In and Out of Pakistan, U.S. Policy of Force Has Failed

[unhappycamper]

In and Out of Pakistan, U.S. Policy of Force Has Failed

"Haven't the Bush Administration and U.S. intellectuals learned anything from Iraq. … Is the idea to kill everyone? Is that the solution?"

By Dr. Masooda Bano
July 21, 2007


Pakistan's tribal belt is under fire again, just two weeks after General Musharraf received Pakistan and a U.S. intelligence reports indicating that al-Qaeda is gaining a stronghold there.

The picture that the U.S. report paints is so extreme, that journalists are asking the Bush Administration why the United States isn't sending troops into the tribal areas as it did to Iraq. The government has refuted the U.S. report, but given that its own reports also show a resurgence of pro-Taliban forces, it hasn't a leg to stand on. The real question really is, haven't the Bush Administration and U.S. intellectuals learned anything from Iraq?

Repeatedly asking Pakistan's government to launch military operations or sending U.S. troops into the area will do nothing to eliminate anti-American sentiment there, and it's clear that the strategy of force adopted after September 11 has made the region more vulnerable than ever. Afghanistan is hardly stable and Iraq is major tragedy, where death tolls of 100 a day have become routine. And the proxy war that the Pakistan Army has been fighting against its own people on behalf of the United States is failing.

Suicide bombing, which is now a routine matter, didn't exit in Pakistan before September 11. At the same time there has been an extreme polarization within society due to the war on terror, which could be a prelude to secular and religious civil unrest in Pakistan. Before the United States even contemplates attacking another country or part of a country (i.e., Pakistan's tribal areas), it must demonstrate how past interventions in the name of war on terror have reduced the terrorist threat.

The question is simple: what would the objective be of such military operations in the tribal areas? If the objective is to reduce jihadi sentiment in the area, clearly the strategy of force is not working. For over four years now, the Pakistani military has undertaken operations in the area, and now both Pakistani and American intelligence claims that the concentration of pro-Taliban forces is at a high point. If force is the answer, then why has it failed to deliver?

The answer given is that not enough force has been used, and that we need to use more. But, who can determine how much force is enough. Is the idea to kill everyone? Is that the solution? The enemy isn't sitting around in easy-to-identify uniforms. Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers could be anyone in the population - not just in the tribal areas but even in the heart of Pakistan's cities. How will Pakistani U.S. troops identify them?


more

[Kagemusha]

1. I undertsand what this guy's saying but, just leaving them alone may not help.

Allowing them completely unhindered sanctuary only 'works' until they start using that sanctuary as a base from which to try to pull Pakistan out from under its government and armed forces. Also, the operations have hardly been uniform; Musharraf was heavily criticized by some in the west for what amounted to a ceasefire with the tribal groups. His reward was the kidnapping of Chinese citizens off the street and their being held in the recently besieged Red Mosque.

I mean, what's the alternative here, encouraging the rest of Pakistan to just give up?

[acmavm]

2. What do you thing Mushie's options are? Is he going to have to declare

'martial' law to survive? I guess what I'm asking is do you think he has any chance of survival?

[Kagemusha]

4. Well, that depends on what's really important here.

What's the bigger issue - Musharraf surviving in office? Musharraf living or dying, period? In my mind, it isn't. It's what Musharraf stands for: stability under a modern, centralized military.

In the first place, Pakistan has been under all the martial law it has ever needed at any one moment with basically no questions asked by the judiciary until very recently. (The recently re-instated chief justice was canned in the first place because he was investigating "dirty war" style incidents.) It's a mistake to view this as personal to Musharraf. If he was slain tomorrow, a general would immediately replace him. Nor, at this point, would Musharraf stepping down and replaced by shaky and likely highly corrupt democratic rule end the Islamic trouble brewing. (Indeed, the very appearance of weakness might lead Islamists to redouble their efforts further. Or it might make no difference if they're already going all-out, as events would suggest.)

As long as the army doesn't completely collapse, something that I would not say the good money is betting on, the worst case will not happen. OTOH, insofar as the Bush administration serves to make the entire military regime, not just Musharraf but all soldiers and officers, look weak and unpatriotic, the situation will worsen accordingly.

It's just...

If the Islamists want to fight this as a war because Musharraf, and the army he represents, isn't willing to consent to the undermining of all notions of the rule of civil law in favor of Sharia, what option does he have except to defend his regime to the death, and have his successors do the same? What option do they have besides suicide?

[acmavm]

6. That's just it. He basically has no 'options'. Once he bit into the apple

otherwise know as the 'war on terra', he was committed. He right there and then made himself the enemy of the fundamentalist, the real crazies. And the crazies want him gone.

The Pakistani military may not be totally down and out right now, but it's like the Iraqi 'military' and police. Who knows how many are actually fundies, or at least on the verge?

Remember the October 2006 move against Mushie?

<snip>
Oct 14, 2006

Pakistan foils coup plot
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - A plot to stage a coup against Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf soon after his recent return from the US has been uncovered, resulting in the arrest of more than 40 people.

Most of those arrested are middle-ranking Pakistani Air Force officers, while civilian arrests include a son of a serving brigadier in the army. All of those arrested are Islamists, contacts in Rawalpindi, where the military is based, divulged to Asia Times

<snip>

Several assassination attempts have been made on Musharraf since he took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, and in all attempts there was a connection with the armed forces, especially the air force. However, this time it appears that beyond the attack on the president, a coup against his administration was also planned.

<snip>

This cozy arrangement, or uneasy truce, between Musharraf and hardline Islamists in the ranks is breaking down as the US is demanding that Musharraf do something about the resurgent Taliban. He has responded, as outlined above, by cracking down on Taliban supporters and sympathizers. These people, both in uniform and out, have in turn given their reponse: they are not prepared to throw away all the gains that have been made in Afghanistan.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ14Df02.html
-MORE-

People bitch and gripe about the Taliban and its safe harbor in the the boonies of Pakistan, but what can the guy do? (Isn't that where Mullah Omar is at? Anyway, that's what I read.) This is why Pakistan is such a mess. Mushie can't move against the hard core fundies without setting the country on fire, he can't move against the Taliban and the fighters that keep slipping across the border. But he will have move against them eventually. He has to, or he won't survive. But who can he count on in the military?

And all the while we keep dumping billions of dollar in cash and technology into this shaky regime.

The biggest laugh I get is the thought that we're bringing 'democracy' to the Middle East but our bud came to power in a 'bloodless coup'.

[Kagemusha]

7. Seriously, since when were they not Musharraf's enemies anyway?

The only thing that kept them from launching a revolution in Pakistan was Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, which kept everyone busy. Not that this revolution would've succeeded, mind you, but the temperature would've been a lot higher. The same dynamic was in place for the Saudis but, they have a replacement - the Iraq conflict.

[cliss]

3. We are in over our heads.

We are truly in over our heads, around the world. We can't control Iraq, we have lost control in Afghanistan. We've had troops in Saudi Arabia for decades, and we had to leave because our presence was contributing to major disturbances in that country. Pakistan? We better not set our damn foot in there, because God knows what will happen.

We simply cannot show up anymore and try to control events, because our presence is now considered to be a destabilizing force. The days of our supremacy are over.

And I believe they know this in Washington. They've figured it out. They just don't know what to do about it.

And really, what CAN they do about it? Are we going to drop bombs on every country on earth that opposes us? The US represents about 3.8% of the world's population. It's a little tough to jerk around the other 96%, especially when they all hate us.

[Kagemusha]

5. Going into Pakistan would mean another land war in Asia.

No surprise why the US military is not enthused about the prospect.