How to Make Enemies: The Final Days of the Bush Presidency

As the Bush administration prepares to ride off into the sunset, our nation faces many problems. Many of these problems are directly related to decisions made in the past eight years. While the American people seem fixated on economic issues, the foreign policy failings of the Bush administration may stand as the most monumental blunders of the past two terms. Bush's misaligned focus in the war on terror has left our military overstretched & out of position. His mistakes in Eastern Europe have led to a renewal of U.S./Russian hostilities, possibly leading to the recent invasion of the small nation of Georgia. Whoever takes the wheel of our nation next January will certainly have their work cut out for them.

If you watched the first presidential debate between Senators Obama & McCain, you noticed the discussion the candidates had about Pakistan, which has been the main focus of this blog to this point. The candidates, like me, see the need to improve relations with this Islamic nation in order to better accomplish our nation's goals in the war on terror. If you noticed, Senator McCain attacked Senator Obama for his tough talk about Pakistan. McCain went so far as to accuse Obama of "telegraphing his punches" as if it was a mistake.

Although McCain certainly has a mountain of experience in foreign policy matters, his conclusions on this particular area are simply wrong. President Bush has been attempting to improve Pakistani/American relations for six years. His efforts have cost Americans ten billion dollars. This money has had little positive effect. Essentially, Bush gave billions to former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, who used the money to solidify his own power & the Kashmir front. All the while, Pakistan denied requests to enter the countryside to chase down Taliban & al-Qaeda operatives. The Pakistani military refused to aid in strikes on our enemies in the war on terror. What's truly sad is the fact that much of our ten billion dollars in aid likely supplied this uncooperative force.

Early in the primary campaign, Senator Obama took a very different view to the solution of the Pakistan problem. Instead of handing out cash without conditions, Obama suggested that strings came attached to the money. Due to a staggering change in the Pakistani government, this message may have met with more receptive ears. The new parliament made a commitment publicly to remove terrorist sympathizers from government. In the third debate of the primary, Senator Obama went so far as to say that our entire relationship with Pakistan may need to be reevaluated if our troops did not receive the aid they need to succeed. As Obama pulled away in the polls, Pakistan began to carry out their own attacks against Taliban forces.

As goes Obama's success, so has gone the position of Pakistan. Pakistan has made a recent change of leadership in the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service. Although the selection came from the Pakistani military, not the civilian authority, he has an anti-Taliban stance to match the recent change in the ISI's mission.

Senator Obama did in a positioning statement what President Bush has failed to do with ten billion dollars & the power of the highest elected office in the free world.

So what's a lame duck to do? One would think that securing our interests as a nation by taking advantage of all these good turns would be a smart move. Instead, the Bush administration has seen fit to complicate the situation through military action, a theme constant in the past eight years. Recently, there have been strikes on the Pakistani countryside related to U.S. forces. In one instance, U.S. helicopters were blamed for firing rounds inside the Pakistani border. In others, missile strikes have been killing civilians near the Afghan border.

Does anyone think that this method of action will result in positive action from either the Pakistani government or their people? An extended war front is certainly not in our best interest.

Promises, promises…

Following a hotel bombing in Islamabad, al-Qaeda issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack & warning the Pakistani government, mired in instability, that attacks would continue until the government pulled away from Western influence. While terrorist organizations often make empty threats as a part of an overall strategy to inspire fear in the public eye, al-Qaeda seems to be making good on their promise. At a time when U.S. influence in the rest of the world is damaged by an imploding economy, a lame duck presidency, & a hotly contested presidential election, al-Qaeda is flexing its muscles. Influence & perception of power depend on the ability to act. Al-Qaeda has shown the ability to attack Pakistan with increasing regularity; leading to changes in the ISI & public perception of Western influence. All of these are bad signs for our continued efforts in the nation & the region as a whole.

Western influence on the decisions of the Pakistani government will continue to be hurt by pullouts of key diplomatic efforts, such as Britain's recall of government employees from the country. Even the United Nations, in a series of recalls reminiscent of the buildup to the genocide in Darfur, has been removing key personnel in recent days. By removing these vital diplomatic contacts, the western world will isolate Pakistan's leaders in a vacuum of opinion led by domestic interests, interests that will have a more favorable opinion to capitulation with terrorist organizations. Continued attacks have led to increased security in the country, a condition that may help al-Qaeda to turn the citizens of Pakistan against the increasingly fragile government. As the Pakistani government locks their country down in the face of terror attacks, the everyday lives of their citizens are disrupted not only by the attacks themselves, but by the state in an effort to stop the attacks. All of these facts combine to stir feelings of outrage against a government incapable of living up to the terms of the social contract. One need only look at the election of Hamas to governmental positions, or the provision of social services by Hezbollah in Lebanon to see the possible repercussions of a poor line of action in this region crucial to our security.

