What's new

Obama’s Pakistan Successes - Newsweek

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,148
Reaction score
1
Obama?s Pakistan Successes | Print Article | Newsweek.com
How the U.S. is gaining cooperation in Islamabad, making the country more stable while hitting the Taliban hard.

By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Feb 23, 2010


Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was right when he countered his old rival Dick Cheney's criticisms of President Obama's counterterrorism policies last weekend. Cheney saying that the nation was less safe under the new administration is "not borne out by the facts," Powell said. Many of those facts can be found on the ground in Pakistan, where the Obama administration has enjoyed an unprecedented degree of cooperation from the once-hesitant government in Islamabad, and has led a coordinated effort to bring the Pakistan military and civilian sides together.

Since last summer a slew of top Taliban commanders wanted by both governments, including Baitullah Mehsud and Abdul Ghani Baradar, have been killed or arrested. The remaining Pakistani Taliban, who only a year ago enjoyed close to untouchable status, are now hunted men, including elements of the dangerous Haqqani Network in Waziristan. And the "hammer and anvil" approach in Afghanistan—with NATO's Marja offensive serving as the hammer and Pakistani forces across the border acting as the anvil—may at last be working after years of losing ground to encroaching Taliban, who had years to regroup from their safe haven in the mountainous tribal regions of Pakistan.

A bloody stalemate that some critics a year ago—including NEWSWEEK—worried might turn into "Obama's Vietnam," has a chance of becoming known instead as the Obama Surge, with an aura of success reminiscent of George W. Bush's 11th hour reassertion of control in Iraq in 2007–08. And this surge is targeted much more directly at our real enemy, Al Qaeda.

The question is whether this intelligence windfall will bring us any closer to the real prizes: Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri, and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, all of whom are still believed to be hiding in Pakistan? American and Pakistani officials won't promise that just yet, but a senior U.S. administration official tells me, "We're making them very uncomfortable." And they expect more successes to come. According to senior American and Pakistani officials, about 12 Al Qaeda were arrested recently trying to cross into Pakistan in Helmand—and were turned over to NATO. Pakistani forces also claim to have killed another 11 "Al Qaeda liaison personnel."

Key to the turnaround have been several changed elements, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials. First, intensive, hands-on U.S. diplomacy with Pakistan—with regular senior-level trips by national-security adviser Jim Jones, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others—has helped to reassure Islamabad that it is seen as a long-term partner, not a mere instrument. The diplomatic offensive has also begun to dissuade many in the Pakistani military and intelligence services that they need to cultivate extremist groups—including the Taliban—in order to secure a voice in neighboring Afghanistan. Both Pakistan and India have long seen the country as a proxy battleground where both countries seek to gain advantage, and the Pakistanis have generally sponsored Muslim extremists as a means to undermine India. But the Obama administration has helped to persuade Islamabad—especially the military—that it will have a bigger voice in the political future of Afghanistan without resorting to extremist allies. U.S. diplomacy with India led by Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and U.S. Ambassador Tim Roemer also has taken the edge off the rivalry. "The driving force from the outset is that Pakistan needed to be part of the regional strategy. They need to be comfortable they're going to have an Afghanistan on the border that will be stable and not a threat to them," said the senior administration official. "The internal criticism there was that Pakistan was viewed by the Americans as a mere launching pad. Also, we provided assurances that the [planned] 2011 withdrawal [from Afghanistan] doesn't mean we're leaving."

At the same time, the Pakistani security chiefs have come to understand that the Taliban threaten their own state, perhaps more than India does right now (in a further sign of cooling passions, the foreign secretaries of the two countries are meeting this week). Just as important, the crackdown by Pakistan's military has been popular. This was partly the result of foolish overreaching by the extremists. As Taliban forces moved into Swat Valley they sought to impose harsh Islamic law and sowed indiscriminate violence that left a bitter taste, prompting support when Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kayani directed a successful offensive there.

Islamabad, with U.S. encouragement, also has launched a propaganda campaign to highlight the brutality of the Taliban. When Gen. Jones visited the Pakistani frontier corps on his most recent trip, they were being shown videos of the Taliban beheading Pakistanis. "It's had this chilling effect," the senior administration official told me Tuesday upon Jones's return. "There is great support among the population for what the Pakistani army has been doing. Kayani certainly sees that. More than ever before, they [the Pakistani Army] have a sense of purpose and backing of the people." According to one internal government survey cited to NEWSWEEK, about three quarters of Pakistanis now consider the Taliban to be a threat, whereas the percentage was down in the low 30s during the years of autocrat Pervez Musharraf.

