Mr Obama's Doctrine: Josh Mull on US Grand Strategy in Pakistan and Beyond

Related Post: Mr Obama's War - Pakistan Insurgency "Unites" (You Heard It Here First)

"The 'Obama Doctrine' looks something like this: the United States will continue to use its military power as its premier tool in international affairs and may even act preemptively. However, it will not  do so on issues it deems outside of reasonable American national security concerns, and it will act only with support and cooperation from the international community. To put it frankly, this is something like a cross between 'walk softly and carry a big stick' and the Buddy System. While still violent, imperial, and aggressive, it is a marked departure from the so-called Bush Doctrine and even the Global War on Terror."

Yesterday Scott Lucas, in “Mr. Obama's War: The Fantasy of the Pakistan Sanctuaries”, analysed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' appearance on Meet the Press, pointing out the cognitive dissonance in Gates' assertion that the US understands safe havens in Pakistan because it has previously used those same Pakistani safe havens so effectively. Lucas also raises some very interesting questions, particularly over Gates' apparent non-answer to the question of the consequences for Pakistan of the US campaign. This is my attempt to answer those questions, as well as a proposal to parse out a broader US “grand strategy” from Gates' appearance.

Host David Gregory asked Gates on Sunday, “The trouble and consequences of jihadists making significant gains in either Afghanistan or Pakistan is perhaps more acute in Pakistan given its nuclear potential. True?” In reply, Gates' offered this:

Well, as long as we’re in Afghanistan and as long as the Afghan government has the support of dozens and dozens of countries who are providing military support, civilian support in addition to us, we are providing a level of stability in Afghanistan that at least prevents it from being a safe haven from which plots against the United States and the Europeans and others can be, can be put together.

The key is this: Gates isn't answering the question about Pakistan to David Gregory. He's answering the question about Pakistan directly to the Pakistanis.

I decoded Gates' reply as: "Well, as long as I can go on a Sunday morning Prime Time talk show and say 9/11, Taliban, and Osama bin Laden and as long as my Commander-in-Chief can draw crowds of 200,000 screaming Europeans, Pakistan can suck it up and deal with whatever we want to do, including destabilizing or overthrowing their corrupt government and/or stealing or destroying their illegal nuclear weapons, which by the way, I already have the authority to do from a little thing called the Lugar-Obama bill to secure weapons of mass destruction."

In short, it's not the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to keep Pakistan stable, it is his responsibility to attack extremist safe havens in Pakistan in order to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack against the US, Canada, or the European Union. President Obama, and by extension the plans of his Secretary of Defense, enjoys bipartisan political support as well as stable international credibility. Accordingly the US will act, as Lucas said in his article, as if “there are no consequences whatsoever for the internal Pakistani situation" or, more appropriately, without regard to these consequences.

But there is more we can glean from Secretary Gates' interview than it appears. Beyond the purposes Lucas pointed out --- pitching Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan and articulating US Afghanistan policy --- it's possible Gates was offering us, and the international audience, insight into the broader strategic calculations of the United States, particularly the role of the Department of Defense and US military power abroad.

President Obama has shown himself to be somewhat of a Centrist, if only in regard to his desire to hear from all sides of an argument or debate. One thing all foreign policy and national security analysts, from the Conservative "Fall of Rome" crowd to the Realist "Second World" types all the way to the Neoconservative "Team America" folks, can agree on is this: the United States of America is now and will continue to be Earth's preeminent military force, at least for the foreseeable future.

There is a saying amongst foreign policy elites:  "Who has the world's largest air force after the US Air Force? The US Army."

With Pakistan, Gates is essentially saying that, as long as the US, Canada, and Europe are threatened by extremist attacks from Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US will continue to act aggressively with its military force. It will do so in any manner and on any territory of its choosing, provided it has the support and cooperation of Europe and NATO (whose members will suffer from terrorism long before the US).

What's absent is any mention of India, which implies the support of India in Afghanistan and protection from Pakistan-launched, "Mumbai-style" attacks are not part of the US calculation. ("Your problem, not ours.")

It may seem like Gates casually forgot to mention India and Mumbai in his response on Pakistan. After all, "AfPak" is an extremely complicated subject, and it's easy to leave things out or get things mixed up. At least, that will be the talking point if this becomes an issue. However, we know two things: first, India and Pakistan are inextricably linked together in any strategic calculus, and second, that this wasn't just a casual visit to Meet the Press by Bob Gates. It was the public coming-out ceremony for George W. Bush's former and now President Obama's current Secretary of Defense, civilian leader of the United States Military.

