RSS
Home
Pakistan more critical than Afghanistan to U.S. security strategy
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.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
Related Articles:
Comments
