.jpg)
President Barack Obama and his military advisers believe that the long-term consequences of failure in Pakistan far outweigh those in Afghanistan, according to The Washington Post. This was one of the conclusions arrived at by the Obama strategy team after months of deliberation over whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, and as a direct result of this ratiocination the U.S. has offered Pakistan an augmented strategic alliance.
The U.S. would provide Pakistan with military and economic support and try to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India. The offer also contained a steadfast U.S. commitment to stay in Afghanistan for the long run and not withdraw early, which addresses one of Pakistan’s worst fears. The U.S. also promised more public praise and less public criticism of Pakistan.
However, Obama indicated that everything was contingent on Pakistan doing everything in its power to root out anti-American militants and terrorist groups that are thriving within their borders. Which is a strategy I pretty much outlined in the article I posted yesterday, Afghanistan stabilization may depend on Indo-Pakistani reconciliation, although my suggestions were in the context of a U.S.-India backdoor agreement wherein in exchange for India implicitly consenting to Obama's Pakistan plan, India and the U.S. would secure a strategic relationship on an even grander scale when the dust cleared and U.S. objectives had been achieved.
I certainly wouldn't hold my breath until the U.S. helps reduce tensions between India and Pakistan, but I also refuse to suffocate waiting for Pakistan to actually produce Osama Bin Laden and friends. The ambiguity on both points is stifling - how does one measure effort, progress and results?
Obama provided clear-cut expectations to Pakistan, saying they must collaborate with the U.S. against all extremist groups and went so far as to name five of the most pernicious nemeses: al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Pakistani Taliban organization known as Tehrik-e-Taliban.
Obama national security adviser James L. Jones went even further in direct conversations with key Pakistani leaders, warning them that if they do not deliver the U.S. would use any means at its disposal to eliminate insurgents from Pakistan's borderlands.
One senior U.S. official reinforced Pakistan's indispensability to a successful U.S. strategy, stating that without "changing the nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations in a new direction, you're not going to win in Afghanistan. And if you don't win in Afghanistan, then Pakistan will automatically be imperiled, and that will make Afghanistan look like child's play."
On Sunday Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown also underlined this point: "Al-Qaeda has a base in Pakistan. That base is still there -- they are able to recruit from abroad. The Pakistan authorities must convince us that they are taking all the action that is necessary to deal with that threat."
But the paramount reason that Pakistan is of such strategic import is that it’s a nuclear-armed state. And if Taliban and al-Qaeda forces are able to overthrow the government, well - I’ll let you fill in the blanks.
The U.S. offer is certainly appealing but is far from being a no-brainer for Pakistan, because both civilian and military leaders fear the political fall-out that may ensue from aligning so closely with America, considering Obama has approval ratings in the low double digits. Not to mention that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is close to being stripped of all real power and it’s just a matter of time before the potency of his office is reduced to figurehead status. On Friday Zardari handed nuclear control over to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani as an act of reconciliation in a last ditch effort to save his own political hide because Zardari’s amnesty from corruption charges had just expired.
Prime Minister Gilani also voiced concern about Obama’s plan to add troops in Afghanistan because of the potential for militant spill-over across the border into Pakistan. Of course, one wonders if Gilani is concerned because it would be a real hassle finding sanctuary for thousands of more extremist enemies of the United States, because the nooks and crannies where existing elements of Taliban and al-Qaeda are hid away are stuffed full.
Related articles
Afghanistan stabilization may depend on Indo-Pakistani reconciliation
Interview With Ahmed Rashid: Afghanistan Needs (And Wants) U.S. Long-Term Commitment
Liberals lash out at Obama for sending more troops to Afghanistan
Cries from the valley: The epic suffering of Afghanistan's children (photo essay)
U.S. awakens anti-Taliban militia groups in Afghanistan
U.S. diplomat resigns over Afghan war and puts Obama on hot seat
Comments
USA's enemy is Pakistan the real hand behind Taliban and Al-Qaeda.and USA is funding its own enemy to destroy itself.Taliban and Al-qaeda are mere puppets in the hands of Pakistani army.
It is all goodlooking from US point of view. But the Bottom line of all the problems in pakistan is they are threatening that they will commit suicide unless USA gives them kashmir on a platter. Does any one think that ANY Government of india has that mandate. Whoever does it - the only one now capable of doing it is the UPA Government, will be committing political hara kiri. The Indian voter can be really be hash.