The importance of this public appearance can't be understated. It was not necessarily designed for the domestic audience of NBC viewers, but rather was aimed at a more global audience and, directly, to the Pakistanis. This is what makes the apparently deliberate absence of India from the “AfPak” equation so significant. The absence, the answer, and the entire interview together could lead us to presume that Gates is articulating the prototype for what will later be called “the Obama Doctrine”.

The “Obama Doctrine” looks something like this: the United States will continue to use its military power as its premier tool in international affairs and may even act preemptively. However, it will not  do so on issues it deems outside of reasonable American national security concerns, and it will act only with support and cooperation from the international community. To put it frankly, this is something like a cross between “walk softly and carry a big stick” and the Buddy System. While still violent, imperial, and aggressive, it is a marked departure from the so-called Bush Doctrine and even the Global War on Terror.

The India-Pakistan and Kashmir and Bangladesh) conflict is the perfect illustration. Under the old rules of the Bush Doctrine, the response to something like the Mumbai attacks might be airstrikes, special forces, or some other combination of clandestine military force. Under the “Obama Doctrine”, the Defense Department under Gates, and thus the US military, are not responsible for the India-Pakistan conflict. Rather this would fall under the portfolios of US Attorney General Eric Holder and his FBI as well US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her cadres of ambassadors and envoys,with support and cooperation from that throbbing heart of diplomacy in Brussels (the European Union), law enforcement agents with Interpol and NATO, and the mediation and oversight of the United Nations.

Obviously it's an extreme departure from George W Bush's radical Napoleonic-cum-Bolshevik strategy of the Global War on Terror, but that doesn't necessarily mean the “Obama Doctrine” will turn out any more successfully than the Bush Doctrine. In fact, the strategy is brimming with vulnerabilities.

The US may be the most powerful military, it is not the only military on the planet. In the fall of 2007 as civil unrest was broiling in Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf, then-Senator now Vice President Joe Biden campaigned in the Democratic Party primaries on a promise to pull strategic military aid from Pakistan, that is weapons used against India, to pressure Pakistan to focus on the insurgency rather than more ethereal, strategic conflicts. In response, however, the Chinese offered to sell Pakistan a new fleet of MiG fighter jets, similar to the American planes Biden was threatening to withdraw. Now, as then, there is a constant danger that any diplomatic “sticks” threatened by the US can simply be neutralized by other international actors willing to take its place.

Furthermore there is the problem caused by the global financial meltdown and the massive economic depressions it is causing. While Secretary Gates may have it in his authority to bomb Pakistani safe havens as well as police the Straits of Malacca, the United States may not ultimately be able to afford the high price of imperialism. And if the US is forced to cut back on its imperalist designs, it will create some extremely uncomfortable strategic questions for policy makers. For example, what is the higher priority between preventing a bus bombing in London or preventing a missile exchange between Korea and Japan when you can't afford both?

So we don't end on such a morbid tone, let me point out that this prototypical “Obama Doctrine” has some very powerful advantages over the Bush Doctrine, the Global War on Terror, and the so-called Long War/Great Game theories. The most important advantage is that it is absolutely conscious of and constructed on the idea of a “Multi-Polar” world. Even though the US seeks to dominate international affairs, it acknowledges and plans for the participation of other actors, states, or non-states. By allowing for participation, it allows for competition, and as President Obama displays with his choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, competition has both winners and losers who can still join together for a common purpose. There is no absolute victory or defeat of good and evil, but rather a competition among partners.

Mr Obama's War: Pakistan Insurgency "Unites" (You Heard It Here First)

Related Post: Mr Obama’s Doctrine - Josh Mull on US Grand Strategy in Pakistan and Beyond

Enduring America, 23 February: "The Asia Times reports, in the aftermath of the local cease-fire between the Pakistani Governments and groups in the Northwest Frontier Provice, 'A mujahideen shura (Shura Ittehad al-Mujahideen) council was formed this weekend due to the personal efforts of Sirajuddin Haqqani.'"

The Guardian, 3 March: "Three rival Pakistani Taliban groups have agreed to form a united front against international forces in Afghanistan in a move likely to intensify the insurgency just as thousands of extra US soldiers begin pouring into the country as part of Barack Obama's surge plan. The Guardian has learned that three of the most powerful warlords in the region have settled their differences and come together under a grouping calling itself Shura Ittihad-ul-Mujahideen, or Council of United Holy Warriors."