Public opinion, the key to success in Pakistan, can only be improved in a limited number of ways. Just a few years ago, when the American economy was more stable, the Bush administration tried the age old government solution of providing foreign assistance to the nation. While this type of solution can be very effective towards moving public opinion, the aid must be directed in a way that reaches the people directly, & in a way in which the people know the source of the aid. However, foreign aid may be among the first programs cut in light of our growing financial crisis. Unfortunately, the cost of providing this aid would pale in comparison to the overwhelming cost of going to war with a Pakistan acting in the interests of terror organizations.

As the war in Iraq draws to a close, another option will soon present itself. Military assistance to the Pakistani government, with Pakistani security as a goal, could help to slow the frequency of terrorist attacks. By providing security, the Pakistani government will see an increased favorable opinion of their rule. By helping to provide that security in a visible way, western nations can also help to foster favorable opinions in the Pakistani countryside. Military cooperation will also have the favorable outcome of cross communication between Pakistani military apparatuses & western forces, perhaps lessening the number of military strikes on civilians, a heavy weight against favorable opinions of western intervention in the region. Will we make a promise to help our allies in Pakistan as al-Qaeda makes good on their promise to destroy them? The outcome of the war on terror hangs in the balance.

A Line in the Sand

Since the beginning of the war on terror, the United States government has given millions of dollars & military aid to Pakistan. For all we have given, we have asked for Pakistani military assistance against religious extremeists on the run within their border or access to the Pakistani border for our troops. Time & again, we have been denied these small favors by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf. Mr. Musharraf always had a good reason to deny us access or assistance. Pakistan, by its Islamic nature, is as succeptable to attacks from these organizations as a non-Muslim nation. One need only remember political assassinations in Egypt & Algeria to see evidence of extremism affecting Islamic nations as well. Foreign policy, in the end, is a carrot & stick game used to encourage & discourage actions by other nations on the world stage. Nations & leaders will make decisions that bring them positive outcomes, with overall goals of stability & control. Lack of public support in Pakistan for U.S. policy can be viewed in many ways. Only by working to change this perception can we hope to attain our goals of better cooperation & regional stability.

We are fighting a war against Islamic idealists. Iraq & Afghanistan are both nations with large Muslim populations. I've heard soldiers returning from the front referring to the war on terror as a "holy war". Pakistan is a nation defined by its religion, from the day of its liberation from England. If the war on terror is perceived as a war on Islam in general, as it often is outside our border, combatting negative perception of the United States within Pakistan borders on the impossible. While there are many ways to change that perception, substantive solutions would be a welcome change to endless positioning statements.

One of Pakistan's biggest problems is the constant conflict in Kashmir. Religious violence has once again resumed in the region, sparked by pro-independence protests, pitting Muslims against Hindus. Since the drawing of the line in the sand in Kashmir, the religious tensions of this conflict has made Pakistan a rich breeding ground for Islamic extremists. In order to retain his power, President Musharraf decided to make use of these extremists in his intelligence service & military. While these individuals may have been useful during the heavy-handed rule of Musharraf, newly elected leadership in the country has pledged to remove these extremists from government & military positions; certainly a step in the right direction.

Pakistan's conflict with India has certainly been complicated by the increasingly friendly relations between the U.S. & India. During the Bush administration, we formally recognized India's nuclear arsenal. The scene is now set for India to fully enter the world's nuclear community. Congress is currently trying to stop this measure from being finalized. While many here at home will point to India's rising economy & strategic location in regards to China as a need to pass this measure, let's instead look at some possible outcomes in regards to the war on terror & current U.S. needs.

By stopping this measure from passing before the current administration leaves office, we will not hand yet another foreign relations blunder down to an incoming administration already being asked to clean up a massacre, fix an economy with enough failing banks to inspire a Steinbeck novel, normalize relations in several South American countries, & cope with a resurgent & aggressive Russia. It will present the incoming administration with the opportunity to offer a similar recognition of nuclear armament to Pakistan given to India, with the condition of exteremist removal from the seats of power & proper security for the weapons. Although India's rising economy may make it a more attractive ally, Pakistan's strategic location in relation to China is certainly comparable to India. Only Pakistan has the power to help us defeat the Taliban, with either direct access to their interior or attacks of their own. By formally recognizing both nations, we will level the playing field in Kashmir. By leveling the playing field, we will discourage Indian aggression in the region. Although the populace may be flaring up again, talks between the two governments have been moving toward finalization of the Line Of Control (LOC) between the nations. If the violence in the area dissolves quickly, it will likely not have a lasting effect on these discussions.

