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.