Full Video and Analysis: Obama Announces Pakistan-Afghanistan Strategy

Latest Post: Mr Obama’s War for/on Pakistan-Afghanistan - Holes in the Middle

President Obama has just spoken to unveil the strategy to win in Pakistan and Afghanistan. All the key points flagged up in headlines (and in our analyses today) were ticked: a "perilous situation" which would be met by the extra US training troops, a major increase in US civilian participation, the $1.5 billion in annual aid to Pakistan, and a campaign against corruption.



The language used by Obama, however, raises further concerns. He framed the campaign as one against "Al Qa'eda":

This is not simply an American problem: far from it. This is an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London, in Bali were tied to Al Qa'eda and its allies in Pakistan as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East and Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or Africa, it too is likely to have ties to Al Qa'eda leadership in Pakistan.

Reducing all the complex political, economic, and cultural dimensions of the situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan to the bogeymen of "Al Qa'eda" may be useful for US domestic politics, but it is a serious mis-representation of the insurgencies on both sides of the border. It does nothing to advance the American approach to local groups who are not simply acolytes of Osama bin Laden.

It looks like the Global War on Terror is alive, well, and being slapped bang on top of Kabul and Islamabad.

Comments

[Simon T]

In American eyes the Pakistani Taliban is more closely linked to Al Qaeda than any groups operating across the border. By boiling it down to a simple US vs Al-Qaeda dichotomy Obama may be trying to signal that engagement with all but the most hardcore elements of the insurgency that do not place themselves under the Al Qaeda banner is on the table.

Maybe it is not a simplification of all those complex issues if the sole US goal in AfPak is to decapitate/eliminate Al Qaeda and allow non Al-Qaeda affiliated groups either to (hopefully) join the political process or (realistically )to do as they please. These groups would include almost all the insurgent groups operating inside Afghanistan. Therefore the thrust of the effort is aimed at the Pakistani Taliban, supporting your view Scott that Pakistan is the heart of the issue. It may be an effort to wean the Afghan Taliban away from the Pakistani Taliban, isolating the latter and making it is easier to 'defeat'. Any such strategy is going to rely heavily on the Pakistani security forces to go into safe havens and clear and hold them at enormous costs, something which they have so far shown little inclination to do

[Scott Lucas]

Simon,

This is a very helpful comment. My initial read was that Obama was throwing all Pakistani insurgent groups/local oppositions in Northwest under the Al Q/extremist label.

Your reading, however, makes sense. Proof may come when we see how US responds to any negotiation w these groups.

S.

[Mike Dunn]

Perhaps both explanations are right. To Obama's domestic audience he's being tough on al-Qaeda and aiming to win the war on terror. To those in the region- those who don't identify with "Al Qa’eda leadership in Pakistan"- there are shades of grey.

[Ghulam Muhammed]

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/26/washington/28prexy.html?s=1&pg=4

81.
March 27, 2009 11:58 am
Link
Friday, March 27, 2009

Obama orchestrating from the same old Bush music sheet

The adage that the more things change, they remain the same, is holding true with the US. With lot of fanfare about Change and We Can Change, Obama ignited hope not only in his own nation, but all around the world. Bush warmongering had touched raw nerves all around the world. America and Bush were the most hated words in world vocabulary. However, Obama’s public address today over his plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have dampened the hope for any change for the better. Obama asked a question: why US was in Afghanistan? His own answer to that simple question was as convincing about the presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Tribal areas of Pakistan as Bush allegation of WMD in Iraq. Bush was not able to fool the world over his simplistic harangue over Sadaam’s non existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. Obama himself does not appear to be convinced of the Al Qaida menace, while enunciating his plan to tackle terrorism that ‘threatens’ US and its allied countries in the world. The whole warmongering rationale is pat and stale. When he says: "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda." This is like chasing a mirage.

Of course, there are radicals in the targeted area. But Obama fails to understand that the radicals are radicalized mainly over US presence in the Muslim world and this presence is imperialistic, imposed and apparently unending. The more Obama will introduce and activate foreign presence in this quagmire, the more he will sink, possibly never to ever come out.

Obama’s cosmetic improvement in his laid out plan, stresses the addition of more reconstructive focus on US efforts to help common people in the region enjoy better living condition, so that they would realise how benevolent and well-meaning US stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan is. However, the more visual part that affects the psyche of the Afpak people is America’s high-handed hunting of Al Qaida, that not only kills innocent people, but is highly damaging to their self-respect, their pride, their national sovereignty. The time lag between US aggression and any future development that the measly 1.5 billion per year as promised will bring to the civilians is so pronounced that prima facie, the whole US effort is a non-starter. Besides, US aggression is planned to sow seeds of civil war in the region. That has its own dynamics. The US is digging a new hole to fill up the old hole. This brings out the un-tenability of Obama’s new plan. Obama must strive to pacify both countries first. The more stress is on peace, the more distant will be the days of war on much larger scale.

Obama can and should change both Afghanistan and Pakistan in a new Marshall Plan like grand strategy but it can only be successful, if its forces disappear from the visible horizon and both nation’s national pride is restored. America’s constant obsession to identify its adversaries in terms of Islam and radicalized Islamism is most counterproductive and must be checked in real-time. America must make peace with Islam and make it an ally in bringing peace to the region. Islam is here to stay, and the sooner Obama can convince his adviser to change their strategies that has been focused through neo-con influences on fighting Islam and Islamists, the sooner he will win the hearts and mind of the people of the region.

Obama must change his music sheet.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
— Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai, India

[thegeniusfiles]

'America' is hardly any more of a homogenous entity than are Afghanistan or Pakistan. The War on Terror is the false to 'unite' the American people under a government which does not serve them. In fact, parts of America are de facto Third World countries in terms of living standards, civil rights, infant mortality etc. Louisiana is a prime example. Causing the collapse of Pakistan will result in a credible threat of nuclear-armed 'terrorists' which will justify any further repressive US gov measures. Pak nukes are tactical, meaning that they OR SIMILAR may be used without the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. Anthrax attacks in the US were instrumental in building up the hysteria to support Gulf War II, even though eventually it was discovered that the anthrax was made in the US and mailed by a US gov employee. NOT Iraq. It's all about justifications and plausable deniability. What I want Muslims to understand is that Americans are also being duped and exploited by a gov which is loyal to money, not to a nation. We should not be enemies at all.