Posts Tagged ‘war on terror obama’
October 13, 2009
Pakistani forces are in full offensive mode today, bombing northern areas of South Waziristan. Although planned months in advance, this comes immediately following a siege at military headquarters, and a number of suicide attacks for which Taliban have claimed responsibility. Simultaneously, the Kerry-Lugar Bill elicits concern that contingencies on funding potentially violate sovereignty, US controlled drone attacks continue and the economy has yet to pick up. Needless to say, the War on Terror have been tough times for Pakistan, and I hope the military succeeds in securing northern areas swiftly.
But an interesting perspective that is perhaps overshadowed by statistics, strategies, and tangible costs/benefits of our engagement in Operation Enduring Freedom, are the multifaceted issues of Pakistan’s agenda, which should describe handling security breaches at the forefront of their interests.
The Christian Science Monitor has a piece entitled “Pakistan Taliban Bombing Spree Could spur Backlash” reporting on today’s military offensive, but the thrust is that the Taliban siege at military headquarters “spurs” Pakistani forces to fight harder, and stronger against the Taliban. By attributing an increased fight to the “backlash” of this weekends attacks, the article rests on an implied assumption that Pakistan would otherwise have made suboptimal efforts at obliterating terrorists. At the end of the article an alternative view is offered by a security analyst at the INternational Institute for Strategic Studies in London explaining:
“I don’t think any serious military is baited in that way. It will certainly annoy the military intensely and strengthen resolve, but the South Waziristan operation – which will inevitably occur at some point – isn’t going to be accelerated just because of this.”
But this is an external analysts view and the article is preceded by a statement from a Pakistani professor:
“By launching these attacks on the very citadel and symbol of the Pakistani Army they have just crossed a red line, and there is no turning back as far as the Pakistani Army is concerned. I think they will be made to pay for it.”
Certainly, a brazen attack on military headquarters will rile a staunch response. But the articles title still suggests that the siege fuels the military offensive rather than an inherent interest in combatting terrorism.
This idea is an extension of what is now a widespread misperception that Pakistan is not entirely interested in combating terrorism, when on the contrary, this weeks offensive reaffirms Pakistan’s struggle for security. And I wonder if the skeptical lens with which reports question Pakistan’s effort stem from a stage set for discourse back in 2001 when former President George Bush decided countries were simply “either with us, or against us”.
The effectiveness of that strategy is debatable, but 8 years later it doesn’t offer sufficient explanations for allies like Pakistan who work “with us”, yet face persistent accusations of not doing enough. Because this weekend’s siege on military headquarters indicates Pakistan’s inherent interest in uprooting terrorism, but without a comprehensive reading into the situation it’s easy to have only a “with or against us” understanding. The northern areas where Afghani militants have spilled over is an autonomous region, historically beyond the realm of federal authority. Yet its inhabitants share with greater Pakistan a similar culture, ascribe to the same religion (although interpretations vary), and even share a physical resemblance making it a very sensitive area where any state would use force only as a final resort. Militarily obliterating such an area is unpalatable to the general Pakistani public and therefore a difficult issue to deal with for policymakers. In addition, Pakistan’s forces are only 60+ years old and trained predominantly in conventional warfare to face a potential Indian threat.