The Guardian may be getting to the story a bit late but at least, unlike most media in the "West", it has noted a significant development.

And, to give reporter Saeed Shah further credit, the article picks up on the equally important "other half" of the story: "The unity among the militants comes after a call by Mullah Omar, the cleric who leads the Afghan Taliban, telling Pakistani militants to stop fighting at home in order to join the battle to 'liberate Afghanistan from the occupation forces'."

No doubt Josh Mull, who has posted essential blogs for Enduring America on the Pakistani insurgency, can go a bit further than the simple call-and-response narrative. As he has noted, the "Taliban" is now a coalition of forces, some of whom have moved beyond Mullah Omar, and Pakistani local insurgents have their own motives for offering to hold fire at home and fighting abroad.

Still the essential question is now put: are the manoeuvres between the insurgent groups and the Pakistani Government for cease-fires and local deals going to free up these forces to wage an even more intense campaign against the US and its "Obama Doctrine" not just in Pakistan but across the border?

Obama to Russia: We Drop Missile Defence, You Stop Iran's Nuclear Programme

Today's New York Times reveals the flip side of the Obama Administration's "engagement" with Iran:

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

The letter was delivered by Undersecretary of State William J. Burns and followed similar messages from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last year, "“I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile program, there would be no need for the missile sites.” A "senior administration official" commented about the latest manoeuvre, “It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up. It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”

News of the proposal accompanies the revelation, in The Los Angeles Times, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates at the Gaza Donors Conference that it was "very unlikely" American engagement will persuade Iran to give up its nuclear programme. However,"an Iranian rebuff could strengthen America's diplomatic position", as the US would have shown that it had exhausted all possible efforts at diplomacy before seeking further pressure on Tehran.

Taken together, the stories indicate that the Obama Administration is on the verge of a serious mis-step in its approach to Iran. Either out of naivete or --- more likely --- the quest for a non-military campaign against Iran, key US officials are conflating the pursuit of nuclear energy with the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

That might work with the US public and, to an extent, with European allies who do not want to break with Washington, but it is unlikely to work with Moscow. The Russians have no desire to link their relations with the US to a change in their position on Iran, and they have plenty of other cards --- remember their manoeuvring over the US supply line to Afghanistan? --- to play if the Americans are seeking "linkage".

Would you like a clue? Russian spokesman said on Monday that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will discuss missile defence with Clinton on Friday in Geneva, before Obama and Medvedev meet on 2 April in London. However, the Russian spokesman said nothing about Iran.

UPDATED Afghanistan: Karzai's Pre-Emptive Political Strike

Update (3 March): Senior UN official Alain says it will be nearly impossible to hold credible elections in Afghanistan in April for logistical and technical reasons as well as the prevailing security situation.

In many "Western" systems, the "snap" election is a time-honoured prerogative of the President/Prime Minister. If a leader is in a strong but possibly short-lived political position, or conversely if he/she is in trouble but faces worse times ahead, then Parliament is dissolved and everyone heads to the polls. However, when an Afghan President, particularly one who has lost the support of the foreign governments who brought him to power, calls such an election, it's a much different matter.

On Sunday, Hamid Karzai wrong-footed diplomats, covert operators, and observers, as well as his domestic opponents by declaring he would go to the polls, four months earlier than expected. Legally, Karzai was not only within the letter of the Constitution but upholding it, as his term in office expires on 21 May. US and NATO representatives complained immediately, however, that they could not ensure security.

This, of course, is an excuse to cover political objections to Karzai's move --- the military campaign against the Taliban and other insurgents will be far from won by August. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, an opponent of Karzai's, was more honest in his criticsm: he declared that he would not stand in a "Zimbabwe-type" election designed to keep the current Government in power.

Karzai has calculated that, if only a portion of the stories of a political challenge backed and funded by the US and other foreign countries are true, he is better off not allowing the opposition five months to organise. Conversely, Washington now faces the prospect of several more years of an Afghan leader who has been far from unquestioning in his co-operation with American power.

So now we have the delicious --- if you go in for political intrigue --- prospect of the US working with Afghan representatives in their review of Afghanistan/Pakistan policy whilst having that policy reframed by Karzai's surprise initiative.

More than seven years ago, when Karzai emerged as the US choice to lead "liberated" Afghanistan, America praised his political acumen. One wonders if the word "irony" will creep into their reports today.

Text: Hillary Clinton Speech to Gaza Donors Conference

Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be back in Egypt, and to be with so many people dedicated to building regional and global peace. I want to thank the Egyptian Government, my colleagues in the Quartet, the Norwegian co-chair, and other sponsors for convening this meeting. Let me also convey special gratitude to President Mubarak for his hospitality and for his personal efforts to bridge divides and end conflict.

I’m proud to be here on behalf of the Obama Administration – and to bring this message from our new President: The United States is committed to a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors and we will pursue it on many fronts. So too will we vigorously pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a sign of our seriousness, President Obama and I have appointed Special Envoy George Mitchell to lead this effort.

We commend President Abbas for his commitment to move forward with a negotiated solution, and also Prime Minister Fayyad for his work to build institutions to support a Palestinian state. And we take inspiration from the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by His Majesty King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League.

Time is of the essence. We cannot afford more setbacks and delays, or regrets about what might have been had different decisions been made. And now is not the time for recriminations. It is time to look ahead.

We gather today to address the humanitarian and early recovery needs of the Palestinian people after the recent conflict, and the United States joins with others in generously stepping forward to help. Our pledge of over $900 million, designed in coordination with the Palestinian Authority and to be submitted to the United States Congress, will deliver assistance to the people of Gaza and the West Bank.

All of us recognize that human progress depends on the human spirit. That a child growing up in Gaza without shelter, health care, or an education has the same right to go to school, see a doctor, and live with a roof over her head as a child growing up in your country or mine. That a mother and father in the West Bank struggling to fulfill their dreams for their children have the same right as parents anywhere else in the world to a good job, a decent home, and the tools to achieve greater prosperity and peace. That progress toward the goals we seek here today is more likely to grow out of opportunity, than futility; out of hope, than out of misery.

So we will work with our Palestinian partners, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, to address critical humanitarian, budgetary, security, and infrastructure needs. We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure that our funding is only used where, and for whom, it is intended, and does not end up in the wrong hands.

In pledging these funds, we are pursuing both a short- and long-term approach. It is not enough just to respond to the immediate needs of the Palestinian people. Our response to today’s crisis in Gaza cannot be separated from our broader efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace. Only by acting now can we turn this crisis into an opportunity that moves us closer to our shared goals.

By providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, we also aim to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized – a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors, and is accountable to its people; a state that Palestinians everywhere can be proud of and is respected worldwide.

This is the Palestinian state we all envision. This is the Palestinian state that we have an obligation to help create.

For the Israelis, that means showing the Palestinians that there are benefits to negotiating if their goal is to control their own destiny and live in peace and dignity in an economically viable state.

For the Arab states, it means signaling through words and deeds that the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative can begin to govern attitudes toward Israel now. For all of us – the Arab states and the wider international community – it means working with the government of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, to help build a state that can meet international expectations and obligations.

And for the Palestinians, it means that it is time to break the cycle of rejection and resistance, to cut the strings pulled by those who exploit the suffering of innocent people, and show the world what the talent and skills of an exceptional people can build and create.

That is why we’re here today – not only to address Gaza’s urgent needs, but to move ahead toward genuine Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace.

Our aid package is meant to accelerate, not hinder, that effort.

Through his commitment to negotiations with neighbors, President Abbas has shown the hallmarks of leadership, as has Prime Minister Fayyad, who has bolstered the credibility of his government by instituting a national budget process that is transparent and serves the needs of the Palestinian people. They are offering their people the option of a peaceful, independent, and more prosperous future, not the violence and false choices of extremists whose tactics – including rocket attacks that continue to this day – only will lead to more hardship and suffering. These attacks must stop.

The positive approaches I’ve outlined offer an opportunity for even greater progress if our Palestinian partners can continue to work with us and abide by the PLO commitments to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Quartet, in adopting its own principles, has agreed with the Arab League that the interests of the Palestinian people are best served under a government that abides by the PLO commitments.

Only a Palestinian Authority that adheres to these principles can fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people to be free, independent, prosperous and peaceful, flourishing in a viable state of their own.

As President Obama has said, the United States will engage in this effort with vigor and intensity in pursuit of genuine progress – progress that will improve the lives and the livelihoods of the people of Gaza and the West Bank, the people of Israel, and the neighbors throughout the region.

Assistance for the Palestinians is one step up the ladder to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. We must be willing to take this step – and many more together – until we fulfill that promise.

Thank you very much.