future in Afghanistan and keep al Qaeda on the run.

Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official.