Thus, there are extremely sensitive considerations and multiple dimensions in the Pakistani approach to dealing with terrorism that since 2001, is an increasingly domestic battle. Just militarily obliterating this kind of demographic is not only potentially destabilizing for Pakistan, but is impractical without additional funding, training, and intelligence sharing with our forces. So Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States is not a black or white, “with us or against us” situation. The Obama administration understands this as if applies General McChrystal’s recommendations to differentiate Taliban from Al Qaeda as targets in the War on Terror. Such practicality takes into considerations long term realities and sensitivities of the region as cooperation in our War on Terror looks increasingly domestic for Pakistan.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @
Posted in Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized, US Foreign Polciy, US Pakistan relations | Tagged af-pak, af-pak war, afghan pakistan, Afghanistan, afghanistan pakistan border, afghanistan pakistan taliban, afghanistan pakistan terrorism, afghanistan terrorism, Al Qaeda, al qaeda in NwFP, al qaeda in the NWfP, Al Qaeda Pakistan, bush with us or against us, christian science monitor pakistan, christian science monitor pakistan article, domestic issues in pakistan, domestic terror pakistan, domestic terrorism in pakistan, foreign policy pakistan, foreign policy to pakistan, International Affairs, International Affairs Pakistan, international politics, international politics in pakistan, international relations pakistan, jeewanjee, NWFP taliban, NWFP terrorism, obama war on terror, pakistan agenda, pakistan domestic issues, pakistan fighting terrorism, pakistan fights terrorism, pakistan foreign policy, pakistan international relations, pakistan military, pakistan military attack, pakistan political affairs, pakistan politics, pakistan terrorism, Pakistan US cooperation, Pakistan war on terror, Pakistan war on terror efforts, pakistan waziristan, pakistani foreign policy, pakistani military, pakistani politics, pakistani taliban, pakistans military, political affairs of pakistan, politics in pakistan, politics of pakistan, politics pakistan, president obama foreign policy, Taliban, taliban afghanistan pakistan, taliban attack against pakistan, taliban attack on pakistan, taliban attack pakistan, taliban in afghanistan, taliban in north of pakistan, taliban in northern pakistan, taliban in NWFP, taliban in pakistan, taliban NwFP, terrorism in pakistan, terrorism pakistan, war on terror in pakistan, war on terror NWFP, war on terror obama, waziristan al qaeda, waziristan pakistan terrorism, waziristan taliban, waziristan terrorism, with us against us bush, with us or against us, zainab jeewanjee, zainab jeewanjee foreign policy, Zainab jeewanjee politics | 6 Comments »
October 9, 2009
After months of consideration on how to deal with our escalating engagement in the AF-Pak region, Obama’s administration has decided:
“the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a political or military movement”
An article in the Washington Post today cites the administrations re-vamped goal of mitigating a Taliban capacity to interfere in the establishment of a stable Afghan government while assuring us that Al Qaeda is the primary threat, and our strategy will focus squarely on eradicating them.
It seemed news on Pakistan in the past year revolved around Islamabad not doing enough to eradicate the Taliban; equating the group to Al Qaeda in terms of importance in the War on Terror. But today marks a clear departure from such criticism. Distinguishing Al Qaeda from the Taliban is a huge step forward for the United States. Because connecting our goals to eliminate both immediate security threats and major elements of Afghan society that are unpalatable to our values, has proven counter productive. Having lived in Pakistan to experience the ill effects of hyper conservative religious factions, I know we mean well in trying to uproot extremism, but it just hasn’t worked in tandem with our military offensive. And I’ve mentioned the importance of a distinction between these groups previously:
The Taliban is historically distinct from militant groups like Al Qaeda. Unlike the Taliban, Al Qaeda is directly responsible for 9/11. Simply put, the Taliban was an ideologically fundamental group, while Al Qaeda is a militant, terrorist group. Both are dangerous as such, but the Taliban has national interests in controlling Afghanistan under strict ideological rules while Al Qaeda is a militant organization with international ambitions.
It’s not a novel contention, but only just being reflected in policy, and I think it has potential for success. As an ideological force, the Taliban foster an ultra conservative brand of Islam, but are not necessarily a threat to our security interests. Plus, if General McChrystal’s goal is defined as establishing a sustainable, democratic Afghan government, in order for it to be considered legitimate, it must be rooted in Afghan values and according to Afghan preferences. Such preferences might seem backward, or entirely unpleasant to us, but so long as our interests are being protected, impressing our brand of democratic values should take a back seat for the time being. I think the Obama administration has taken a wise step in revamping the Af-Pak strategy and hope it yields lasting success.
ORIGINALLY POSTED @
Posted in Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, International Relations, U.S. Politics, US Foreign Polciy | Tagged af-pak strategy, af-pak war, af-pak war on terror, Afghanistan, Afghanistan Pakistan, afghanistan pakistan politics, afghanistan taliban, afghanistan taliban politics, afghanistan war on terror, afpak, afpak war, Al Qaeda, al qaeda in pakistan, Al Qaeda Pakistan, al qaeda tailban, al qaeda taliban difference, al qaeda terrorism, al qaeda war on terror, alqaeda afghanistan, difference between al qaeda and talian, difference between al qaeda taliban, fighting al qaeda, fighting taliban, fighting the taliban in afghanistan, foreign policy to pakistan, general mcchrystal afghanistan, general mcchrystal afghanistan pakistan strategy, general mcchrystal military strategy, general mcchrystal obama strategy, general mcchrystal obama war on terror, general mcchrystal pakistan, general mcchrystal war on terror, International Affairs, International Affairs Pakistan, international politics, international politics in pakistan, international relations pakistan, mcchrystal af-pak, mcchrystal afghanistan, mcchrystal obama, mcchrystal on pakistan, mcchrystal pakistan, mcchrystal war on terror, obama afghanistan war on terror, obama led war on terror in afghanistan, obama troop surge, obama troops in afghanistan, obama us war on terror, obama war on terror, obama war on terror in afghanistan, obama war on terror in pakistan, obama war on terror pakistan, pakistan affairs., pakistan foreign policy, pakistan international relations, pakistan obama war on terror, pakistan political affairs, pakistan politics, pakistan taliban, pakistani, pakistani foreign policy, pakistani politics, pakistani taliban, pakistans foreign policy, political affairs of pakistan, politics in pakistan, politics of pakistan, politics pakistan, taliban afghanistan, taliban al qaeda, taliban eliminated, taliban in afghanistan, taliban in afghanistan and pakistan, taliban in pakistan, taliban in the war on terror, taliban pakistan, the difference between al qaeda and the taliban, US foreign policy to pakistan, us led war on terror afghanistan, us led war on terror pakistan, us troops in afghanistan, us troops war on terror, us war on terror taliban, war on terror, war on terror afghanistan, war on terror in pakistan, war on terror military strategy, war on terror obama, war on terror obama af-pak, war on terror pakistan, war on terror taliban, whats the difference with al qaeda and taliban, zainab jeewanjee, Zainab jeewanjee politics | 7 Comments »
September 25, 2009

Senate unanimously passed a bill authorizing “appropriations to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan”. The legislation is likely to receive similar support in the House later this week before being sent to President Obama for final approval. Initial versions of legislation were presented as the Biden-Lugar bill last year led by democrats Joe Biden and Senator Kerry, and supported by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Currently, the bill is coauthored by Republican Senator Dick Lugar making it widely bipartisan which reflects our growing desire to engage Pakistan ensuring stability and ultimately our interests in the region.
The Legislation triples foreign aid to our major non NATO ally” allowing up to $1,500,000,000 for their cooperation in “counterterrorism/counterinsurgency describing Pakistan’s ongoing struggles and successes against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It cites assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Islamabad and Mumbai hotel attacks last fall among other suicide bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan, some of which involved deaths of US citizens to underscore an immediate need to assist Pakistan at this critical time. As we face mounting deaths in the War on Terror, send additional troops to Afghanistan and President Obama works closely with generals to revamp our strategy there, the bill is meant to forge a new relationship with Pakistan.
It extends diplomatic rhetoric directly to the people of Pakistan by describing the daily plight of citizens who are “especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages” with 2/3rds of the population living on less than 2.25 and 1/5 of the population living below the poverty line”. It further mentions “Compatible goals of combating terrorism, radicalism and promoting economic development through building of infrastructure and promoting social and material well being for Pakistani citizens through development of public services”. And most interestingly, the bill cites Pew opinion polls finding:
“Pakistan has historically viewed the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as a transactional one characterized by a heavy emphasis on security issues with little attention to other matters of great interest to citizens of Pakistan”.
Then referring to the current civilian government as an “opportunity to place relations on a new and more stable foundation”. The bill’s ‘statement of policy‘ identifies the following objectives:
- Support the consolidation of democracy, good governance & rule of law in Pakistan
- Support economic growth & development to promote stability/security
- To build a sustained, long term, multifaceted relationship with Pakistan
- Expanding bilateral engagement with Pakistan
- To work with Pakistan and bordering countries to facilitate peace (a possible reference to mediating the Kashmir issue. President Obama mentioned doing so during his campaign run for President)
- Expand people to people engagement between US and Pakistan through increased educational, technical and cultural exchanges (possibly in the form of more student/professional visas. Envoy Holbrooke mentioned this in visits to Karachi in July)
- Work with government of Pakistan to:
-
- prevent Pakistani territory from being used as a base/conduit for terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or elsewhere
- Coordinate military, paramilitary & police action against terrorist terrorism
- Help bring peace, stability and development
- (this might entail counterinsurgency/counterterrorism assistance and cooperation through intelligence sharing, arms development/trade and training of Pakistani forces)
Pakistan is aptly described as a major non-NATO, long-standing ally. But cooperation has been dominated by security issues generally in the form of military dictators supported by the States in exchange for Pakistan’s military assistance throughout the Cold War and current War on Terror resulting in the Pakistani mindset of solely “transactional” relations. This bill is a fair attempt to shift that context to a more positive tone with the aforementioned objectives and diplomatic rhetoric.
