Obama trains his Super-Genius on Pakistan
[Posted by Karl]
Slate’s Fred Kaplan follows the Obama Administration approach of slamming Fmr. Pres. Bush to make Pres. Obama look better, this time regarding Pakistan:
We finally have a president who grasps what needs to be done about Afghanistan and Pakistan. The frightening thing is that much of what needs to be done lies beyond the scope of American power.
President Barack Obama realizes, to a degree that George W. Bush never did, that the two countries can’t be dealt with separately, that the threats facing each are intertwined. He recognizes that Pakistan is central to the entire region’s security and that its fate will affect Afghanistan far more than vice versa. He understands that political and economic development are at least as decisive as military strength. His special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, has assembled a team of advisers who know the complexities of South Asian politics as deeply as anyone. Yet despite all this knowledge and insight, there’s only so much that the United States can affect, much less control (and most of the major players know this, too).
In reality, Pres. Bush made Pakistan a priority as early as September 13, 2001. Indeed, Kaplan is later forced to concede as much:
In short, we can send Pakistanis money, arms, handbooks, and the like. But we can’t make them do what they say they’re going to do or even effectively monitor whether they’re doing it. Bush sent $10 billion to then-President Pervez Musharraf, who pledged that he would use the aid to go after the terrorists. For the most part, he didn’t.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama talked tough and was eager to replace Musharraf with a more democratic govenment. It was obvious, even then, that the ostensibly liberal, secular, middle-class Pakistani opposition outside the Sharif and Bhutto-led blocs was small and splintered. This is why a 2007 survey of top national security thinkers from both sides of aisle had no consensus regarding US-Pakistan policy (note that these same experts generally thought the “surge” in Iraq was having a negative impact).
Now, Obama must deal with the new Pakistani government, which is (if anything) at least as ineffectual on the war as the Musharraf regime was. That is likely because the problem in Pakistan is as much a problem of the Pakistaini military and Inter-Services Intelligence as it is the Taliban itself. Yet Obama is no more likely to pressure these institutions than Bush was, because of the nuclear issue, in both the short- and medium-term. Beyond the military and the ISI, there is the problem that even now, public opinion is deeply conflicted confronting the Taliban.
Ironically, slamming Bush and touting the wisdom of Obama in this situation does not help Obama. Pakistan is about the last place on Earth where Obama wants the expectations bar set anywhere above ground level.
–Karl
[…] Cross-posted at Patterico. […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Obama trains his Super-Genius on Pakistan (e2f069) — 5/11/2009 @ 8:09 amWell, of course the President knows what he is doing. He is smart. He pronounces the country “Pawh-kee-stan,” and that shows he is superior in every way.
This is his problem. He will try to blame everything he fails at on the former President, but that will eventually quit working.
I keep thinking Jimmy Carter. Only Jimmy Carter, now, back in 1976.
Eric Blair (34f123) — 5/11/2009 @ 8:15 amNone of this would matter much if Pakistan didn’t have nukes, but they do. Kilcullin’s book points out the strategy for Afghanistan, which is the traditional one of holding onto the capital at Kabul and letting the boonies do their own thing as they have since Alexander the Great. They are no different now than they were then except for opium and AK 47s.
The British drew the line that divides Afghanistan and Pakistan. You might read Churchill’s book, “The Story of the Malakand Field Force.” Even the village names are the same. Why do you think it is still in print 100 years later ? There is even a Kindle edition !
Obama is not going to solve this one. It will be his own personal version of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Carter II in all its glory.
Mike K (90939b) — 5/11/2009 @ 8:24 amI think a critical error was pushing too hard on Musharref a few years ago. We needed to better stabilize Pakistan before pushing him out of power. This was an area where the Bush administration unwisely deferred to Democrats in foreign policy.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/11/2009 @ 8:37 amThe wild card is India – what will they do if it appears that the nukes are about to fall into the Taliban’s hands? The Indian government has been very quiet to this point – at least it appears that way
Horatio (55069c) — 5/11/2009 @ 8:53 amFred Kaplan’s “deeply researched” views on Afghanistan have always toed the leftist line. in 2006 he wrote this remarkable condensing and simplifying of history for partisan benefit in Slate:
Yup, we left and the Taliban just walked right in … thirteen years later.
BJTexs (56337a) — 5/11/2009 @ 9:11 amWasn’t this Obama guy a Senator or something the last 4 years.
So where does he get off on this “inherited” BS ?
Oh yeah, he was AWOL for the last 2 years. So who’s fault is that ?
He could have turn down the POTUS job.
We only have one President at a time, so right now these are Obama’s problems .. if he can’t fix ’em … give Joe Biden the job.
Neo (46a1a2) — 5/11/2009 @ 9:59 amThis was an area where the Bush administration unwisely deferred to Democrats in foreign policy.
Comment by SPQR — 5/11/2009 @ 8:37 am
To my way of thinking (as a domestic terrorist of course) anytime Bush deferred to the Democrats it was a mistake, from taxes, to immigration, to the effort against terrorists. Bush made plenty of his own mistakes, but deferring to Democrats always tops the list.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:17 amWhen Zia ul-Haq deposed the Bhutto regime (and executed Z.A.Bhutto), and re-imposed a military dictatorship upon Pakistan, the Democrat-led Congress imposed severe restrictions on U.S.-Pakistani relations – which were only relaxed in dealing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent arming of the mujahadeen, and finally in dealing with A-Q and their Taliban protectors after 9-11.
