April 03 , 2009
Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategy
Even the staunchest Republicans concede the wisdom behind the Afghan-Pakistan strategy announced on Friday, March 27, by President Obama for effectively eliminating the threat of al-Qaeda and Taliban to the security of the United States and peace in the region. US intelligence agencies are unanimous in their assessment that the extremists congregated in the tribal belt of Pakistan are plotting the next 9/11. The Obama strategy aims to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” al Qaeda in Pakistan and vanquish its Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The aim appears almost identical to that pursued by the Bush administration.
There is however a vast difference. While President Bush directed his attention on Iraq, Obama wants to sharpen US focus on Pakistan and develop better partnership with its government and military. Bush concentrated on Iraq and remained lackadaisical, meandering and insouciant towards the problem in Afghanistan. He depended much on Musharraf’s assurances who was even then suspected of playing a double game -keeping the Taliban alive to serve as proxies in any conflict with his country’s chief rival, India.
Obama has made it clear that there would no longer be bank checks to reimburse the expenses claimed to have been incurred by the Pakistan army in the fight against the Taliban. That is where the rub is. More on this subject later, but first let us recap the key points in Mr. Obama’s speech concerning Pakistan.
*Disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda terrorists and their havens in Pakistan
*Triple US aid to Pakistan to $7.5bn over 5 years
*Boost civilian government in Pakistan and strengthen economic opportunities for Pakistanis
*Urge UN to take a lead role in generating world assistance to Pakistan and Afghanistan
*Overhaul the way US aid is managed, funded and allocated –no more blank checks
*Increase efforts to build Pakistan’s security forces to enable them to defeat the terrorists
President Obama’s presentation of a unified US strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan is probably calculated to sever his administration’s approach from that of the Bush era. Nonetheless, his strategy is based on the advice of the same military commanders and the lessons learned over the seven years of conflict with the extremists. But, there is a clear difference in the situation between the two countries from the U.S. perspective. While tens of thousands of U.S. and N ATO troops are present in Afghanistan and may move to any part of that country, no such facility is available in Pakistan and the people of that country are jealous of their independence and abhor even the drone attack on the terrorist hideouts on their territory. The US is sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, while it is offering an additional $1billion annual aid to Pakistan to secure its firmer action against the Islamic extremists, who now claim the tribal area as their home. Osama and his cohorts are believed to have their hideouts in that area. The local inhabitants would rather die than betray their guests, according to their value system embodied in the local code of conduct called Pakhtoonwali.
This situation on the ground explains why Mr. Obama described the northwestern border region as “the most dangerous place in the world”. Army General David Petraeus said in a TV interview: “What we need to do is to partner together effectively, confident that we are going to be there for each other in the future.”
Building such a confidence is the most crucial matter. The way the US left Afghanistan to its own devices after the withdrawal of Soviet forces is still fresh in the memory of Pakistanis. Although Gen. Musharraf did a 100% turnabout under US pressure after 9/11 (Are you with us or against us?) there could be no complete break of friendly ties between elements of the intelligence agency, ISI, and Taliban on the pattern of the US conduct in Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat. That is against the psyche of the people of Pakistan apart from more mundane considerations.
The Taliban’s fantastic aims and their resort to violence have continued to erode these ties. Overhaul of the ISI has also removed officials sympathetic to the cause of Taliban. The corps of suicide bombers, developed by the Taliban, betrays their desperation. Yet, these perverts and criminals did succeed in killing Benazir Bhutto, making several attempts on the life of former President, Pervez Musharraf, and the former Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, apart from killing 54 persons last September in the attack on Marriott hotel in Islamabad. Only a few hours before President Obama’s speech on his Pak-Afghan strategy, a suicide bomber attacked a Friday congregation in a mosque in the Khyber agency killing at least 50 Muslims. The extremists have lost all moral ground owing to their lust for terror and false expectation of rewards hereafter. They are not Islamic extremists; they are a shameful blot on a noble and peace-promoting creed, and an unmitigated evil by any standard.
By and large, the people of Pakistan are peace loving, hardworking and seeking a better future for themselves and their progeny. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are following a path taking them far way from the teachings of Islam. As the eminent Persian poet, Saadi, has said:
Tursum na rasi ba Kaaba aye eirabi
Kean rah ke tu meravee ba Turkistan ast
(Translation: I am afraid, you will not reach Kaaba ( Mecca) o villager
Because you are following a path that will take you, instead, to Turkistan! )
What is needed is for the religious leaders and Imams of mosques to explain to the religious congregations, particularly in the tribal area, the fallacy of terror tactics. The top leadership of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are too incompetent, too greedy and corrupt to claim public confidence in their utterances. Otherwise, they could keep addressing their people to explain to them that terrorism was never resorted to during the long history of Muslim rule over several civilized parts of the world.
Several congregations of Muslim scholars have already given unanimous verdicts against terrorism. Similarly, many unanimous religious verdicts exist against suicide bombings. Media campaigns need must be launched to cause a clear understanding of the religious precepts on these matters.
The change needed can hardly be achieved through the barrel of the gun.
In the case of Pakistan, we need perhaps a change of leadership too. The man at the top, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, was considered a bad man, a Mr. “Ten percent” generally believed to own abroad assets worth $1.5 billion acquired through kickbacks and misappropriations even before he became the President of the country quite accidentally. How can such a heavily flawed person, an accidental President, deliver the goods?
