Obama Wrong On Pakistan
Posted on September 18th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
William Lind elaborates on the point I was making yesterday:
Obama’s position on Pakistan is even more dangerous. In August of 2007, Obama called for direct U.S. military action in Pakistan, with or without Pakistani approval. Speaking to the Woodrow Wilson Center, he said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” President Bush took Senator Obama’s recommendation this past July, authorizing such actions.
This is an example of the classic strategic error of sacrificing a more important goal to one of lesser importance. Not even outright defeat in Afghanistan would do America’s interests as much damage as would the disintegration of the Pakistani state and the transformation of Pakistan into another stateless region. The state of Pakistan is already dangerously fragile, and actions such as cross-border raids by American troops will diminish its legitimacy further. No government that cannot defend its sovereignty will last. Ironically, if Pakistan collapses, so does our position in Afghanistan, because our main logistics line will be cut. In effect, Obama wants to hand al-Qaeda and the Taliban a double victory.
I would add that even without cross-border raids by soldiers, but merely with the drone attacks launched without Islamabad’s approval, Pakistan’s government will react strongly against violations of airspace and sovereignty. Lind’s recognition of the close similarities between Obama’s policies here and on Iran with those of President Bush echoes an observation I made last September about Obama’s foreign policy vision:
But despite claiming to be a “change,” Obama’s overall foreign policy and his judgments do not represent that much of a correction from this administration’s hubris, recklessness, and presumption. His proposals actually derive from the same all-encompassing, hyper-ambitious, and dangerous foreign-policy tradition.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Even a small team strike force or Predator drone attack, while it may be justified, could blow up in our faces:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD937RO2G0
“However, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal region, the military told field commanders to prevent any similar raids.
“The orders are clear,” Abbas said in an interview. “In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire.”
And it is a situation that could get ugly very quickly: Pakistan is not a country with a piddling little army: The stats below are from Wikipedia, so take them with a grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
610,000 active troops
518,000 reserve troops
2451 tanks
I’m sure some of the many billions we showered on Musharraf found its way to the frontline units, and they would certainly be more motivated to repel a US incursion (however modest in scope) than to go after domestic insurgents. The debate on this issue (optimistically assuming there will be one) will boil down to Obama & McCain trying to out-badass one another.
‘“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.â€
Did you have the same ‘oh my god what a strategic blunder’ reaction when Bush said we will treat countries that harbor terrorists the same as terrorists themselves? What’s wrong with a politician saying he will defend our interests? How can you (republicans) say democrats are soft on national security and them attack one who is saying the right things?
Unless we attacked unprovoked I don’t think we’ll have a problem. I just don’t see any country being reckless with it’s nukes.
Here’s you chance to play presidential candidate, finish this sentence;
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act…..
we write a sternly worded letter?
we send in a SEAL team?
we attack Libya?
we bombbombbombbombbombIran?
we go to the UN and have a committee meeting and debate options with world leaders?
The leap from ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’ to ‘the disintegration of the Pakistani state’ is nothing more than soothsaying.
As Lind says, ‘Bush took Senator Obama’s recommendation’. Pakistan remains intact.
“What’s wrong with a politician saying he will defend our interests?”
Nothing at all, so long as it is understood that even a well-intentioned strike in Pakistan could have disasterous effects.
“‘Bush took Senator Obama’s recommendation’. Pakistan remains intact.”
This was what, just over 2 weeks ago?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080918/ts_nm/pakistan_usa_dc
Yes, I’ll grant, you; Pakistan has not collapsed in the last two weeks. Hooray for us. Of course, it obviously won’t be the last:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080918/ts_nm/pakistan_usa_dc
I’m not claiming that these types of strikes are not neccessary (they very well may be), but if we’re proceeding in this direction, we need to bear the potential negative effects in mind.
Its hard to sympathize with Pakistan at this point. When you get millions and millions of dollars for military aid from the US that is used partly to fund the ‘war on terror’ and vow to catch terrorists but mostly use the money to build the already gigantic military complex and to partly fund the dubious ISI, its really hard to be sympathetic. When you make a deal, you accept the consequences. Also, Pakistan survived when it lost half of its territory during Bangladeshi independence. I am sure it can survive this as well.
This meme that Pakistan is descending into statelessness threat is overblown. Pakistan is no more unstable than any part of South Asia. Its Punjab and Sind province, the largest two provinces are especially strong. It is in its more peripheral regions like baluchistan where state control is negligible. Its political situation is quite unstable but that is par the course in its history. Most of the state apparatus is under the influence of the military complex and will not be unstable. Of course, *continued incursions* by US troops will lead to more resentment in Pakistan but there is nothing that can be done about that at this point.
While your concern about unintended consequences is understandable, bear in mind that in Pakistan’s 60 year history, it never did the right thing out of its own volition. Whether it is a military or civilian government, Islamabad looks out for its own interest first – no surprise there. Why we should do that as well is not clear to me, seeing as how it has not worked out so well for us.
And while the area in question is rough terrain, an no government has had any real control over it, it is tiring to hear the same refrain of how hard it is to find Bin Laden or anyone else. When Musharaff was in charge, it seemed that he had the uncanny ability to time a major arrest when either the U.S. was sending an envoy, or he was in DC to pick up his check.