In his landmark strategy speech Tuesday, President Obama
stressed the importance of Pakistan to the success of the fight against
terrorism and extremism in South Asia, but he didn't offer many details. One
reason could be that there are no new concrete deliverables or changes in
approach related to Pakistan to announce, and all of the ideas Obama has for
advancing the relationship are waiting for Pakistani buy-in.
Conventional wisdom in Washington is that that Obama
didn't want to trigger Pakistani sensitivities by talking too much about the
U.S. military operations there. In reality, the substance of any new items of
cooperation Obama is proposing to Pakistan are a long way from being finalized.
At West Point, Obama talked about the need to help
Pakistan economically, build Pakistani civic institutions, and even work on
some sort of rapprochement between Pakistan and India, all while pressing
Pakistani leaders to do more to confront extremists in their midst.
"Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership
with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual
respect, and mutual trust," Obama said. "We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity
to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that
we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and
whose intentions are clear."
But everything Obama said regarding Pakistan was
already administration policy, so what's new as of Tuesday's announcement?
Nothing yet.
"Beyond what the president said in his speech in
terms of a roadmap for building U.S.-Pakistan relations, I do not believe there
is anything else [planned or agreed at this point]," a State Department
official involved in the issue said in an interview with The Cable.
Last week, The
Washington Post reported
that Obama sent Pakistani President Asif
Ali Zardari a letter, delivered by National Security Advisor James L. Jones, offering Pakistan a new
strategic relationship with the U.S. in exchange for really tackling the
extremist problem once and for all, in what some insiders are calling a "grand
bargain."
But the State Department official downplayed the
significance of the letter (which he had not personally seen), describing the
administration's outreach to Pakistan as a "methodic, long run policy."
"We're not pivoting this relationship on any big
transaction," the State Department official said. "I do not believe the new
Pakistan strategy is based on suddenly introducing a big offer on the table to
get the Pakistanis to carry out a specific act. It's trying to really build a long-term
partnership that hasn't existed in a long time."
Then on Wednesday, the New York Timescame
out with a story about how Obama had secretly authorized
a significant expansion of U.S. military and intelligence operations inside
Pakistan, including expanded drone strikes targeting Afghan Taliban in addition
to those insurgents attacking the Pakistani government.
But even the Times
piece acknowledged, regarding Obama's Pakistan expansion, that "the
Pakistanis, suspicious of Mr. Obama's intentions and his staying power, have
not yet agreed."
Pakistani sources told The Cable that Zardari has not responded to Obama's letter and while
the Zadari government was generally open to greater cooperation, negotiations
could take months.
That didn't stop Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from testifying today
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "We will significantly expand
support intended for Pakistan to develop the potential of their people." Of
course, that's true based on the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan aid bill, which passed in
September, and other initiatives, but that's not new.
Committee ranking Republican Richard Lugar, R-IN, honed in on the gaps in the administration's announced
strategy.
"It is not clear how any expanded military
effort in Afghanistan addresses the problem of Taliban and al Qaeda safe havens
across the border in Pakistan," he said. "If these safe havens
persist, any strategy in Afghanistan will be substantially incomplete."
Underlying the dynamic is the open question of
whether the Pakistani military, which has been getting attacked ruthlessly and
repeatedly by extremists lately, has either the capacity or the will to expand
its fight to militants who are only interested in creating havoc on the other
side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
"[The Pakistani military] feels that they're
stretched; they feel that they need to maintain [their ties to the Afghan
Taliban] due to potential hostilities with India and uncertainty about the long-term
American presence," said J Alexander
Thier, director for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the United States Institute
of Peace.
He said getting Pakistan's government to give up
supporting the Afghan Taliban, "out of all of this stuff, is the hardest sell."
Shuja
Nawaz, director for South Asia at the Atlantic Council,
said that until the Pakistanis respond to Obama's overtures, there is no "grand
bargain."
"Basically I think it's a
reaffirmation of the commitment to Pakistan," he said, "which is probably all
the president can do in letter form."
I'd say a bloodthirsty terrorist campaign being run inside Pakistan would qualify as a legitimate security concern.
On the other hand, for the Pakistani military the bottom line is maintenance of its traditional and completely idiotic martial posture toward Pakistan's vastly larger and more powerful neighbor, India. If America would only endorse that position, we'd get a lot more cooperation from Islamabad over the Afghan Taliban, but of course that is the one thing we cannot do.
Obam-ush group is same and all are backing and supporting the corrupt presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan.now world should know that why karzai success was made ultimate with all tricks as these CIA cronies are custodians of US polciy in two Muslim countries.
Talbanic characters are in our roots and are our natural partners ,Some of its over growth shoots and branches might be trimmed but no way we can now get rid of this deadly phenomena through army operations.Huge developmental and educational plans are required to weakened their motivated spiritual network and then we can change this trend through process of empirical evolution.
If US have spare men and women to throw in this death valley then they are welcome but it is just for keeping them busy in war activities or escalation of war culture nothing more than can achieve through such induction policy.
DO NOT ACCEPT A FRIEND REQUEST FROM CHRISTOPHER DAVIES OR JESSICA DAVIES THEY ARE HACKERS....PLEASE TELL EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST BECAUSE IF SOMEONE ON YOUR LIST ADDS THEM THEY WILL BE ON YOUR LIST TOO....HE WILL FIGURE OUT YOUR COMPUTER IP AND ADDRESS...SO PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE, EVEN IF YOU DON'T...