However, certain specificities such as timetables and solid oversight must be transparently accessible to the Pakistani and American public to ensure more positive relations are achieved. Already experts are weighing in with concerns. Despite the commitment to development in addressing the plight of daily Pakistani’s, Foreign Policy Magazine mentions that the bill doesn’t say exactly how much of these funds are to be allocated toward military assistances. And although senator Kerry insists “Clear, tough minded accountability standards and metrics” are contained in the bill, Dawn News cites Rand Corporation expert Dr. Christine Fair raising the issue of “greater transparency” and wanting to ensure international accounting standards are applied in allocating these funds. Such concerns are equally felt in Pakistan, where past commitments of economic development have not always found their way to alleviating the plight of daily citizens for whom funding is supposedly intended.
For this reason a concerted conviction to improving the daily lives of Pakistani’s is required by Pakistani politicians who have ultimate control over how these funds are applied. I hope that President Asif Zardari along with Parliament works closely to ensure monies are responsibly allocated to a “sustainable” development the bill calls for.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @
Posted in Current Affairs, Economics, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, International Relations, Pakistan, South Asia, U.S. Politics, US Foreign Polciy, US Pakistan relations | Tagged 2009 bill pakistan, aid pakistan, aid to pakistan, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda Pakistan, america foreign policy pakistan, america pakistan relations, american pakistani relations, appropriations bill pakistan, appropriations pakistan, appropriations to pakistan, Asif Zardari, biden lugar bill, biden lugar bill pakistan, biden pakistan, bill for pakistan in the senate, bipartisan bill pakistan, clinton pakistan, corruption in pakistan, counterterrorism pakistan, defeating terrorism, defeating terrorism development, defeating terrorism with development, dick lugar, enhanced strategic partnership pakistan, enhanced strategic partnership with pakistan, foreign aid pakistan, foreign aid to pakistan, foreign policy to pakistan, funding to pakistan, HIllary Clinton Pakistan, hillary pakistan, International Affairs, International Affairs Pakistan, international politics, international politics in pakistan, international relations pakistan, joe biden, joe biden pakistan, john kerry, john kerry bill, john kerry pakistan, kerry biden, kerry lugar, kerry lugar bill on pakistan, kerry lugar bill pakistan, kerry lugar pakistan, lugar kerry bill, lugar pakistan, Obama Pakistan, pakistan affairs., pakistan and congress, pakistan and the west, pakistan bill, pakistan bill passed, pakistan congress, pakistan corruption, pakistan counterterrorism, pakistan foreign policy, pakistan foreign policy united states, pakistan international relations, pakistan kerry lugar bill, pakistan lugar, Pakistan obama, pakistan political affairs, pakistan politics, pakistan senate bill, pakistan united states political affairs, pakistan us political affairs, Pakistan US relations, Pakistan war on terror, pakistani foreign policy, pakistani politics, pakistans foreign policy, political affairs of pakistan, politics in pakistan, politics of pakistan, politics pakistan, politics to pakistan, politics us and pakistan, politics us pakistan, president obama pakistan, relations with the united states, senate bill pakistan, senate pakistan, senate passes pakistan bill, senator dick lugar, senator john kerry, senator kerry, Taliban, taliban pakistan, terrorism, united states and pakistan politics, united states foreign policy and pakistan, united states pakistan relations, united states pakistani relations, us congress and pakistan, US foreign policy, US foreign policy pakistan, US foreign policy to pakistan, us funds to pakistan, us pakistan political affairs, us pakistan politics, US Pakistan relations, us pakistani relations, us political affairs and pakistan, us politics and pakistan, us politics pakistan, us to pakistan relations, us war on terror, war on terror, war on terror kerry, war on terror obama, war on terror pakistan, zainab jeewanjee, zainab jeewanjee Pakistan, Zainab jeewanjee politics | 2 Comments »