AD - RtR/OS! (b782d3) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:40 amAn entire generation of Pakistani military leaders has grown up mistrusting, distrusting, or down-right hating the U.S. thanks to what Congress did after the Paks rid themselves (again) of a corrupt “democratic” regime. This is a learned response that will take as long to overcome as it did to become a problem. Plus, the same philosophy of governance at the Congressional level that created this problem is once more in control of Congress, and has as a disciple, the current occupant of the White House.
Complicating this is that the Pak military doesn’t completely trust their current civilian leadership, for it is the current iteration of the hated Bhutto family.
Plus, another kicker in the equation of distrust that exists within the Pak military leadership, is the new cozy relationship that exists between the U.S. and India (cozy only in relation to the freeze-out that existed in Delhi during the Cold War) – the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Kaplan logic:
We finally have a president who grasps what needs to be done about Afghanistan and Pakistan. The frightening thing is that much of what needs to be done lies beyond the scope of American power.
Obama announced to the world during the campaign he’d send the US military into Pakistan if he felt like it. 6 months later, the Taliban is running parts of Pakistan. And Obama’s almighty grasp is based on what evidence?
liontooth (c6d5a7) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:50 amAD – RtR/OS,
Kaplan brings up India, wondering what we’re doing about the India-Pakistan tension, without asking himself why he doesn’t have an answer with all of the Democrat super-geniuses now on the job.
Karl (f07e38) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:53 amKarl, and of course the fact that we must have had something to do with the fact that India did not launch an invasion of Pakistan after the Mumbai terrorist attacks does not dawn on Kaplan.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:55 amTeh One stopped the ocean’s from rising. This should be simple.
JD (6994a8) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:55 amSPQR,
True, though the fact that India also has nukes was likely a major factor.
Karl (f07e38) — 5/11/2009 @ 10:59 amEar Leader doesn’t have the sense god gave a hole in the ground….. he will screw this up in a spectacular fashion.
what the US should do is wait for his Earness to announce his plan, then do the exact opposite.
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 5/11/2009 @ 11:01 amOf course, Karl, althought I’m of the opinion that India is not that impressed by Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent at the moment.
SPQR (72771e) — 5/11/2009 @ 11:02 am80% of the Pak military is garrisoned along the India border, including all of their best units.
AD - RtR/OS! (b782d3) — 5/11/2009 @ 11:14 amThe only way that Pakistan can effectively deal with the Taliban/AQ threat to them that exists along the AfPak frontier is to shift those troops to where they are needed. Normally, IMO, a guarantee by the U.S. that ensures the integrity of the Pakistan-India border would enable them to do that – but, they just don’t trust us, as they don’t trust the Indians (plus, many of the actors involved in Kashmir are very independent operators (on both sides), and don’t listen to anyone.
So, because we burnt our bridges in Pakistan 30-years ago, we aren’t able to ford the river today.
SPQR,
True again, but India doesn’t have to be impressed by the Pak nukes (and I suspect they may worry about Pak dirty bombs). It’s more question of — once having decided to invade — you can stop the escalation short of India wanting to use their own nukes. AD’s comments factor into this as well. Start something with Pakistan and everything probably goes on the table, including the already terror-plagued Kashmir. A target-rich environment for all loose cannons. The US influence here — as it is between Japan and the Norks — is more like teammate to a a baseball fight. We hold the ally back who really doesn’t want to fight in the first place, but has to seem like he wants it.
Karl (065e81) — 5/11/2009 @ 11:27 amMy gut feeling is that, in the next 3 years, we’ll see both Israel and India take military action in their regions. Hopefully they can act (alone or together, albeit covertly in that case) to mitigate the nuclear and terror threats they both face.
DRJ (b0f193) — 5/11/2009 @ 12:05 pmI suspect you are right, DRJ. It makes me sad to predict that “good feelings” will result in great suffering.
I think it all comes down to a logical disconnect. In our political system, many people believe in “good” versus “bad.” This seems to color all political thought these days. The truth, though less glamorous, is the choice is really between “bad” and “less bad.”
And welcome back, again.
Eric Blair (34f123) — 5/11/2009 @ 12:07 pmEric Blair,
Policy, like politics, often does seem like a choice between bad and worse. And thanks, it’s good to see you.
DRJ (b0f193) — 5/11/2009 @ 12:14 pmI agree with DRJ – I mentioned earlier that once the Swat Valley was taken over by the Taliban that India would be on high alert until they were cleaned out. Doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, so either our drones go in en masse or India will.
As for Israel, Rahm and Obama can demonize them all they want, but Bibi’s right/far right coalition won’t allow any more silliness regarding the Palestinians. Bibi’s already been burned once, and fool him once, shame on you – fool him twice…
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/11/2009 @ 1:31 pmIf we’re talking about Baracky’s Sooper Jeanyus here, isn’t it about time he reached into his bag of tricks and blasted everyone involved with a 15 megaton U.N. Resolution full of hot air?
Isn’t that his SOP?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/11/2009 @ 4:35 pm