I have a theory....
I have tried to analyze this Afghanistan conundrum in the given set of information available to public knowledge; therefore biggest assumption I have to make here and put up upfront is that US is sincere in its efforts and there are no bizarre hidden forces at work by US themselves.
Now the analysis... whatever route in my “Cause- Probability-Effect” diagram I chose, all routes led me to a particular piece of this zig-saw puzzle. Some simpler assumptions led me to this ‘puzzle-piece’ directly; others took very long circuitous route to reach to this ‘piece’ on my multi sheet analytical diagram.
The zig-saw piece I am referring above is the “institution” called India (note, ‘Institutional India’ is slightly different from the country India). India, not because it has any ill-will against any group (not even Pakistan). Today the institutional India actually wants a stable Pakistan. Nor it is because this India wants any gung-ho relationship with Afghanistan. The reason lies in only one word in the next line…. Afghanistan is a ‘natural’ ally of India.
Why and how ‘natural’, would be a complex and discrete discussion topic (I hope authors will pick this topic in due course). Here I shall write just few sentences… Afghani populace preference for proximity to India lies in the history, wars, culture, British rule, music etc etc… even Taliban foot soldiers have tremendous soft corner for India, this is why rarely you will find any Taliban leader raking up hysteria against India. Taliban leaders and their partners LET alike cannot move Afghan masses against India beyond a topic called Kashmir, that too under the camouflage of Islamic jihad under the patronage of (open) secret masters, Pakistani security establishment.
Masters are ‘master’ because they make sure that at the end of the day the balance of power rests in their favor. When a master is hidden they are nuisance. Statistically, ninety out of hundred times it has been proven that a lasting deal can be made only when such covert masters are made to hide forever; either by design or by force.
This master… namely Pakistani security establishment cannot on its own cut strings and vanish from the scene. After all there are millions military men on duty, supporting their families, run businesses across middle-east in real estate. There are expenses. Therefore to justify their expenses and budget they have to have something. And unfortunately a military must have to find an enemy to justify their existence. It was rather easy for Pakistani security establishment to find an enemy in the name of India.
But why India! many who are unknown to history may ask this question inadvertently. Again I would prefer not going into this topic deeper in the current context. But the fact is…. all the wars and skirmish between India & Pakistan is started from Pakistani side, Border incursions are always from Pakistan side inside India. To undertake such brazen task Pakistani security establishment must have a solid reason.
The reason was readily available!.. After the partition in 1947 it was to fight against so called anti-Muslims India! In 1970’s it was an India who allegedly dismembered Pakistan and created Bangladesh. Now it is Kashmir. There were many more in between in different forms e.g. nuclear explosion test, Sharia law in India, Babri masjid, Kashmir problem in different color etc. etc. It is remarkable that Pakistani security establishment kept shifting the target and Pakistani masses kept accepting new targets and forgetting previous ones! Undoubtedly this propaganda mechanism beats Nazi’s propaganda.
Pakistani masses accepted this because of a fundamental blooper, explained here by a veteran Pakistani journalist Nadeem F. Paracha http://blog.dawn.com/2009/12/03/little-monsters/
Ok, let us be practical and accept Pakistan’s present objection about Kashmir… Key to Kashmir issue is with the people of India. It is because “Indian Institution” allows any province including Kashmiri people to participate in democracy and speak out what they want.
I am not prophet, but by all means and my analysis during my multiple visits to Kashmir, it is evident to me that given a choice today 80% of Srinagar valley will prefer to stay with India, 95% of Jammu will prefer to stay in India and 99.9% of Buddhist Laddakh will vote to stay with India. But I agree there are other issues like POK and wishes of Kashmiri people to move across LOC freely.
Then why not focus on this issue, solve Kashmir. In all likelihood it will be in India’s favor (probability 90%). Pakistan will be too happy to announce that the Kashmir problem is finally solved as long as POK is kept within Pakistan. But, most importantly, Kashmiri people will be happier than ever, they will accept this as long as they can meet their relatives across border.
So, who has the key to United States Af-Pak problem?
Inward (Pull effect)…. Socially, culturally, historically it is India.
Outward (Push effect)…. militarily it is India.
India itself will not budge to move its stance on Kashmir. It will require little nudge by Media and Intelligentsia to make India stir within and awake its “Institutional India”.
Now if you go backward from here you will see that problem of Taliban can be tackled relatively easily. Once Taliban are under control so called Al-Qaeda can be isolated and tamed. World powers can then focus on A-Qaeda. In any case US and NATO should be able to pull out most of their troops.
It is a height of sheer absurdity for US government to claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic extremists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistan’s current democratic as well as previous military governments are sheltering and protecting the leaders of that very Taliban Afghan insurgency in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan.
General McChrystal clearly laid out in his assessment to President Obama that:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.
Pakistan is sheltering and protecting these Afghan insurgent groups to reestablish its writ in Afghanistan as and when US leaves.
As Times of London reported on 9/28/09, Pakistani government started to relocate Afghan Taliban’s QST leaders to Karachi to protect them from impending US drone attacks on Quetta after the submittal of General McChrystal’s assessment.
With an ally like Pakistan, US has NO chance of winning in Afghanistan no matter how much military efforts or aid US pours there.
Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE