Don't Open a Third Front in Pakistan
U.S. intelligence and national security officials now readily admit that al Qaeda is back, and that it together with a growing fundamental Taliban movement is flourishing in parts of Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. The simple explanation is that the growth is the result of the Iraq war and its drain on our resources, military and intellectual. The solution most favored inside and outside government in Washington is a shift in resources back to the original post 9/11 battlefield, and indeed we are already witnessing new deals being made with the government in Islamabad to bolster the counter-terror effort.
If conventional wisdom takes hold that the Pakistan resurgence is purely the product of an ill-conceived Iraq war, we will not only set ourselves on a faulty course for fighting in the future, but we will fail to understand the actual mistakes we have made in Iraq and Afghanistan, mistakes we could now repeat in Pakistan.
Here is the crisis as it stands in South Asia: We have a central Afghan government facing deepening domestic instability and a Pakistan that threatens to descend into disorder. The al Qaeda organization is retooled and resurgent.
Before the conclusion is drawn then that all that is needed is a Pakistani surge and a shift in resources back to the beginning, let's be honest about what happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
First Afghanistan: In late 2001, with the Taliban government in Afghanistan surprisingly and easily defeated, and with al Qaeda on the run, Rumsfeld and company, and the U.S. military particularly in the form of Gen. Tommy Franks, came to the conclusion that the "military" mission was over. So delighted were they with dodging a Soviet-style quagmire and so impressed were they with their lightning military success, they truly believed that the mop up was both minor and easy. No one at the top of the military food chain then believed that there was a long war ahead, and if anyone thought that that "war" was going to need the full participation of the non-military side of American power, no one was clearly articulating it. These were the days when Donald Rumsfeld's description of American fighting a new kind of war focused on Special Forces riding on horseback using laptops to call in air strikes not democracy and other slogans that would later emerge.
The bottom line was a poor assessment of the enemy and an error in understanding our own military achievement.
The Iraq war loomed, the original 2003 war that is, imbued with the arrogance of the easy win in Afghanistan, hampered by the Rumsfeld leadership assumption of another quick in and out, and influenced by a continuing misunderstanding of the Iraqi mind.
We might go on today that the Bush administration lied, that there were too few troops or that there was no plan for the peace, but the failure was that we didn't understand what happened in Afghanistan, and we continued to ignore that the "enemy" wasn't going to be vanquished at the barrel of a gun. In fact, quite the opposite: The more conventional military might we threw at Iraq and Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa and elsewhere -- the more forces we stuffed into the region in the Gulf states and the Caucasus - the more we activated latent forces of discontent and hatred. U.S. military forces now "occupy" a half dozen Muslim countries in the region, and I can't help but think what many see are uniforms of subjugation and killing.
Influenced by our subsequent experience in Iraq, we see al Qaeda as some specific organized force to be found, fixed and defeated. Al Qaeda, of course, is not one thing, and its manifestation in Iraq is quite different than Pakistan, just as it is different in London or Madrid. This misunderstanding originally influenced our turning our back on Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, and in deferring to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to police his own country, even though we knew that those tribal border areas (and not Iraq) were the true wellspring of Islamic extremism.
The danger of the U.S. military becoming more engaged in Pakistan now is not only that once again we are walking into a new country and a new culture that we don't understand, but also that we are leading with our military, thus connoting, no matter how modulated and sensitive that force will be, that we are on the path to yet another occupation, yet the other irony of our back to the future strategy to focus on Pakistan is also that militarily we will hardly commit the number of forces needed to make any short-term difference.
The administration's increasingly public expressions of concern about Pakistan reflect intelligence reports of a gathering storm. Ultimately though, our best military strategy is getting out of the way and assisting Pakistan to deal with the problem. If Washington wants to put more resources into the fight, than bolster the U.S. presence at the border in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is not waiting in some trench line to fight us; they are waiting for us to blunder into yet another country so that they can once again scatter, while proving America's military crusade.
By William M. Arkin |
January 28, 2008; 8:55 AM ET
Pakistan
, War on Terrorism
Previous: Secret Operations: Supporting or Undermining the War on Terroism? |
Next: Al Qaeda Loves Bush: Thanks for the Free Advertising
Posted by: Loewe50 | January 29, 2008 09:15 AM
So here we go again...
Reagan, Bush HW and the Republicans screwed up the country and the
Democrats had to come behind
them and clean up the
leveraged-buy-out
junk bonds and
recession
crisis!
It is not for the Dems to come and clean
up the mess, we need both Parties to
work together - even if a Republican
is re-elected.
I am an Independent, may the best
woman win!!
Posted by: The Rev | January 29, 2008 05:08 AM
Lame Duck Presidency for Bush in the last stretch?
It all depends if the Democrats are willing to suffer a recession just to make their party look good.
Especially if they aren't sure if a Republican or a Democrat makes it into office.
Who knows?
The election is too far away and too close of a race to call it yet.
Let's see how the Dems can come to the needs of their country; now that it counts...
Posted by: Plainfacto | January 29, 2008 02:25 AM
Whaddaya mean, we didn't understand
... Afghanistan...Kemo Sabe?
Many Americans understood full well that the Bushtanistas were completely unqualified to understand the implications of the 9/11 attack on America - they still don't.
And to wit many Americans knew then what the rest of America has slowly come to realize and admit to (factually 1 Trillion dollars later) - when you factor in the non-disclosed costs of this fiasco), that the Bush strategy was a major failure?
The only thing that Bush did was to take down a sovereign nation that had not bothered America in any way, while stoking the fires in Iran, Afghanistan and the rest of the world.
Al-Qaeda is still alive and doing well, USM is apparently still alive and doing well, and according to all assessments - the al-Qaeda organization has grown exponentially. Hmm!!
The good news is that tonight is the
last time that we will hear this President
give a State of the Union Speech! The President should be able to pick up on a good 'foreclosure property' for cheap, when he is out of office!
I just pray that we will all still be around in 2009, in order to hear the next
President give the SOU speech!
BTW the Rev watched a great movie tonight, given that there wasn't anything or anybody trustworthy enough to watch on television - during prime time!
Posted by: The Rev | January 29, 2008 02:08 AM
//They win by dying.\\ -NancyNaive
Correction:
"No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country; he won it - by making the other poor dumb bastard die for THEIR country"
-Gen. George S. Patton
Posted by: Plainfacto | January 29, 2008 01:49 AM
//They win by dying.\\ -NancyNaive
"No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country; he won it - by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -Gen. George S. Patton
Posted by: | January 29, 2008 01:47 AM
"We might go on today that the Bush administration lied, that there were too few troops or that there was no plan for the peace, but the failure was that we didn't understand what happened in Afghanistan,..."
The failure is that people like you still have any influence. The failure is the belief that wealth and force can impose its will on those willing to die.
They win by dying.
Posted by: Nancy Naive | January 28, 2008 11:01 PM
It went to Iraq is all. So now that it is beaten in Iraq, it is returning to Pakistan to secure the base they are losing there because of internal political developments.)Ray Robinson
AS USUAL YOU ARE FULL OF IT, SO AQ SENT YOU THEIR TRAVEL ITINERARY. THE ORIGINAL AL QUAEDA WHO ATTACKED US ON 9-11 ARE NOT THE PEOPLE FIGHTING US IN IRAQ. LET ME GUESS, AFTER PAKISTAN THEY ARE MAGICALLY GOING TO TRAVEL TO IRAN OR SYRIA OR TO ANY MUSLIM COUNTRY THAT THE NEOCONS WANT TO BOMB AND INVADE. THIS REMINDS OF THE SILLY ARGUMENT THAT THE WMDS WHERE SHIPPED TO SYRIA RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSE BEFORE THE INVASION. THESE PEOPLE WILL TWIST AND MURDER LOGIC AND FACTS TO COVER FOR THEIR FEUHRER THE MOST OBVIOUSLY INCOMPETENT LEADER IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. Now the people that attacked us moved from Afghanistan, to Iraq and now back to Pakistan, please. Osama, Omar, and Zawahari the major leadership of the Taliban and AQ have never left the Afghan Pakistan border region.
Posted by: Farzad | January 28, 2008 06:16 PM
I disagree we should have been on the Pakistan border in 2002, but George Bush betrayed the American people and instead went to fight an oil man's war in Iraq. A country, which our own government admits had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11. I quote George Bush:"Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11". Of course that isn't what they where saying in 2003.
AQ, in Iraq is not the same organization that attacked us on 2001. Bush has wasted trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, by fighting an unrelated conflict in Iraq. The theater of operation in this war was always in Afghanistan, and on the Pakistan border where AQ fled to. George Bush betrayed the victims of 9-11 by not pursuing the senior leadership of AQ with any real conviction and by committing the majority of our forces to fight in his war for profit in Iraq.
Posted by: Farzad | January 28, 2008 06:11 PM
I am Ivaylo Ivanov. I was trained by MOSSAD. I am from a jew mother. I went and drew swastika and filthy hate speech on many synagogues. I have assembled pipe bombs. Unfortunately I blew my fingure. Now I need legal support of Alan Dershowitz and AIPAC to testily. Hopefully the judge will be a khazar. NY times did a good job of coverup and hogwash post did not even publish it. I am very hopeful.
Posted by: Ivaylo Ivanov | January 28, 2008 05:44 PM
I am the witness dot com.
Please go to the site above and listen to the audio of Mr Benjamin H. Freedman's speech and then read his letter to Mr Goldstein.
The world events can be understood only by understanding the history of the Khazar race. Their footprint of mischief on earth is far and wide.
Khazar Kaganovich
Posted by: Khazar Kaganovich | January 28, 2008 05:40 PM
Al-Qaida = Al - CIA - Duh was never out of business.
Our secret funding comes from the congress.
We do all the dirty work of the government officials.
Posted by: Osama Bin Laden | January 28, 2008 05:38 PM
//Since it appears U.S. policy shifts with the wind we will continue to have confustion in Pakistan, Aghanistan and Iraq (sorry friends, media propaganda to the contrary, the Iraq situation is not "solved").\\
No; it is not 'solved' as you put it. But it is also not as you see it - either. There have been many accomplishments made in Iraq. Why have you failed to mention this; are you a part of yet another 'media campaign' to insert counter-propaganda into the mix? Even if it were to be 'solved'; I'm quite sure that you wouldn't allow the situation credit due to the present US Administration.
Hussein didn't do for his people as he should have - with his 2k+ fleet of Mercedes/Benz. His various and numerous mistakes - our opportunities to dissuade further conflicts and assure oil production. How much is that worth to you? He was ruthless and merciless against the Shia; but they know now that democracy ia the only thing holding them back from civil war right now. I see that as a gain; and you see it as a liability. If they choose to take this path, they will meet internal resistance from Iran - as they have. You say tomaato - and I say tomahto.
Instead, we have given the Iraqi people an infrastucture that they have never seen before. The wheels of thought are moving in their minds; they know now that more changes are possible. Does it really bother you that the US has gotten some things together - or does this thought fly in the face of your mantra and mess with you 'fung shwei'?
How about putting the blame on Mush - where it would be precise and warranted? Why blame the US for another countries 'lackie'? You assumptions of US ham-handed tactics is nothing more than an extension of the Democrats dogma on the GWOT. At best, it is critical; at worst, is a measure of divisiveness. It is hard enough for Americans to understand what is really going on in the ME - without the rhetoric like you wrote - to further attempt to confuse the issues and what is truly at stake. Why don't you include the other side to you comment? At least your story wouldn't have lacked balance.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, allowing US Advisory teams/trainers would do much to return Pakistan/Mush some much-needed confidence. Especially after the loss of Bhutto; Mush must clean house to show he is in control of a nuke power. Would you expect anything less? As far as I am concerned, that much would be the very least that he should do if he wants to gat some respect. The other thing Mush would need to do, is allow his own gov't to work with the necessary judiciary and other political appointees to be in place. And finally, he must take a side and stick to it; if anyone has been 'ham-handed' in this Paki affair - the award goes hands down to Mush...
Posted by: Plainfacto | January 28, 2008 05:36 PM
I am the witness dot com.
Please go to the site above and listen to the audio of Mr Benjamin H. Freedman's speech and then read his letter to Mr Goldstein.
The world events can be understood only by understanding the history of the Khazar race. Their footprint of mischief on earth is far and wide.
Khazar Kaganovich
Posted by: Khazar Kaganovich | January 28, 2008 05:35 PM
What a load of crap. Nothing Arkin says is correct. Al Qaeda is not back, it never disappeared. It went to Iraq is all. So now that it is beaten in Iraq, it is returning to Pakistan to secure the base they are losing there because of internal political developments. God, Arkin, you are a moron.
Posted by: Ray Robison | January 28, 2008 04:20 PM
What a load of crap. Nothing Arkin says is correct. Al Qaeda is not back, it never disappeared. It went to Iraq is all. So now that it is beaten in Iraq, it is returning to Pakistan to secure the base they are losing there because of internal political developments. God, Arkin, you are a moran.
Posted by: Ray Robison | January 28, 2008 04:19 PM
The all-important coda to the Pfaff analysis, cited above:
"What a legacy that would be - plus a new intervention into Pakistan! American voters are unwise to assume that next November's vote will end this nightmare."
A very salient and worrying prospect, indeed.
Posted by: barrisj | January 28, 2008 03:49 PM
The US economy is truly in the gutters. It is feared but not respected. It has truly become the USSR, a shambles held together by miltary power. No military can sustain itself without economy. No population can be held together in harmony without strong economy. Where is the economy heading ? Who is soon to hit 10 Trillion dollar debt ?
Valuable lessons it had taught the world, but has forgotten for itself. The word democracy is just another rhetoric in the arsenal of rhetoric with the neo cons. US can't afford another front without dragging her population to thirdworld status. Then again we all saw after Katerina the otherside of America. Talking great principles but acting differently is not the way to go about...
Posted by: Al | January 28, 2008 03:28 PM
Musharraf is under relentless pressure from the Pentagon to admit - if not outright combat units - at least SF/CIA paramilitary operatives to "advise" the Pakistani military in the Tribal Territories; "training and mentoring" is the preferred term, very reminiscent of early-60s US involvement in Vietnam. William Pfaff discusses the "sanctuary problem" vis-a-vis Vietnam when the US decided to bomb Cambodia and Laos, and how well all THAT worked out here:
http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=286
Air-strikes, "targeted assassinations" IDF-style, heavy-handed military operations...none of these will do anything other than inflame and incite the Pashtun to retaliate in kind against vulnerable Pakistan targets, further destabilising an already precarious situation.
Posted by: barrisj | January 28, 2008 12:37 PM
Good analysis! You cannot argue with perfection. Pakistanis are best equipped to deal with there own problems. It could get very messy, and it would be better for our national interests not to be involved.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | January 28, 2008 12:23 PM
A bit off today's blog subject, but thought I'd offer the following link for the worthy reader. Very intriguing article entitled 'Waving Goodbye to Hegenomy' in this weekend's NY Times magazine.
Offers some excellent insight into what the world's geopolitical order might evolve into 15 years from now. Also provides some noteworthy, and remarkably sensible, recommendations on how to restore/maintain American competitiveness in the emerging geopolitical marketplace of ideas, actions, and economics.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?em&ex=1201669200&en=18611d3851e4b3ec&ei=5087%0A)
Posted by: Frank | January 28, 2008 11:10 AM
If Pakistani government and its army (who's generals and officers are consuming about 50% of the national GDP in real terms since the creation of Pakistan) are unable or unwilling to fight the extremist, that they them self created with the help of the US/Saudi fundings in the 1980s, then no army in the world can help Pakistan. What Pakistan need is help in education, health care and economic set up more then anything else
Posted by: denali | January 28, 2008 10:49 AM
no doubt Pakistan is under greatest threat from alqaeda and other insurgent groups but it is very clear that this is due to american support for dictatorships in Pakistan, it was america who created all the jihadi organizations against soviet union and than blamed Pakistan for flourishing insurgency. Pakistan is a moderate country with a little population harbouring any kind of fanatic ideas so america must think about its own mistake and must not make any atempt to invade Pakistan or its atomic weapons
Posted by: hussnan | January 28, 2008 10:10 AM
Although it is heresy for the mainstream press to report, the fact is that "Al-qaeda" is largely a construction of the ISI and elements of Saudi intelligence. Some people believe that Daniel Pearl was killed because he was coming close to connecting the dots in Pakistan. Since heresy is not allowed in polite circles it is impossible to formulate sensible policies which is the reason nothing seems to work.
Since it appears U.S. policy shifts with the wind we will continue to have confustion in Pakistan, Aghanistan and Iraq (sorry friends, media propaganda to the contrary, the Iraq situation is not "solved").
Posted by: banger | January 28, 2008 09:48 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Excellent analysis.
One open question: Why do so many people don't get it that the simple direct hit, be it as hard as it may, might meet kind of jujitsu answer, and so become self-destructive? And that there are (unintended) side-effects and midterm and longterm effects that have to be taken into account.
Look at the GOP debate about foreign politics.
Maybe it's a regression to pure and simple binary thinking, devoid of ambivalence and ambiguity, which is fostered by our entertainment industry - movies and video games - what produces this stupid binary mindset. And a regression to naive short-termism, also dominating in our entertainment world.
We do not learn to deal rationally with ambivalence, side-effect, longterm anticipation in our culture.
That makes people like you mavericks, Mr. Arkin.
And whenever it turns out that you prove to be right - - - plenty of people will spit on you because of that.