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.