Finally, the Pakistani government itself is at long last united, and the ugly anti-Americanism that accompanied the foreign-aid debate last year may have abated somewhat. (Though the administration official cautions: "There is still great sensitivity to close cooperation with the U.S. It is still not politically popular.") Until late last year there was intense mistrust between the military and the civilian government led by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. But on his most recent trip, Gen. Jones met with all three in the same room, a sign that U.S. efforts to bring the parties together have had some effect.

All in all, it is a striking contrast to the Bush years. Despite taking a tough you're-with-us-or-against-us approach with Pakistan, the Bush team found the Pakistanis were chronically stingy with intelligence. Critics such as Gary Schroen, the former CIA station chief, saw a pattern of giving up second-rate Taliban or Al Qaeda leaders only to ameliorate American mistrust, then retreating. To maintain his power, with the approval of Bush and Cheney, Pakistan's then-president Musharraf cut deals with the religious parties that gave extremists succor, in particular the coalition called the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA, or United Action Committee). Musharraf also barred the parties of his main democratic rivals, including the Pakistan Peoples Party led by the since-assassinated Benazir Bhutto (Zardari is her widower). The result was that Islamism grew in power and influence under Musharraf's constantly deferred promises to reinstate genuine democracy, even as Washington delivered billions of dollars in aid. Pakistani officials also complain that the Bush team did little more than make demands. "The Pakistanis were feeling used," said the Obama administration official.

To be fair to Bush, he and then–secretary of state Condoleezza Rice sought to ease Musharraf out of power toward the end. And there are still many things that could still go wrong now: Zardari remains unpopular and faces an ever-threatening political insurgency from former prime minister Nawaz Sharif (with whom the Americans have also been in contact). And, of course, another errant drone strike could also throw the country back into a frenzy of anti-Americanism. Senior U.S. officials say it will be a year before it is known whether the Marja offensive—and the so-called hammer and anvil—have succeeded.

But both U.S. and Pakistani officials express cautious optimism that a corner has been turned in the central front against Islamic terrorists.
 
.
This is an optimistic article and justified in its prognosis of hope. Much of it depends, as always, on performance in key functional areas that can provide a difference. For both Pakistan and Afghanistan, key will be the sincere effort AND ability to translate intent into effect among the populace.

In that respect, however successful the American/ISAF/Pakistani military approach might be, there must be comparable gains made by both the Afghan and Pakistani governments. The afghan government's progress towards such will prove more problematic. Given Pakistan's heretofore demonstrated inability to deliver governance and services to key regions and functional sectors of its country that says much about the work faced by the U.N. (including America) in raising forth a truly viable afghan government rather than a facade and sham.

"hammer and anvil" appears to be a commonly mis-used term. In military parlance, it describes a distinct operation that's intended to squeeze an opponent against two equally powerful forces. Only in the most general sense do I see that as the case now between ISAF and the P.A. Both forces are, independant of one another, increasingly aggressive in key insurgent strongholds.

While there's unquestionably been strategic intelligence shared as well as coordination of supply/logistics needs at the senior command level, we've not yet seen formal joint operations on the ground-only the most informal advisement, warning, and awareness. Areas like Helmand/Balochistan expanse of border do not have large numbers of ISAF forces either blocking egress from Afghanistan or attempting to drive into Pakistan's waiting arms. Nor are the Pakistanis yet waiting there in large numbers to catch such. Border security forces? Yes. Otherwise I'm unaware of significant deployments by either side in that area.

Bajaur/Konar/Nuristan may offer more hope in that regard. The forces demanded to conduct true tactical hammer and anvil opertions would be necessarily smaller because of the constrained nature of the land. The problem there is that while American forces haven't departed that area as I'd anticipated, I've not seen a surge of our forces into that area either. Our anticipated departure, though, may be indicative of McChrystal revisiting such and realizing that while he couldn't provide more assets there, neither did he any longer wish to decrease such. This may be a function of increasing military optimism elsewhere in Afghanistan that we can secure the population without having to abandon largely unpopulated tracts to the still-dubious abilities of the ANA.

