{"contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

Whither Pakistan?

As the number of casualties from deadly bombings increases, the news from Pakistan seems pretty grim. A day doesn't go by without civilians being killed and maimed by Pakistani Taliban explosives. Many of these attacks have been thwarted by the army and the police, but the Taliban and other loosely allied organizations continue to use terror to dissuade Islamabad from launching a long-anticipated offensive in South Waziristan, the principal Taliban stronghold.

Months ago, the Pakistani government decided on a strategy of appeasement with Muslim resolutionaries in the Swat valley: rather than try to control the area, it ceded authority instead. But the strategic goal of extremists is not local control but suzerainty over all of Pakistan (and all other Muslim countries as well), and it came as no surprise that the revolutionaries subsequently attacked and occupied a city only 60 miles from the capital before finally being routed by the army.

More than most things, it was this failure of appeasement that brought in sharp relief the bankrupty of Islamabad's ostrich-like approach. With great fanfare, Pakistan has been planning its offensive for some time, noisily advertising it in the hope that the Taliban and its allies will feel sufficiently threatened that when the offensive actually begins they may put up little resistance and thus produce something that looks like an army victory. In any case, nobody expects the Pakistani army to stay in South Waziristan long enough to establish control, and the result of a hit-and-run government offensive will be no more stability than Pakistan enjoys now.

Meanwhile, extremists belonging to a large and diverse assortment of fragmentary organizations have coalesced to terrorize the country, and the one bit of good news is that the Taliban's indiscriminate killing has made many previously complacent Pakistanis recognize the revolutionary threat to the nation. Unfortunately, this will not result in a steelier resolve. For one thing, Pakistan, to its great peril, will continue to view India, not revolutionary Islam, as its principal enemy. For another, some Pakistani government organizations, including its intelligence apparatus, number among their members people who are sympathetic to the revolutionaries.

The Obama administration may eventually make a strategic decision about our objectives in Afghanistan, and the role, stability and resolve of Pakistan will be a major consideration. (Along those lines, one finds unpersuasive Secretary Clinton's assertion that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are in good hands.) But 2010 is an election year, the Congress and the electorate are restive and skeptical, and the president is likely to make a decision will satisfy few. A sub-optimal approach to southwest Asia may be the least politically uncomfortable solution, but the result is liable to leave events in this dangerous area of the world in the hands of an irresolute Pakistan and its own internal adversaries.

{"contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
{"commentId":10137354,"authorDomain":"shari-bat-mouton"}

What a mess. God-speed to those trying to solve the problem. How does Isreal factor into this situation?

{"commentId":10137354,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"shari-bat-mouton"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
{"commentId":10147734,"authorDomain":"tom-carter"}

If Obama decides to continue his original strategy in Afghanistan and pours more troops into that swamp, the problems in Pakistan will be made worse. It will be like stomping your foot in a mudpuddle--not only do you get yourself muddy, you splatter mud on everyone around you.

The best approach would be to reduce our troop presence in Afghanistan and focus on finding and neutralizing terrorists who threaten the U.S. wherever they may be. That will give us more time and resources to devote to terrorists in Pakistan and other countries.

Clinton's assertion that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are in good hands is just plain goofy. I'm not sure there are any good hands in Pakistan. That's another issue that is worth more of our attention than the Taliban.

{"commentId":10147734,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"tom-carter"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
{"commentId":10149146,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

I am beginning to think the US is destined to lose itself in that mudpuddle that extends from the eastern Mediterranean to the South China Sea to include Indonesia. We stood by or supported the Israelis as they reduced Iraq's nuclear efforts to rubble. I mention this because they may have led the way to the ultimate solution. Why can't the US stand down from trying to be the world's policeman and instead protect our national interests with sufficient force and tactics to obtain our goals. If our goal is to contain nuclear weapons then I suggest we adopt the Israeli tactic of taking out known nuclear threats with pinpoint actions. I will point out this won't work unless we are willing to disarm the Israelis as well. If we have an additional goal of eliminating terrorism I suggest we start at home by creating the conditions that will deny terrorists a reason or motive for their assaults.

Trying to find a solution to Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran or Palestine is not a single site quandary. Unless we begin to realize there is a whole other world out beyond our borders we can make no progress. We will never be able to set up small Americas throughout the great continents. The best we can do is learn to live with the neighbors we have been dealt.

Today's news from Iran helps me make my point. Suddenly the US attention is drawn to a bombing that has killed leaders of their revolutionary guard. Sounds like the Iranians have an internal problem. Why not let them work this out for themselves? Why can't we allow the Taliban to be an internal problem for the Pakistanis? Why didn't we allow the Iraqis a chance to rid the world of Saddam on their own? Short of permitting the use of nukes, why can't we allow old Palestine to solve its own problems?

You say, oh, oh, we can't ignore that part of the world and let them affect our national interests. Why? Because they are small and/or backward and are not likely to be able to retaliate if they don't like us? We seldom talk of sending troops to Russia, or China, or even Vietnam. Why? Are they too big to take on? Well, it seems these small countries wind up defeating us as well. Anyone who thinks Iraq is a victory is blowing smoke. There is no such thing as a victory available to the US in that part of the world. The best we can do is occupy a country or destroy the village to save it.

Wow! Sorry! Sometimes I amaze myself.

{"commentId":10149146,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"farmer"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:12 PM EDT
{"commentId":10153809,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

Short of a Caliph who is sympathetic to Jewish and American interests in the greater Middle East, there is no solution.

{"commentId":10153809,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:50 PM EDT
{"commentId":10161950,"authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}

In Afghanistan I am hopeful that Obama will approve the surge and catch the Taliban between the hard place of the Pakistani army and the rock of reinforced American troops moving back up to the Pakistani border.

I am also even hopeful that Obama will authorize a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, if only because our president is a proud man and he can't bear how much Putin and Ahmadinejad have played him for the fool. Besides which, with the Nobel Peace Prize tucked away Obama has a rare opportunity to take bold unilateral action and still claim righteously that it had to be done for world peace.

{"commentId":10161950,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}
    Reply#5 - Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:44 AM EDT
    {"commentId":10193504,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

    Does "breaking eggs" mean anything to anybody? Is this military slang?

    {"commentId":10193504,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#6 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:11 PM EDT
    {"commentId":10366695,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

    Today I posted "Reflections on the Future of Pakistan" in direct response to your article.

    {"commentId":10366695,"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#7 - Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"703722","isPrivate":false}
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    {"threadId":"703722","contentId":"3385630"}
    Start TrackingStart Tracking
    Stop TrackingStop Tracking
    Col. Jack Jacobs's Latest Comments
    Comments & Feedback
    – Show More