Friday, September 19, 2008

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.

Friday, September 12, 2008

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.