The problems with the Afghan government and its security forces are profound and offer the greatest cause for concern. Karzai's recent hijacking of the Electoral Complaints Commission is indicative of an embattled politician appealing to his political base and determined to withstand assault from without. There are signs of regression in promises for expanded inclusiveness for women along with retrenchment among old and dubious cronies. Unfortunately not just the U.N. must work with and around this phenomenon but also the Pakistani government. A greater voice in afghan affairs will have to be achieved through the existing mechanisms of power. Whether we can collectively leverage our influence to assure the Afghan government doesn't stray too far away from those objectives necessary for its long-term growth will be critical to eventual success.

It won't be easy but, finally, may be possible. We'll see. Hopefully together.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
.
Well compared to the Bush era, Obama's administration is much better at coming up with holistic policies. Of course, its not perfect as nothing in the real world ever is.

Having said that, it would be nice if GoP (and the US govt.) start being more open and honest with the level of co-operation to the Pakistani public.

Most of this "co-operation" is considered "politically unpopular" by Pakistani politicians. And as most are tainted with nepotism and corruption, they will always be hesitant to take bold steps and level with the Pakistani public on this.

But its high time that GoP starts leveling with their public and explain what its doing instead of continuing with Musharraf era backdoor deals. The drone attacks and the rendition programs are an example of this. The Army also should level honestly about its co-operation with the US to the Pakistani public instead of keeping it away from the public as they are no doubt heavily involved in the decision making process as well.

The GoP has to consistently work to build consensus around why US co-operation against extremists that threaten the state is necessary. Otherwise then we are moving towards a larger and larger disconnect between the Pakistani public and the GoP will suffer some form of backlash somewhat similar to what the Pro-US Shah of Iran had to suffer in '79 even though it might not be at that level.

Having a two-face policy: one for the west and one for the Pakistani public will just not work in the long run
 
.
While there's unquestionably been strategic intelligence shared as well as coordination of supply/logistics needs at the senior command level, we've not yet seen formal joint operations on the ground-only the most informal advisement, warning, and awareness. Areas like Helmand/Balochistan expanse of border do not have large numbers of ISAF forces either blocking egress from Afghanistan or attempting to drive into Pakistan's waiting arms. Nor are the Pakistanis yet waiting there in large numbers to catch such. Border security forces? Yes. Otherwise I'm unaware of significant deployments by either side in that area.

pakistan has deployed FC in the area u r talking abt and set up many border posts to interdict any influx of militants from helmand to balochistan - this i mentioned a few days / weeks ago on the forum.
 
.
"pakistan has deployed FC in the area u r talking abt and set up many border posts to interdict any influx of militants from helmand to balochistan - this i mentioned a few days / weeks ago on the forum."

I recall that hence my reference to border security forces.;) However, I don't consider those on par with regular combatant commands deployed as part of a joint endeavor.

I see a difference when discussing or alluding to tactical hammer and anvil operations. Hope so for you as well.

Thanks.:usflag:
 
.
"pakistan has deployed FC in the area u r talking abt and set up many border posts to interdict any influx of militants from helmand to balochistan - this i mentioned a few days / weeks ago on the forum."

I recall that hence my reference to border security forces.;) However, I don't consider those on par with regular combatant commands deployed as part of a joint endeavor.

I see a difference when discussing or alluding to tactical hammer and anvil operations. Hope so for you as well.

Thanks.:usflag:

this point has been made 'crystal clear' by the PA top brass regarding 'capacity and equipment issues' and since Gen, Kiyani has been successful in his 'management' of PA ops in this theater so far, I would tend to support his 'strategic direction'.

Now the FC 'capacity to operate' needs to be ramped up so that the army can start planning new ops against the militants.:pakistan:
 
.
The game-changer

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Zafar Hilaly

Except Obama, just about every American who has anything to do with Pakistan and could find a seat on a plane or hitch a ride has been here to cajole, prod, threaten, and inveigle Pakistan to do America's bidding in Afghanistan. Even Richard Armitage was fished out from some think tank or another.

Such saturation tactics have paid off. An army that has been assigned the near-impossible task of fighting on two fronts, at opposite ends of the country, while keeping an eye on the squabbling politicians, has decided to bite the bullet. Recent developments suggest that we are now squarely in the American camp despite ostensible differences and the reservations of many on America's Afghan policy.

There were indications, which some of us missed, that conjoining with the Americans was in the works. The arrest of Taliban high-ups, the near-perfect targeting of militants by American drones in Waziristan revealed the quality and depth of the intelligence cooperation that now exists. Likewise, the remarkably successful operations in the two Waziristans, although an exclusively Pakistani affair, were much aided by devices not obtainable earlier.

All of which also explains why the American lexicon has changed in the depiction of Pakistan's current role in the war. Even the abrasive Holbrooke was over the moon in his praise of Pakistan, and Hillary Clinton likewise. The Pentagon quartet of Gates, Mullen, McCrystal, Pertraeus are no less profuse, and so too the ex-Pentagonian Jones, now advising Obama.

We expect quick release of Coalition Support Funds of almost $2 billion that are due, beginning next week, with an instalment of $360 million. Sixteen F-16s are expected by July and perhaps more to follow. Drones of a type more potent than what were on offer are on offer now. And, just possibly, down the road, a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement similar to that concluded with India; at least, that is what Christiane Fair, who in her earlier incarnation was a Pakistan-basher, has proposed. Meanwhile, the civilian package will be speeded up with the visa issue close to resolution, and perhaps augmented with dollops of dollars.

Such good news was accompanied by caution from American ambassador, "Nanny" Patterson, who (talking to the FCCI in Karachi) could not resist scolding us for our overreliance on foreign assistance, but that is her wont. She once insinuated to a Benazir Bhutto who was justifiably alarmed about her security that she should calm down and get on with the business of cooperating with Musharraf.

Never downcast, Mullah Omar, raising the telescope to his blind eye, is telling the world through his spokesman that the horizon holds no danger for the Taliban, though inwardly he must be seething at the arrest of his henchmen in Karachi and Quetta. It marks a turnaround from earlier policy which, even by Afghan standards, must appear stunning. The fact that there may have been an unspoken agreement from the Musharraf era allowing the "friendly" Taliban unmolested access to Pakistan no doubt compounded Mullah Omar's rage.

Actually, the recent arrests of Baradar and the shadow Taliban governors Salam and Mir Mohammad may prove game-changers. Some say that it is a ploy meant to appease the Americans and to convey to the Taliban the message that in the current attempts to broker a settlement Pakistan means to be heard by themm or else; and that eventually the arrested officials will be released.

Be that as it may, it is unlikely to succeed. The Americans will want us to "catch more" and will keep an eye on Baradar. Besides, the blow to Taliban vanity will not be easily appeased. The Taliban only forgive an enemy against whom they cannot strike back, whereas Pakistan is an easy target. In any case, for them war is just God's way of teaching them geography. They will not stop warring or seeking revenge for their imprisoned countrymen.

Talk of Pakistan retaining a mediatory role after the arrests appears overly optimistic, perhaps even naive; and so too our policy of treating the TTP and the Afghan Taliban as distinct entities; or, for that matter, the Jaishes and Lashkars and Al Qaeda as being apart from the Taliban. Just as we have conjoined with the Americans, notwithstanding important differences in perceptions, so will these groups conjoin with each other, despite their contrasting agendas.

Increasingly, it appears, McCrystal's desire, expressed to the media in January that Pakistan and America "develop a joint campaign plans so that we approach the entire problem together," is being realised. So too his conviction that they undertake "joint military action against the Taliban (by) launching coordinated attacks on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border"; such as, presumably, the successful air strike by the PAF against militants on our side of the border on Feb 20, which reportedly accounted for thirty of them.

India must be delighted that the Americans have finally managed to pit Pakistan against the Afghan Taliban. And, because America, Karzai, India and Pakistan now have a common enemy, logically Pakistan cannot object to India being allotted the task of training Karzai's army. Of course, Pakistan will object; and also because logic is often the first casualty when it comes to handling India. A pity; because. given the volatile ethnic composition, divided tribal loyalties and a rate of desertion that is the highest in the world, training the Afghan army seems a Sisyphian labour which one could only wish on an enemy.

Now that we seem embarked on a war that may well span a generation, and have unpredictable and unintended consequences, one can only hope that those who have brought us to this pass have not only the measure of their enemy but also of their ally. It is not that America will cut and run, although America has announced that it will begin to withdraw soon, and often that amounts to much the same thing. But, more importantly, whether the American commitment to fund the war and provide the weaponry required, and share the long-term economic cost that it will entail for Pakistan, will be honoured by a Washington that is becoming increasingly mired in debt. On that score one can only hope that our leaders have read the tea leaves correctly.

The consequences of a war that has every possibility now of intensifying and spreading could be traumatic for Pakistan. Terrorism has virtually destroyed Pakistan's economy. It is conceivable, therefore, that as the energy shortfall and water scarcity take hold, food prices soar and joblessness grows and poor governance continues, public disquiet, already fairly high, will spill over on to the streets, in which case the mix of our travails could prove lethal.

Most wars have an outcome. There is a victor and a vanquished side, except in Afghan wars. In these wars the enemy will flee when confronted by an overwhelming force but will return to attack when the odds are better. One is never able to say whether one is winning the war or not.

But assuming we prevail, our victory will be of little consequence unless the Taliban and their murderous allies are defeated not only in Pakistan but also in Afghanistan. And, frankly, it is impossible to countenance a Taliban defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the ragtag army Karzai will have at his disposal. Actually, what is more probable, nay, certain, is the defeat of Karzai's forces at the hands of the Taliban once the Americans depart.

Where does that leave Pakistan? Stuck between an unfriendly Afghanistan under the Taliban and a hostile India which is precisely where we do not want to be. Hence the reason why, some felt, that a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan, preceded by an American withdrawal, was the best solution for all concerned especially Pakistan.

We have made this task infinitively more difficult for ourselves by aligning so closely with the departing Americans and seemingly unable to resist their urgings for joint action against the Afghan Taliban. Our only alternative now, it appears, is to decisively win the ideological and military battles against the united Taliban and other extremists at home and hope that someone will do the same in Afghanistan. And, meanwhile, to rethink the basis of our six-decades-old mindset towards India, which has thus far been, but can no longer be, our sole strategic preoccupation.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com
 
.
. And, just possibly, down the road, a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement similar to that concluded with India; at least, that is what Christiane Fair, who in her earlier incarnation was a Pakistan-basher, has proposed.
Regarding the nuclear deal with pakistan I think pakistan should be offered one and it will be surely offered.But it has to understand it would take some time and it would only be offered at a time when war on terrorism is over and all the safe havens for terrorists that are thriving there are destroyed.World would not have a problem in offering pakistan a nuclear deal as it has the right and genuine need for energy.There are some other dynamics attached to this but once it gets rid of terrorism in all forms everything else can be sorted out.
 
.
Regarding the nuclear deal with pakistan I think pakistan should be offered one and it will be surely offered.But it has to understand it would take some time and it would only be offered at a time when war on terrorism is over and all the safe havens for terrorists that are thriving there are destroyed.World would not have a problem in offering pakistan a nuclear deal as it has the right and genuine need for energy.There are some other dynamics attached to this but once it gets rid of terrorism in all forms everything else can be sorted out.

When the War of Terror is over, we will be again under sanctions just like before. US or others are never gonna give us a nuclear deal, we will again get a Presseler Amendment or some other Amendment.
 
.
When the War of Terror is over, we will be again under sanctions just like before. US or others are never gonna give us a nuclear deal, we will again get a Presseler Amendment or some other Amendment.

And why do you think that would happen??
 
.
When the War of Terror is over, we will be again under sanctions just like before. US or others are never gonna give us a nuclear deal, we will again get a Presseler Amendment or some other Amendment.

Taimikhan may be right about this unless Pakistan changes its stance on Israel. The Israeli lobby in Congress is always looking out for a way (excuse) to punish Pakistan.
 
.
Why do Pakistan needs a nuke deal with US? China has lot of Uranium reserves, is it not sufficient to supply to Pakistan too?
 
.
And why do you think that would happen??

History repeats itself. It happened in the past, it will happen again.

And with the current and future level of friendship of US & India happening, it would be very difficult for US to have some level of friendship. It will either be a very low level friendship with Pakistan, or none whatsoever.

And my bet is none or nearly zero.
 
.
Taimikhan may be right about this unless Pakistan changes its stance on Israel. The Israeli lobby in Congress is always looking out for a way (excuse) to punish Pakistan.

Yeah you are in a way hitting the bulls eyes, but what i don't understand is that we have not threatened Israel directly ever, as per my knowledge. Yeah we did commit few pilots in the arab wars on voluntary basis, but at that time it was the geopolitical environment which led to that.

We never said we will nuke it, or bomb it or whatever like that.

Even the arabs are more hostile to them, but still US is ok with them and supplying weapons and other stuff.

Anyway, lets hope for the best.
 
.
Why do Pakistan needs a nuke deal with US? China has lot of Uranium reserves, is it not sufficient to supply to Pakistan too?

Nuke deal is not just about Uranium, we have deposits also of it. Nuke deal covers everything, new reactors to new technology for betterment of the infrastructure.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom