Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Now the Hard Part: Implementing “Af-Pak”

Now that his administration has completed its review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Obama gets to the hard part: how to prevent the Talibanization of both countries.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(Inter Press Service)

With the strategic review for U.S. goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan now complete, President Barack Obama must shift to the more difficult task of choosing and implementing policies to quell militant insurgencies in both countries, says a new report from a Washington think tank with close ties to the Obama administration.

While the establishment last year of a civilian government in Pakistan was a positive sign, some situations have worsened, says a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP).

Called “Meeting the Challenges in Pakistan,” the report is based on the findings of a CAP delegation that traveled to Pakistan in April.

CAP calls the past six months a “tumultuous period” for the world’s only nuclear-armed Muslim country. Recent events have clearly intensified Pakistan’s troubles.

On May 27, the day the report was released, a car bomb set off by insurgents near an intelligence office in Lahore killed as many as 30 people.

While a battle continues to rage between Taliban fighters and the Pakistani military in Swat, located near the lawless northwest border regions with Afghanistan, the bombing was a reminder that Islamist militants can strike throughout the country—even as far east as Lahore.

On May 28, the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and issued a warning for people to evacuate four large cities in anticipation of more strikes, which a Taliban commander told Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper were in response to the military’s offensive against the insurgents now in control of the Swat Valley, formerly a popular tourist destination.

The warning was followed by two blasts the same day—one in Peshawar and another in Dera Ismail Khan.

The recent widespread violence will likely raise Pakistani objections to broad U.S. involvement. Already, some Pakistanis are criticizing the Pakistan army’s offensive around Swat as a U.S.-driven policy. In addition, the U.S. unmanned drone attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan have provoked widespread anger among the Pakistani population and elected officials.

Those attacks are likely to continue with the appointment of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to head U.S. forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal headed special operations during the U.S. “surge” in Iraq; his unit was responsible for targeted strikes against insurgents.

But the CAP report implies that Pakistani objections may come from what CAP calls a “trust deficit” built by years of a “transactional” relationship between the United States and Pakistan—where real dialogue occurred only when it was convenient and important to the more powerful United States. CAP mentions that Pakistanis often cite U.S. abandonment of the region after robust U.S. involvement helped end the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

One way to bridge the gap, says CAP, is to provide more aid for people displaced by fighting with insurgents. (Congress allocated $110 million to this effort last month.) CAP cites the quick aid response to Pakistan’s devastating 2005 earthquake as having built some trust.

Another example of the dysfunctional bilateral relationship, often cited in the CAP report, was the strictly “war on terror”-based approach of the George W. Bush administration. Little focus was put on building institutions or development, and the roughly $10 billion of U.S. aid to Pakistan —then ruled by military dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf—was almost entirely of a military nature (for more on this issue, see Najum Mushtaq, “Whither Af-Pak?” Right Web, April 16, 2009).

CAP maintains the importance of fighting terror, but says a better way to go would be to strengthen Pakistan’s judiciary and police forces, which CAP calls “more effective weapons [than the military] in countering terrorist networks.”

CAP’s report re-emphasizes its last assessment of the situation: that what’s needed is a broader, permanent U.S.-Pakistani relationship, which at first should take the form of a signed “bilateral strategic framework,” as well as a regional dialogue on bringing stability to both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The broad relationship, says CAP, should include “security, military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, educational and cultural affairs.”

The regional dialogue should be aimed at allowing Pakistan to focus its resources on the insurgency by alleviating tensions with its traditional rival, India. The Pakistani army’s tunnel vision has raised doubts in the United States about the military force’s ability to act against the Taliban and allied groups, a concern that was recently aired in the immediate lead-up to the campaign in Swat.

Though the army did indeed launch its offensive and is expected, with its firepower advantage, to force the Taliban back, it appears to remain greatly focused on India, which could interfere with its long-term commitment to battling the insurgency.

Because of this continued Pakistani focus, says the CAP report, “the Obama administration should also reengage in regional diplomacy that seeks to revive dialogue between Pakistan and India, including a discussion of Kashmir.” There may be hope on that front, if reported secret talks can be rekindled between the newly elected leaders of India and Pakistan.

According to a March article in the New Yorker magazine, several years of secret “back channel” negotiations had occurred between India and Pakistan, which were at one point “so advanced that [negotiations had] come to semicolons,” as one Pakistani official put it.

But neither side softened up their populations for a deal, and Pakistani instability delayed talks, which were halted after Musharraf’s fall from power.

But the instability that slowed progress has worsened, and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s government appears to lack strong popular support. Popular opposition leader Nawaz Sharif recently organized a widespread protest against Zardari’s government—hardly an ideal situation to sell a deal to the Pakistani populace.

The CAP report also mentions three other players that should be included in a regional dialogue: Russia, China, and Iran.

But bringing together these giants may not happen quickly enough to be useful to Pakistan. “Resetting” strained relations with Russia and the first comprehensive U.S. attempts to engage Iran in decades are both moving at a snail’s pace.

In a recent Washington Post Op-Ed, analyst Ahmed Rashid said that calls for at least one year of unconditioned aid to Pakistan “may be too late. Pakistan needs help today.” That notion could easily apply to regional dialogue as well.

Recent U.S. efforts on the diplomatic front, however, could backfire. According to a May 27 report by the McClatchy newspaper company, Washington is planning to build a network of embassy and consular offices, most notably a complex in Islamabad costing nearly as much as the massive embassy in Baghdad—a highly unpopular, fortress-like compound that is regarded as a sign of U.S. imperial power.

“[The embassy is] for the micro and macro management of Pakistan, and using Pakistan for pushing the American agenda in Central Asia,” Khurshid Ahmad, a Pakistani parliamentarian, told McClatchy.

This “diplomatic surge” could also be aimed at securing better U.S. intelligence on the tribes and militant groups that straddle the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

A May 24 Boston Globe report said the United States is launching a similar “intensive effort” aimed at determining whether some Afghan tribes “can be broken off through diplomatic and economic initiatives.”

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share