Barack Obama's most difficult international test in the next year will very likely be here in Pakistan. A country with 170 million people and up to 60 nuclear weapons may be collapsing. <...> I've been coming to Pakistan for 26 years, ever since I hid on the tops of buses to sneak into tribal areas as a backpacking university student, and I've never found Pakistanis so gloomy. Some worry that militants, nurtured by illiteracy and a failed education system, will overrun the country or that the nation will break apart. I'm not quite that pessimistic, but it's very likely that the next major terror attack in the West is being planned by extremists here in Pakistan. <...> The United States has squandered more than $10 billion on Pakistan since 9/11, and Pakistani intelligence agencies seem to have rerouted some of that to Taliban extremists. American forces periodically strike militants in the tribal areas, but people from those areas overwhelmingly tell me that these strikes just antagonize tribal leaders and make them more supportive of the Taliban. One man described seeing Pashtuns in tribal areas throwing rocks in helpless frustration at the American aircraft flying overhead. <...> Mr. Obama should make his first presidential trip to Pakistan -- and stop at a DIL school to remind Pakistan's army and elites that their greatest enemy isn't India but illiteracy.
Barack Obama's most difficult international test in the next year will very likely be here in Pakistan. A country with 170 million people and up to 60 nuclear weapons may be collapsing. <...>
I've been coming to Pakistan for 26 years, ever since I hid on the tops of buses to sneak into tribal areas as a backpacking university student, and I've never found Pakistanis so gloomy. Some worry that militants, nurtured by illiteracy and a failed education system, will overrun the country or that the nation will break apart. I'm not quite that pessimistic, but it's very likely that the next major terror attack in the West is being planned by extremists here in Pakistan. <...>
The United States has squandered more than $10 billion on Pakistan since 9/11, and Pakistani intelligence agencies seem to have rerouted some of that to Taliban extremists. American forces periodically strike militants in the tribal areas, but people from those areas overwhelmingly tell me that these strikes just antagonize tribal leaders and make them more supportive of the Taliban.
One man described seeing Pashtuns in tribal areas throwing rocks in helpless frustration at the American aircraft flying overhead. <...>
Mr. Obama should make his first presidential trip to Pakistan -- and stop at a DIL school to remind Pakistan's army and elites that their greatest enemy isn't India but illiteracy.
A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west. That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. <...> Educated Pakistanis sometimes say that they are paranoid, but add that they believe they have good reason. <...> ... among ordinary Pakistanis, many still regard Al Qaeda more positively than the United States, polls find. Talk shows here often include arguments that the suicide bombings in Pakistan are payback for the Pakistani Army fighting an American war. Some commentators suggest that the United States is actually financing the Taliban. The point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, they say, leaving the way open for the Americans to grab Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Recently, in the officer's mess in Bajaur, the northern tribal region where the Pakistani Army is tied down fighting the militants, one officer offered his own theory: Osama bin Laden did not exist, he told a visiting journalist. Rather, he was a creation of the Americans, who needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and encroach on Pakistan.
That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. <...>
Educated Pakistanis sometimes say that they are paranoid, but add that they believe they have good reason. <...>
... among ordinary Pakistanis, many still regard Al Qaeda more positively than the United States, polls find. Talk shows here often include arguments that the suicide bombings in Pakistan are payback for the Pakistani Army fighting an American war.
Some commentators suggest that the United States is actually financing the Taliban. The point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, they say, leaving the way open for the Americans to grab Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Recently, in the officer's mess in Bajaur, the northern tribal region where the Pakistani Army is tied down fighting the militants, one officer offered his own theory: Osama bin Laden did not exist, he told a visiting journalist.
Rather, he was a creation of the Americans, who needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and encroach on Pakistan.
Renewing American Leadership - Barack Obama | Foreign Affairs July/August 2007 ... To renew American leadership in the world, we must forge a more effective global response to the terrorism that came to our shores on an unprecedented scale on 9/11. From Bali to London, Baghdad to Algiers, Mumbai to Mombasa to Madrid, terrorists who reject modernity, oppose America, and distort Islam have killed and mutilated tens of thousands of people just this decade. Because this enemy operates globally, it must be confronted globally. We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest. Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively. We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces. Our strategy must also include sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban and more effective development programs that target aid to areas where the Taliban are making inroads. I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban. ...
... To renew American leadership in the world, we must forge a more effective global response to the terrorism that came to our shores on an unprecedented scale on 9/11. From Bali to London, Baghdad to Algiers, Mumbai to Mombasa to Madrid, terrorists who reject modernity, oppose America, and distort Islam have killed and mutilated tens of thousands of people just this decade. Because this enemy operates globally, it must be confronted globally.