Short of handing over kashmir, the only way US can make Pakistan obey is to use the phrases from Bush administration "Bombing you to stone age". That alone will make the punjabis who defacto are the masters of Pakistan act. i think that is a far better viable option. Or invite india into settle issueds once for all.
Neel you are absolutly right. But then has pakistan not taken USA for a ride for SIXTY years? USA has willingly followed because of their hatred for India. For the US Administration even if they bleed - blocking India seems a very very vital agenda. Whatever the author says. Thats how it has been. What has changed that inertia? As far as I can see, NONE!!
There is one error that everbody including Michael Hughes make. And that is taking at face value, Pakistan's so called fears that US will abandon the region. Fact of the matter is that Pakistan cannot wait for US to leave, after which they can let loose the medival Taliban on Afganisthan, and other blood-thristy barbarians on India. Pakistan either wants a US exit or a US presence to force India to deliver Kashmir. That is Pakistan's grand strategy.
"The offer also contained a steadfast U.S. commitment to stay in Afghanistan for the long run and not withdraw early, which addresses one of Pakistan’s worst fears."
Is that right?
Pakistan wants the US to leave ASAP.
Afghanistan is "strategic depth" for Pakistan - nothing more. It is an area Pakistan intends/hopes to use for both terrorist and military activities, so that India (or any other nation) cannot pin any such activities on Pakistan.
The reason the US strategy is immature is that the US does not see beyond what is of importance to her AND has in the past tried to direct local traffic so that the US interests are preserved. This has actually not helped the region mature. We just cannot allow immature decision makers to direct traffic - it does not help anyone in the longer run. It cannot.
Here is a para from Huges report:
"
Ahmed Rashid: I think Pakistan continues to have a dual strategy - helping the U.S. to fight terrorism but keeping the Afghan Taliban in reserve in case there is a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pakistan is fighting the local Taliban but supporting the Afghan Taliban - a contradiction that has not been resolved. Pakistan does not trust that the Americans will have the longevity to stay committed and actually root out the Taliban.
"
Which Taliban is he referring to in the very last instance?
Point being Pakistan wants the "Afghani Taliban", but for some odd reason does not want the "Pakistani Taliban"!!! If one can understand that.
From an ideological point of view, what is the difference between the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban? None.
And, the US strategists are falling for this voodoo thinking.
Afghanistan NEEDS the US, Pakistan does not WANT the (current) US (in the region).
Pakistan is the US's cats paw in the region, not the enemy. India is never a friend. An alliance from an economic perspective but never a friend.
For you see, despite all their proclamations, the christian west does not like nonwhite pagan pluralistic democracies. Those would be a real threat not just from an economic perspective but also from a socio-political-cultural perspective.
India is more of a threat than autocratic, homogeneous, slave labor providing, fast converting to christianity China.
Pakistan has forever been used by western powers to contain India and Russia and establish a presence in the resource rich, highly strategic region.Let us not be deluded by this Michael Hughes proclammations. Someone is feeding him the party line and he is merely regurgitating it
Weak, comrade Hughes - very weak.
"The [Pakistani] ISI was designated as the direct channel for the aid and training of militants. Although the Afghan groups welcomed support, they did not have the skills, personnel, or funding to train these militants. Shortly after their arrival, these foreign militants quickly revealed their extremist ways, which conflicts with the peaceful Afghan approach towards Islam.
Google this: Operation Cyclone ISI
At least PRETEND to have done your homework comrade Hughes, else the Ministry of Propaganda and Disinformation is likely to ship you off to Siberia!
>>India is more of a threat than... blah blah blah blah
Yep, nothing like having one's H1B feet dangled over the Caste-enforced pit of poverty and Thugerry.... to motive one to "Just Shut Up and Code!"
Thus it was that H1Bzers were highly motivated Useful Idiots. Useful Idiots who were utilized in the creation and maintenance of significant elements of the technology that facilitated the sub-prime mortgage fraud and resultant poisoning of global economic pond.
"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--Thomas Jefferson
Until you're willing and able to understand what Mr. Jefferson was talking about.... GTHOOMC!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!