How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan in Afghanistan? (Mull Responds to Ackerman)

EA correspondent Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

How are we going to deal with Pakistan when they are openly flaunting their proxy war against the United States? How should we respond when they say stuff like "we know where the [Taliban] shadow government is"? Or this:

“We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us,” said a Pakistani security official, who, like numerous people interviewed about the operation, spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. “We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians.”

Pakistan: Floods, Bombings, & A Drone Strike (Cole)

Pakistan protects the Taliban. That's in addition to them training and equipping various Taliban militias and even funding suicide attacks and improvised explosive devices against American troops. We, as in you the American taxpayer, give Pakistan billions of dollars in aid and weaponry, including directly reimbursing them for their army operations (down to paying for the bullets fired). And yet they're killing our troops and protecting insurgents/terrorists.

Our relationship with Pakistan is deeply, deeply flawed. How do we fix this?

Spencer Ackerman suggests diplomacy, and I wholeheartedly agree. The American people are howling at the gates of congress to end these trillion-dollar, decade-long wars of occupation and aggression, and there is simply no conceivable military solution to any of our problems, whether that's Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or Iran. Diplomacy has to be the way to go.

Ackerman writes:

An envoy from the administration needs to say: "We’re on board with that sentiment 100 percent! Pakistan should under no circumstances be cut out of a deal. We’re happy to see that you guys talk to Hamid Karzai’s government now without the binding mechanism of our trilateral summitry. Believe us, we want you doing that, because it should convince you that Pakistan has an interlocutor in Karzai, not an obstacle to Pakistani interests in a post-conflict Afghanistan.

Look, we get it: you sponsor the Taliban because you want strategic depth on your eastern border. You can get that from Karzai; and we’re here to help you get it! Pakistan can have a role in South Asia commensurate with the great power that it is!

And because we’re so sincere about that, we want you involved in the peace talks in a very specific way. We want you to deliver the Taliban and the Haqqanis to the table, under whatever circumstances of amnesty work for you. Then we want you to guarantee that in a post-war Afghanistan, they’re not backsliding on their commitments to backsliding on al-Qaeda. We’re going to put that on you. Look at that: you get an important role in Afghanistan, and it allows us to bring the war to a steady conclusion on mutually-agreeable terms. You win, we win, Karzai wins, the Taliban… kind of win (yeah, we said it), our mutual enemies in al-Qaeda (and the Pak Taliban!) lose. Now who wants flood relief?

Oh, and in case we need to say it: if we start seeing al-Qaeda slipping back into the country, it’s wrath-of-God time."

"We're on board 100 percent!" Boy, that should really scare the hell out of the Pakistanis. Ackerman, for whatever reason, seems to interpret "diplomacy" as "giving Pakistan everything it could possibly want". This is the wrong approach. In negotiations, you start with the extreme of what you want, and then negotiate down to a compromise. Ackerman has done exactly the opposite.

Let's take the statement line by line.

We’re on board with that sentiment 100 percent! Pakistan should under no circumstances be cut out of a deal. We’re happy to see that you guys talk to Hamid Karzai’s government now without the binding mechanism of our trilateral summitry.

If I were Pakistan, I'd stop you right there. "You agree 100 percent? Good, then shut up and keep the money coming. Make the check out to General Kayani, that's K-A-Y..."

Look, we get it: you sponsor the Taliban because you want strategic depth on your eastern border. You can get that from Karzai; and we’re here to help you get it! Pakistan can have a role in South Asia commensurate with the great power that it is!

So much wrong here. First of all, it's not enough to "get it" that Pakistan's national security policy is based on support for violent militias and terrorist organizations. The reason some of us have been shouting "strategic depth" from the rooftops is because that policy is illegal, destabilising, and unimaginably dangerous both regionally and globally. It is not OK: we already "get" why they do it, we have to figure out a way to stop it.

Next, Ackerman suggests that Pakistan can get their strategic depth from Karzai, with America even offering to help. There's no other way to read that than as a blatant concession that the US does not consider Afghanistan to be a sovereign country, but rather as an Imperial Colony of Pakistan and the United States ruled by a pliant puppet government. Forget all that stuff about democratic elections, about standing up a stable, non-corrupt Afghan government, about creating a secure Afghanistan capable of protecting itself from terrorists. We were just kidding, we actually think Karzai is just on our strings and that Pakistan should be able to inflict as much violence and terrorism on Afghanistan as it wants.

We'll skip over the part about Pakistan being a "great power" since it is one of the most corrupt, violent, unstable countries on Earth, as well as the premier state sponsor of terrorism in Central Asia, if not the entire globe. But then again, I guess if Ackerman believes that total capitulation = diplomacy, then sure, corrupt, terrorist-supporting tyrants = great power. Why not? Words don't mean anything.

And because we’re so sincere about that, we want you involved in the peace talks in a very specific way. We want you to deliver the Taliban and the Haqqanis to the table, under whatever circumstances of amnesty work for you. Then we want you to guarantee that in a post-war Afghanistan, they’re not backsliding on their commitments to backsliding on al-Qaeda. We’re going to put that on you.

We want Pakistan involved in peace talks in whatever way works for them? That's already happening. Remember the New York Times article about how they're using Baradar's capture as leverage in the peace talks? It's dumb enough to concede everything the Pakistanis want, but then it's even stupider to "offer" them things they already have to begin with.

And just how is Pakistan supposed to keep its guarantees on Al-Qa'eda? We've already conceded strategic depth, and their support of Al-Qa'eda affiliates is part of that, so what is this "backsliding" stuff we're talking about?

This is why you don't open negotiations, "Sure, we agree with everything!" There are no guarantees or backsliding after you give them everything. That's what "100 percent" means. It means all of it. You can't say "OK, you can support terrorists, but make sure you don't support terrorists."

Look at that: you get an important role in Afghanistan, and it allows us to bring the war to a steady conclusion on mutually-agreeable terms. You win, we win, Karzai wins, the Taliban… kind of win (yeah, we said it), our mutual enemies in al-Qaeda (and the Pak Taliban!) lose.

Pakistan won when we opened with "we're on board 100 percent". We "win" because...why? We got nothing, we just gave Pakistan everything it wanted, including what they already have now. Karzai "wins" because he gets to be a US and Pakistani puppet.

And Al-Qa'eda, how do they lose? Magic, I suppose. As for the Pakistani Taliban, they aren't even mentioned.

Who actually loses from all of this? The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, of course, since they're left to either the "great powers" in Islamabad who support terrorism and militancy or to our corrupt puppet Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

But wait, Ackerman isn't done showing us how diplomacy works.

Now who wants flood relief?

Get it? We're conditioning our flood relief for the tens of millions of affected people in Pakistan entirely on our selfish foreign policy goals. Do we not understand the difference between General Kayani and a displaced, starving child in a refugee camp? Sure, the floods are a national security issue for the United States, but they are not an opportunity to extract a price from the victims.

Oh, and in case we need to say it: if we start seeing al-Qaeda slipping back into the country, it’s wrath-of-God time.

Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? Are we threatening Pakistan? If so, with what? Didn't we open this conversation by establishing that there is NO military solution? If all it takes to eradicate terrorism and militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is "wrath-of-God time", then by all means, do it now. Except this is bulls**t; it doesn't mean anything.

Pakistan's Army Chief, General Kayani, and the head of its intelligence service, General Pasha, arenot starry-eyed national security bloggers who think that the words "wrath-of-God time" are impressive or intimidating. The people we're dealing with have their own army (bigger than ours), their own airplanes, their own special forces, and, of course, their own terrorist and insurgent organizations. They're not afraid of us or our hollow threats. If they were, they wouldn't be saying things in the newspaper like "we know where the shadow government is".

If we have a specific threat, then spit it out. Will we invade the tribal areas? Will we drone strike General Kayani? Carpet bomb Rawalpindi and Islamabad? What is it exactly that we mean by "wrath-of-God time"?

All together, what do we have? Our "diplomacy" looks like giving Pakistan everything it wants and then capping it off with threatening them. That's not really diplomacy, is it? It's the status quo and a military threat. Would it be over-the-top to just write FAIL?

So what are some real options for dealing with Pakistan? Here are a few suggestions, keeping in mind that you open negotiations with the most extreme options and then work backwards.

• Call a peace summit with all relevant players, including representatives from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Jammu & Kashmir, Russia, United States, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, China, and Iran


• Cut off all military aid to Pakistan


• Cut off all (non-disaster) civilian aid to Pakistan


• Blacklist the Pakistan Army and intelligence services as terrorist organizations


• Pursue United Nations or unilateral economic sanctions against the top leadership of the Pakistani Army, the intelligence services, as well as ruling elites in the ruling PPP political party


• Call for new, internationally monitored and vetted elections in Pakistan and condition all (non-disaster) aid on the legitimacy of these elections


• Provide economic and diplomatic support for Pakistani opposition groups, including grassroots (the Lawyers movement) and political parties (PML-N)


• Publicly release/de-classify all US intelligence on Pakistan's support of terrorism, including wiretap audio and satellite imagery


• Publicly call for an end to the Pakistani occupation of Balochistan and Kashmir


• Provide diplomatic and economic support, including recognition, of an autonomous Balochistan


• Provide diplomatic and economic support, including recognition, of an Independent Kashmir


• Dramatically increase civilian and military aid to India (call it "Strategic Depth")


• Offer India a permanent seat on the United Nations security council


• Allow India to utilize American military bases in Afghanistan and Central Asia for "training exercises"


• Invite India to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, requiring some contribution of security forces

Crazy stuff, right? But it's not giving Pakistan whatever it wants, and it's not threatening military action against them either. Either they give up their support of terrorism and militancy, or we start talking about the options above.

Ackerman wrote:

When people mouth the truism that There’s No Military Solution To The Afghanistan War, they’re both right and typically uncreative about thinking through what A Political Solution To The Afghanistan War looks like. I submit that the imagined diplomatic proposal above is an opening gambit.

I wouldn't say my options are as "creative" as Ackerman's suggestion to give Pakistan whatever it wants, but consider the options I listed above as my response to his "opening gambit".

Pakistan and the Floods: America's Broken Response (Mull)

EA correspondent Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes at Rethink Afghanistan:

The scale of Pakistan's flooding disaster is beyond imagination:

More people have been affected by Pakistan's catastrophic floods than any other natural disaster on record -- over 20 million and counting. That's more than were affected by the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, the 2004 Asian tsunami, and this year's earthquake in Haiti combined.  As millions of dislocated Pakistanis search for shelter and food and as health conditions deteriorate and disease spreads, the need for an immediate, large-scale humanitarian response is urgent.  And this is just the beginning.  Once the floodwaters subside from Pakistan's swollen rivers, the task of rebuilding will be staggering - with a price tag in the billions, and lasting for years to come.

US Analysis: The Limits of Military Power (Miller)

From a humanitarian standpoint, the disaster should be a fierce call to action like nothing else in our lifetime. But that's not the primary US concern in foreign policy, is it? Charity and human decency are great, but we care about terrorism, security, and American dominance:

The effectiveness of the response to these relief and rebuilding challenges will have serious implications for the wellbeing of the country's citizens, for the peace and stability of Pakistan and the entire South Asian region, and for U.S. national security.

There's no way around it, this is a national security issue for the United States. Galrahn explains at Information Dissemination:

There is a long history of natural disaster playing a significant role in the global security condition, or influencing war, or having a significant and generational impact on nations. When considering the scope and geography of this disaster, it would be difficult to suggest that the monsoon floods of 2010 won't have a huge impact on the security of Pakistan, or a significant impact in influencing the war in Afghanistan, or a huge generational impact on Pakistan. [...]

Pakistani people know the United States unmanned drone very well thanks to their newspapers and our actions in that country against Al Qaeda and affiliates. Here is a chance to put a positive visible symbol of US power over Pakistan at a time the need far exceeds local capacity - and we can't do it why?

Actually, we know why we can't do it. We've known for years. Remember 2006?

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon’s decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

Of course, the military didn't "snap". That's not how it works, as Hilary Bok wrote on Obsidian Wings at the time:

It's not as though one day we will hear a loud snap and find the Army broken in two. We will not get up one morning, flip a switch, and discover that the Army doesn't work any more. We will not have to hire a tow truck to drag it off to war. Whatever goes wrong with the Army, it won't be like that.

For one thing, there is no sharp, discontinuous transition between an "unbroken" Army and a "broken" one: the kind that happens when a plate shatters, a fuse blows, or a motor finally gives out. For another, a "broken" Army will still be able to function, more or less....

What we are doing to the Army is less like breaking something, and more like slowly degrading its ability to perform its tasks to an unacceptable level. It's a gradual process, one that does not provide us with clear points at which we can look at the Army and say: well, now it is well and truly broken.

To be clear, these reports were specific to the US Army, and Bok focused mostly on the recruitment and stability of the officer corps, but it isn't hard to apply this to the other military branches,or to the US foreign service as a whole.

After all, on Pakistan's Independence Day, as 20% of the country lay under water, this was the American priority:

The US carried out its first Predator airstrike inside Pakistan's tribal areas in almost three weeks. Twelve "rebels" were reported killed in the airstrike in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan.

The strike took place today in the village of Issori, just outside of Miramshah, the main town in North Waziristan. One missile fired from either a Predator or the more more deadly Reaper struck a compound thought to be sheltering Taliban or al Qaeda operatives.

That's not all the US did, to be sure. We have US marines on the ground in Pakistan, and we're conducting rescue and relief operations by air. But that's still not enough --- indeed, it is a blip compared to the enormous scale of the disaster. . We can send helicopters to Pakistan, but are they effective? Are we accomplishing anything close to what we'd like to?

I realize this analysis is a bit odd. Normally when the issue of an over-stretched and ineffective military is discussed, we think of it in terms of being defenceless against enemies. If we're attacked, we'll be defenceless because of our broken military. TIME magazine wrote in 2003:

Deep inside the Pentagon, where young colonels arrive before dawn to revise once more the short list of available combat units ready to deploy overseas, a nightmare scenario hangs in the air, unmentioned but unmistakable. With 140,000 U.S. troops tied down stabilizing Iraq, 34,000 in Kuwait, 10,000 in Afghanistan and 5,000 in the Balkans, what good options would George W. Bush have if, say sometime next spring, North Korea's Kim Jong Il decided to test the resilience of the relatively small "trip-wire" force of 37,000 American troops in South Korea? Where would the Pentagon turn if it had to rush additional combat troops to the 38th parallel? Might a lack of ready reinforcements force Washington to consider using nuclear weapons to save South Korea from defeat?

But that's not really realistic, is it? North Korea isn't about to roll across the 38th parallel any more than Putin is about to rear his head over Alaskan airspace. Those aren't the kinds of national security threats we face in 2010 (or 2003 for what it's worth). What we have to deal with now are natural disasters, collapsing states, massive displaced populations, terrorism and radical militancy, narcotics and organized crime, captured, corrupt, or oppressive governments --- all of which converge in Pakistan.

These are the consequences of a decade of military adventurism, occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why, no matter what it is that the US is sending to Pakistan, it will not be enough. We just don't have enough to give.

It's not only the military breaking, or the State department, or the White House, or Congress, or the media, or the apathy of the American public. It's all of these things adding up to a slow, incompetent, ineffective response to the threats we face. The ability for the United States to project power abroad --- to protect its national security interests --- is broken.

The so-called battle for hearts and minds in Pakistan, the battle against anti-Americanism, radicalism, and militancy in the tribal regions, the battle for a secure and stable Central Asia: this is the war that America will lose because of our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what we are defenceless against, helpless to stop.

This outcome is quite possibly more dangerous than any of the other tragic consequences of our wars. It has wreaked havoc on the American budget and deficit, sapped us of funds for basic social services, and dramatically raised the threat of terrorism both here and overseas. But we have let all this happen with at least the illusion that we were still the most powerful country, capable of defeating any threat.

That's not true. We are so tied down in our wars that when a real threat appears --- not Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, but floods in Pakistan --- we cannot response

We have to end our reckless, bloody and expensive occupation in Afghanistan. Not only because we can't afford it domestically, but along with Iraq it has catastrophically weakened our ability to protect our country and our interests abroad. We don't know yet what horrors will be unleashed, for generations to come, thanks to our failure in Pakistan, and this is only one disaster. How many more will there be while we're wasting away in Afghanistan?