We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest. Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively. We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces. Our strategy must also include sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban and more effective development programs that target aid to areas where the Taliban are making inroads.
I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban. ...
Barack Obama's plan for AFGHANISTAN & PAKISTAN (posted January 25, 2008) The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ... Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered three-thousand Americans. They are plotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will. ... Interviewer: Members of the administration might say, you have to be sensitive to the very precarious position that Musharraf has in that country. Obama: I think that we should provide -- I state this explicitly in that speech -- all the support that we can for President Musharraf taking the right actions. But what we can't do is simply allow al-Qaeda to operate in Pakistan the same way that it previously operated in Afghanistan. <...> The story that comes out of this speech may unduly focus on that aspect that, as you put it, "looks "muscular. Alright? Being willing to go after terrorists where they live. But keep in mind that the other components of this speech were as important, if not more important. If we don't win over the hearts and minds of 1.3 billion Muslims in this world, it is going to be very difficult for us to win the long war against extremism.
The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ...
Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered three-thousand Americans. They are plotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.
...
Interviewer: Members of the administration might say, you have to be sensitive to the very precarious position that Musharraf has in that country.
Obama: I think that we should provide -- I state this explicitly in that speech -- all the support that we can for President Musharraf taking the right actions. But what we can't do is simply allow al-Qaeda to operate in Pakistan the same way that it previously operated in Afghanistan.
<...>
The story that comes out of this speech may unduly focus on that aspect that, as you put it, "looks "muscular. Alright? Being willing to go after terrorists where they live. But keep in mind that the other components of this speech were as important, if not more important. If we don't win over the hearts and minds of 1.3 billion Muslims in this world, it is going to be very difficult for us to win the long war against extremism.
Nicholas Kristof says that While there are no easy solutions for the interlinked catastrophes unfolding in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are several useful steps that we in the West can take to reduce the risk of the region turning into the next Somalia.
I hope that Obama can find and successfully execute these steps. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Nicholas Kristof says that While there are no easy solutions for the interlinked catastrophes unfolding in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are several useful steps that we in the West can take to reduce the risk of the region turning into the next Somalia. I hope that Obama can find and successfully execute these steps.
I hope that Obama can find and successfully execute these steps.
Well, considering that the situation in Afghanistan is pretty similar to Somalia, I doubt it.
In both cases:
Obamas agenda looks like more war.
From Kristof's piece:
... there are several useful steps that we in the West can take to reduce the risk of the region turning into the next Somalia. First, we should slow the financial flow to Pakistan's government and military. If the government wants to stop the Talibanization of Pakistan, its greatest need isn't money but the political will to stop sheltering Taliban leaders in the city of Quetta. Second, we should cut tariffs on Pakistani agricultural and manufactured products to boost the economy and provide jobs. We should also support China on its planned export-processing zone to create manufacturing jobs in Pakistan. Third, we should push much harder for a peace deal in Kashmir -- including far more pressure on India -- because Kashmir grievances empower Pakistani militants. Fourth, let's focus on education. One reason the country is such a mess today is that half of all Pakistanis are illiterate.
First, we should slow the financial flow to Pakistan's government and military. If the government wants to stop the Talibanization of Pakistan, its greatest need isn't money but the political will to stop sheltering Taliban leaders in the city of Quetta.
Second, we should cut tariffs on Pakistani agricultural and manufactured products to boost the economy and provide jobs. We should also support China on its planned export-processing zone to create manufacturing jobs in Pakistan.
Third, we should push much harder for a peace deal in Kashmir -- including far more pressure on India -- because Kashmir grievances empower Pakistani militants.
Fourth, let's focus on education. One reason the country is such a mess today is that half of all Pakistanis are illiterate.
A swedish kind of death: The West can do little for the stability in Afghanistan, other then leave and hope the afghanis sort out the situation.
This question tears me up. As it does with respect to Iraq. In the case of Iraq, we broke it, so I feel we ought to fix it. Fortunately, it looks like Iraq is stabilizing enough where we can leave that country in (relatively) good conscience (given the circumstances).
In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban brought the U.S. upon themselves, so to speak, by not handing over bin Laden and al-Qaeda. So it's not like we "broke" Afghanistan. In fact, aside from the opium production, the living conditions of Afghani people are arguably better than than they were under the Taliban (although I realize that is a very debatable claim.)
What bothers me a lot is the likelihood that if we leave the region to itself, then stories like this (also from Kristof's piece) will become far more commonplace:
One new cabinet member, Israr Ullah Zehri, defended the torture-murder of five women and girls who were buried alive (three girls wanted to choose their own husbands, and two women tried to protect them). "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," Mr. Zehri said of the practice of burying independent-minded girls alive.
Maybe this is a hopeless situation, and outsiders cannot do anything to prevent the horrible injustices that these people inflict on their populations. But I am far from convinced from that. That was the unspoken rationale behind doing nothing during the Rwandan genocide, and that is the unspoken rationale behind doing nothing about Darfur.
Can we compel the Pakistani government and whoever winds up ruling Afghanistan (most likely the Taliban, if we leave) to stop such practices through non-military pressure and incentives? Or do we have to wait and hope they sort out the situation on their own? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
This question tears me up. As it does with respect to Iraq. In the case of Iraq, we broke it, so I feel we ought to fix it.
And we should bring all those dead people back to life while we're at it. Some things can't be fixed and I'm pretty sure the US lacks the tools to even ameliorate the destruction it caused. The whole milind-complex from the Pentagon down seems institutionally incapable of actually rebuilding anything. The only thing the US could possibly do imho is leave as soon as possible and take a few million refugees with them. And even that is probably politically impossible.
In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban brought the U.S. upon themselves, so to speak, by not handing over bin Laden and al-Qaeda
I think even that wasn't as clear cut as you make it sound. Jonathan Schwarz wrote about the run up of the Afghanistan war:
A Tiny Revolution: How Is Jeffrey Goldberg Embarrassing His Fellow Homo Sapiens Today?
On September 21, Taliban official Abdul Salam Zaeef stated that they would not hand over bin Laden "without evidence," but that "if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence." Zaeef also called for an investigation of the attacks by the UN and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. On September 25, the UK Independent reported (via Nexis) that "[Zaeef said] it was 'good news' that the US intended to produce its evidence against Mr bin Laden. This could help to solve the issue 'otherwise than fighting.'"
but
On September 30, Bush chief of staff Andrew Card repeated Bush's stance from his September 20 address: The president has said we're not negotiating...We've told the Taliban government what they should be doing. They've got to turn not only Osama bin Laden over but all of the operatives of the al Qaeda organization.
On September 30, Bush chief of staff Andrew Card repeated Bush's stance from his September 20 address:
The president has said we're not negotiating...We've told the Taliban government what they should be doing. They've got to turn not only Osama bin Laden over but all of the operatives of the al Qaeda organization.
I agree most with three. An external party can do miracles when it comes to getting parties to sit down at the table and negotiate. No guarantees for success, but if it is possible to disarm the Kashmir situation it is worth a shot. Then again Pakistan and India uses each other for mutual self-definition so it is quite possible that there is no will to get a peace agreement on terms both sides can agree to. The US is not the only state that constantly needs an enemy to motivate its citizen into paying a bloated military.
I agree partly with two. Partly because any program launched by the US for free trade with Pakistan is likely to end up mostly benefitting american companies and the pakistani elite. Judging from previous experience, that is.
One I agree with, but for different reasons. I think cutting the pakistani military off subsidise will rapidly lead to a decline of US influence and a pakistani foreign policy more in line with the popular sentiment in Pakistan. No more US transports to Afghanistan, as the other routes are Iran, Russia, China or insufficient roads through Kaukasus and the 'stans.
And four I agree with, though I suspect for different reasons and I suspect my program would look much different then Kristofs.
I understand why it tears you up, but as I see it we the people do not control our governements. When it comes to foreign policy states do not act altruisticly. Foreigners do not vote, and thus have no leverage. The best we can hope for is enlightened selfinterest. Like when the pillage of western Germany stopped because the US establishment figured out that it made communism look like a good alternative.
That we do not control our governments does not mean that we do not have influence. Voting matters, targeted protests and strikes often matters more, because it hurts more.
So we can not us our governments to build up stuff, because that takes a degree of control we do not have. We can try to stop them from blowing stuff up and assisting in pillage. Therefore I propose "First do no harm" as foreign policy principle.
Oh, and one thing we can do to make matters better for those suffering under brutal conditions is pushing for liberal asylum rules. The US could let the million or so (or is it millions?) displaced by the war in Iraq flee to the US. That would improve the situation for the refugees, as well as decreasing the strain on iraqi society. It won't, but it could.
terrorists who reject modernity, oppose America, and distort Islam have killed and mutilated tens of thousands of people just this decade. Because this enemy operates globally, it must be confronted globally.
Yes, if they embrace modernity like america then they too can be a global player and get to kill hundreds of thousands of people in just one country.
Still the same old self-righteous Exceptionalism keep to the Fen Causeway
Still the same old self-righteous Exceptionalism
Self-righteous and exceptionalist, maybe. Same old, definitely not. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
