Passport : Tom Ricks : Dan Drezner : Stephen Walt : David Rothkopf : Marc Lynch
The Cable : Madam Secretary : Shadow Govt. : The Argument : The Call
Obama is wrong about Pakistan
I didn't watch the debate last night. But I did read parts of it, and I was particularly interested in the candidates' exchange about Pakistan:
In one of the more heated moments of the debate, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, argued that he would take the war to Osama bin Laden’s cave door, whether Pakistan cooperated or not. And it was Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, who argued that without Pakistan’s cooperation, any such operation was doomed.
I have to say, McCain gets the better of the exchange.
I've become convinced that Obama is making a huge mistake in endorsing the Bush approach, which will lead to disaster if it is allowed to continue. When FP asked five top Pakistani experts to tell us how to get Osama bin Laden, they all stressed passionately that the United States is heading down the wrong path by escalating a campaign of airstrikes in the tribal areas and, on at least one occassion, sending U.S. ground troops across the border.
There doesn't appear to be any genuine counterinsurgency strategy in place to do what General Petraeus did in Iraq -- protecting the local population from Taliban and other militant groups and seeking to win the hearts and minds of the Pashtun people. Instead, it's bomb, bomb, bomb. I understand the political appeal of getting bin Laden. But if you get
the al Qaeda leader but turn Pakistan into a failed state, that is a strategic
defeat, not a victory in the war on terrorism.
Nor is there any apparent effort to rein in what Pakistan sees as India's attempt to encircle it in Afghanistan, or a major push to make progress on Kashmir. Many people seem mystified and frustrated by Pakistan's "double game" in the war on terrorism. Fear of India is the root cause.
Does Obama get all this? I understand the politics here. But as policy, the Bush approach to Pakistan is sheer folly.












This is absolutely true...
It seems that the institutional memory of what happened in Cambodia as a result of stepped up US attacks in the 1970's has faded.
William Shawcross' Side-Show: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia should be mandatory reading for Obama's foreign policy staff.
Bush's as well.
Yeah, it was a bad moment
Yeah, it was a bad moment for Obama. Of course he wouldn't support unilateral, unapproved strikes into Pakistan. He said that if top Al Qaeda leaders were in the scopes he would approve a strike. He was trying to be that strong leader and say he would fight Al Qaeda everywhere, and it backfired and McCain cut him off and boxed him into that corner. Kudos for John, and boos for Obama for not being himself and posturing. He got hurt for it.
On the other hand, what McCain said was just as bad, but it won't get the press because we don't do nuances. McCain said that you "don't announce" attacks, that you work with Pakistan publicly to win the hearts and minds and then if you have to do something, you do it, but without announcing it. Both approaches aren't working.
You know, I used to think that
But things have gotten so bad that there's simply no way to do these things quietly anymore... The United States needs to take a fundamentally different approach to the entire conflict, and stop worrying about top al Qaeda leaders. Get the counterinsurgency strategy right, and you will eventually flush them out.
Another way in Pakistan,,,
is the follow through of my first comment here, and is posted here on the European Tribune.
Oh, Obama gets Pakistan (PAHkeestan)...
Obama had at least one Pakistani roommate during his college years. He took a trip ( or two) to Pakistan some years ago where he stayed with no small fish, as his host went on to be the caretaker Prime Minister last year. Plus I think his mother lived in Pakistan.
The Pakistani government is also a target of Al Qaeda and Taliban, though positions on that have changed somewhat, therefore it is important to at least make it seem that the Pakistani government is not "collaborating" with the U.S. aggressors.
That said, I also think there needs to be a new approach to the entire WOT, one heavily taking into account the Qur'an and Sunnah when devising strategic policy. This in turn would require public education on the nature of Islam, as well as urgent attention to the more insidious non-violent forms of waging jihad for the advancement of the ummah.
Having a Pakistani roommate
Having a Pakistani roommate is hardly qualification for deep Pakistan foreign policy knowledge.
Having learned a culture 2 decades ago, and understanding the current political situation, are two vastly different areas of knowledge.
I agree with what you have
I agree with what you have said generally about Obama and this notion that he would go into Pakistan to find Bin Laden. However, in the debate McCain got on him about that, and he seemed to respond with a more nuanced version of the view. This was my understanding of it based on the debate:
He would first work heavily with Pakistanis on a diplomatic level to make sure they were working hard trying to eliminate Al Qaeda. If after attempting and failing to do so, it was to be made apparent that Pakistan couldn't pull this off, Obama would support with US troops, and only if the Pakistani people support it.
This is the sense I got at least, but who knows a) If my sense was right based on some 2-minute response in a debate, or b) if this is actually what he will do if president.
Here's the whole exchange
LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead -- a new -- a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we'll move to Afghanistan.
And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it's a -- it picks up on a point that's already been made. Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.
And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.
We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.
And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.
So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.
And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.
We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.
No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.
No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.
And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.
LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?
MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.
And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.
Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.
I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.
We've got to get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.
Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.
Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.
I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.
And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.
And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.
And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.
So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops -- and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.
So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.
OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.
That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
MCCAIN: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.
Great job Genius!
Here's how it's likely going to end up.
After the next 9/11, "experts" like you will have to answer why many more Americans had to die because you could not develop the cojones to call a state sponsor of terrorism for what it is. The wrath of the American people will force the next President to invade Pakistan and create a bigger mess than any of you could have imagined.
What we have here is a country that is so addicted to the use of jihadists as policy tools that it will not listen to anyone. Unless its leaders, especially Generals, are shown a clear picture of the devastating consequences that would befall Pakistan were it to continue its terrorist friendly path, Islamabad will not change course.
Coercion is sometimes the only answer to people who refuse to habitual recidivists.
Kardari?
McCain A) got the name of Pakistan's president wrong and B) claimed falsely that Pakistan was a failed state when Musharraf instigated his coup. Obama handled the question just fine.
Obama = Bush ?
A little weird to see Obama defend the "Bush Doctrine" while McCain defend diplomacy.
I mean, McCain is suppose to be 4 more years of Bush...
007 Needed
I have just forgotten the lessons from the past. Can somebody tell me why its not a good idea to reactivate CIA again to deal with these issues. Like Pakistan is not really a country, with a central government. places like Vezirestan are controlled by small tribal leaders as it was Century ago, just the armor has changed. Now what's wrong with waking up Mr. 007 again?