Time is running out for Pakistan

Among the plethora of plans submitted by the Obama administration lies one that has garnered very little attention. It has the potential to have significant effects on a country and to our efforts of putting a stop to al Qaeda’s reign of terror and governmental destabilizing. The plan calls for tripling the amount of monetary aid we have been providing Pakistan from $500 million to $1.5 billion annually. This aid is cloaked under the guise of “nonmilitary” assistance due to the crumbling economy in Pakistan. This plan, not unlike many of the President’s other plans, has one codicil attached to it that refutes the nonmilitary assistance it purports to be.

The administration has made it clear that if the Pakistani government does not increase its efforts to stop the flow of Taliban forces into their country; this aid will be significantly reduced if not eliminated entirely. This is something that the government can ill afford considering they were on the brink of bankruptcy as recently as last fall. Amidst all of this we find a refreshingly pragmatic voice of reason in the person of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Levin has expressed concern over the possible backfiring of this plan should the Pakistanis perceive it as a bribe of sorts.

"It's got to be that we are supporting Pakistan policies because if we appear to be buying something they would otherwise not pursue, it is counterproductive."

Personally, I have trouble seeing how they can perceive it any other way! Do we actually think that they are incapable of seeing directly through this charade, or is it that we know we have them in a corner.

According to Julian Barnes of the LA Times: both Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense Policy, and Gen. David H. Patraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, feel that increased support by the Pakistani military is vital to our effort to stem the tide of further infiltration by extremist forces. The Taliban has already made significant strides in establishing a foothold in many areas of Pakistan. This is an extremely critical time and without additional support; Pakistan is placing itself in an even more precarious position.

This is a situation that Pakistan definitely doesn’t need at this time. The government, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, is currently under attack from opposing political parties and Zardari has shown that he has no problem imposing martial law to prevent any possibility of being ousted. The magnitudes of the problems facing Pakistan, both internally and in its dealings with the Taliban, are best described by James Traub. Traub is a writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of the book The Freedom Agenda. He has spent over a year in Pakistan and with President Zadari. His depiction of the President provides additional concerns regarding our revised aid plan.

It is important to note that Zardari spent 7 years in prison after Zardari and his wife, then Prime Minister, were accused of embezzling $1.5 billion from the government. The irony in that amount is alarming to me! There were also allegations of murder and attempted murder that led to his imprisonment earlier. To further emphasize the instability of the government; Zardari’s wife, Benazir Bhutto, who had served two terms as Prime Minister, was assassinated by terrorists in December of 2007; shortly after her return from exile. It would appear that unstable would be a very generous description of the Pakistani government.

To further exacerbate their problems; Samina Ahmed, the International Crisis Group’s (ICG) longtime Pakistan analyst, has stated that the Taliban now have gained control of one half of the country and have rendered their security forces useless in these areas. U.S. military commanders have acknowledged that the city of Quetta in one of the larger provinces in Pakistan has become the headquarters of the Taliban.

If things weren’t bad enough; the constant bombing missions by our unmanned Predators (an apt name), which are responsible for countless deaths of innocent civilians are also responsible for driving the Taliban further into Pakistan. The military strategies employed by the U.S. along with Pakistan’s seemingly deliberate ignorance of the threat posed by the extremists have created a virtual time bomb.

Normally, I would be the first one to call for our immediate withdrawal from this border region and leave that joke of a government to its own devices. However, there are some very serious ramifications that may result from these actions. Should the Taliban succeed in gaining control of Pakistan; not only would they be in control of a very strategic part of the world but they would also have access to a large nuclear arsenal presently possessed by the government. Once again; I have more questions than answers, but there is one thing I am certain of. Nuclear weapons in the hands of al Qaeda will only result in further atrocities for the U.S. and its allies. This is a situation we simply cannot walk away from.

Obama's troop withdrawal plan; a classic Catch-22

During Barack Obama’s presidential campaign; he vowed to have all of our troops in Iraq home within 16 months of his taking office. He has since amended that to 18 months as a concession to his own military commanders. I can live with that. He originally proclaimed that he would begin withdrawing one brigade a month; the equivalent of 3,000 to 5,000 troops. He has amended that as well by deciding to wait until the spring of 2010 before he begins the aggressive withdrawal approach. I am having a little difficulty with that one.

If history has shown us anything in regard to war; the advice of the commanders in the field should be given the most attention. However, in the case of Iraq, these opinions are based on the fact that these commanders do not feel that the Iraqi Security Forces will be up to the task. My response to that: I don’t care! Does anyone honestly believe that our continued presence is going to miraculously change how the Shiites and the Sunnis feel about each other? That is what it all comes down to. The Sunni extremists are supported by al Qaeda and have chosen the town of Mosul as their base from which they launch their offensives. Of course, their offensives are limited to roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and the occasional drive-by shooting.

The violence is not restricted to Mosul as the suicide bombing in Baghdad on Sunday will attest to. A further reminder of the danger our troops face every day. To date, 4,238 Americans have lost their lives-far too many for a war that was started based on either shoddy intelligence or blatant propaganda. Unless I’ve missed something; we still haven’t found those pesky little WMDs that were the foundation for our invasion. We now justify our presence as being the “preventers” of escalated violence between the two factions.

I recall a reporter stating that our withdrawal would open the door to a civil war. What an astute observation. What in the world did he think was taking place for the centuries preceding our intervention? Whether we leave in 18 months or 18 years; nothing is going to change. Putting our young men and women in harm’s way in order to prolong an inevitable conclusion is just wrong. We need to adjust our focus to our troops as opposed to worrying about the future of the Iraqis. If that sounds selfish then so be it. Attempting to broker peace anywhere in the Middle East is akin to trying to take down a redwood with a keyhole saw. It’s just not going to happen. Lt. Col. Tom Cippolla summarized it best by saying, “I think we understand now that it is a fight that doesn’t stop. It’s part of the environment here that will have to be dealt with for a very long time.” Not by us I hope.

I am aware that President Obama is in a difficult spot between appeasing the Democrats who are calling for a quicker aggressive withdrawal, and heeding the advice of his military commanders. Regardless of which path he chooses, he is going to make some enemies. Therein lays the Catch-22. Cippolla believes that the Iraqis will request us to stay longer than the designated deadline and that is what concerns me the most. Prime Minister Maliki assures us that his forces will have the capabilities to manage the situation but they will need additional weapons. Of course they will!

My hope is that President Obama fulfills his promise to the American people and brings our troops home. We are tired of broken promises. He simply cannot cave in to the wishes of our commanders or the Iraqis to continue our presence there. It is bad enough that he plans to leave 50,000 troops there for an additional year as non-combative (doubtful) supporters. Detracting any further from his original withdrawal plan is unacceptable.

Comments or questions: dean_connor@hotmail.com