However, if the entry of India into the nuclear community is pushed through in the final days of the administration like a last hour pardon of a college drinking buddy imprisoned for embezzlement we can expect further complications in our efforts to end the war on terror.

Pakistan: The Future of the War on Terror

As our election cycle wears on, the war on terror is shifting. Advancements in Iraq are leading to a closure of that front for our military. Now our forces will have the opportunity to finish the job in Afghanistan. One of the most important factors in the Afghan front is the amount of cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. The religious disposition of the nation will also make it an important key in U.S. strategy. The level of cooperation we receive from the Islamic nation will continue to affect our success & our reputation in the Islamic parts of the world. In order to understand the problems we have including Pakistan in our overall strategy, we must understand the problems Pakistan currently faces.

As you can see from the map, Pakistan also shares a border with India. The Kashmir border region, an area that has been under dispute by India & Pakistan since 1947, is still a point of contention between the two nations today. In fact, Kashmir is the site of the world's largest military buildup because of the border dispute.

(Brief history of Kashmir @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1762146.stm ).

What makes this truly frightening is the fact that both nations possess nuclear weapons. Both nations have shown a willingness to threaten the international community with nuclear action, although cooler heads have prevailed with international pressure. This threat to the border integrity of Pakistan has effectively tied the hands of its military forces. Since troops & resources are needed in Kashmir, very little can be expended to secure the western border areas, effectively allowing Taliban extremists a clear path to the Pakistani countryside.

Since the onset of the war on terror, the Taliban have used this getaway route to flee from U.S. forces & spread their brand of religious extremism to western Pakistan. These extremists have carried out operations in Pakistan, endangering civilian lives & political stability in a nation struggling to move out of the absolute rule of former President Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, considered by the Bush administration to be an ally in the war on terror, has taken millions upon millions of American dollars in trade for his support, support that denied U.S. troops access to the Pakistani countryside & refused to remove the Taliban elements from Pakistan.

While one could argue that Musharraf was in the unenviable position of having to choose between the west & Islamic idealists in an Islamic nation, one must also note that the same extremist groups that trouble the U.S. were troubling his nation as well. Musharraf's decisions regarding the involvement of Pakistan in the war on terror most likely reflected the high number of Taliban sympathizers within his own administration. Remember, this is the same nation that had given $100K to 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta (through a member of ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service) prior to his attack on the World Trade Center.

(Atta-ISI link @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11)

In the years since 9/11, our relationship with Pakistan could be compared to the relationship between a con man & his mark. Despite large amounts of money & limited military training & support, requests for access to the Pakistani border have been met by flat refusal. Now that Musharraf has been removed, in favor of Benazir Bhutto's surviving husband, the incoming presidential administration here at home has an opportunity to turn this bad situation around. By taking away the Taliban's escape route, we would effectively put them between a rock & a hard place, giving us the chance to exact our revenge for the 9/11 terroist attacks.

Where do the candidates stand on the issue of Pakistan? Senator Obama has shown a good grasp of the situation since he entered the race for our nation's highest office. In early August, just prior to the removal of Musharraf, Sen. Obama was quoted by Reuters as saying, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

(link @ http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801)

Before the end of the month, Musharraf was out & the Pakistani government had begun to hunt down the Taliban in their own country. It's funny, Sentor Obama got more accomplished with a statemen than President Bush could with millions in taxpayer dollars & two terms in office!

Senator Obama also discussed policy in regards to Pakistan with conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly. (They discuss Pakistan at about 5:45.)

(link @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJWqNRVbxgQ)

However, the McCain camp has taken a "hands-off" approach on Pakistan in recent months. On a July appearance on Larry King Live, Senator McCain told our nation he would not chase Osama Bin Laden into Pakistan.

(link @ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/206076.php)

In the wake of Charles Gibson's interview with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, this position is as suspect as any other taken up by the Arizona senator since announcing his candidacy. He can't even convince his own VP candidate to agree to such a reckless position. When the question was put to Palin, her answer didn't echo her senior running mate, it reflected the view of her political opposition. Perhaps Gov. Palin should consider putting her money were her mouth is & support Sen. Obama in his presidential bid.

This is the one question in the war on terror we can not afford to get wrong. Pakistan as a true ally could help to alleviate concerns among Muslim countries that we are at war with all Islamic nations. While any military assistance they could provide would cetainly be limited, convincing Pakistan to open their border to U.S. forces should be on the top of the president's foreign policy agenda. They are an ally we can't afford to lose.