Pakistan: Who cares about Afghanistan, anyway?
posted at 8:55 am on May 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The new government of Pakistan has made clear their disinterest in fighting radical Islamists on their own soil, preferring to offer appeasement to rebels rather than demand that they respect the law in the Pakistani democracy. As long as they keep the jihadists in Pakistan, that would be their business. Now, though, the new ruling coalition have sent signals that they have little interest in securing their borders, which will eventually lead to a showdown with Afghanistan — and NATO:
Pakistani officials are making it increasingly clear that they have no interest in stopping cross-border attacks by militants into Afghanistan, prompting a new level of frustration from Americans who see the infiltration as a crucial strategic priority in the war in Afghanistan.
On Wednesday night, the United States fired its fourth Predator missile strike since January, the most visible symbol of the American push for a freer hand to pursue militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban who use Pakistan’s tribal areas as a base to attack Afghanistan and plot terrorist attacks abroad. In Afghanistan, cross-border attacks have doubled over the same month last year and present an increasingly lethal challenge to American and NATO efforts to wind down the war and deny the Taliban and Al Qaeda a sanctuary. …
“Pakistan will take care of its own problems, you take care of Afghanistan on your side,” said Owari Ghani, the governor of North-West Frontier Province, who is also President Pervez Musharraf’s representative in charge of the neighboring tribal areas.
Mr. Ghani, a key architect of the pending peace accord, believes along with many other Pakistani leaders that the United States is floundering in the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan, he said, should not be saddled with America’s mistakes, especially if a solution involved breaching Pakistan’s sovereignty, a delicate matter in a nation where sentiment against the Bush administration runs high.
“Pakistan is a sovereign state,” he said. “NATO is in Afghanistan; it’s time they did some soldiering.”
This raises all sorts of problems on both sides of the border, which itself is the source of problems. The border bisects traditional tribal lands, mainly of the Pashtun (as well as the Baluchi), who have seen that area as sovereign for centuries, if not millenia. The Pashtuns consider the border an artificial designation, not as a legitimate obstacle to their nomadic traditions. That territory spans both Waziristans and NWFP and Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan, as well as a wide swath of Afghanistan, including its capital, Kabul.
The Taliban come from the radicalism of the Pashtun, and they see their fight not just as a religious fight but also as a tribal identity and sovereignty crisis. The Pakistanis apparently have a great deal of sympathy for these issues, but their response undermines their own national identity. Caving into Pashtun tribal autonomy threatens the very idea of Pakistan, and effectively cedes three provinces to what could be called a practical Pashtunistan. That in turn pressures Afghanistan into the same kind of recognition, which would dismember the entire nation, especially since that would lead the other tribes in the nation to demand the same autonomy. Pakistan could possibly have that kind of canton-like construct, but the layout of tribal territories in Afghanistan would mean chaos.
Pakistan has to decide whether it intends to exist as a sovereign state. If it does, it has to control its borders and take responsibility to prevent armed incursions into neighboring states. If Pakistan washes its hands of this responsibility in the Waziristans and NWFP, then Afghanistan and its allies has every right to secure the border against attacks, including the targeting of invader bases in these ceded provinces.
This is far more than just an Islamist terror war; it’s a struggle for national identity for the Pashtuns and sovereignty for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. If Pakistan doesn’t want to take responsibility for Pashtuns within their borders, then let Pakistan cede the territories outright to the Pashtuns and stop interfering with NATO efforts to wipe out terrorists.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Pakistan has been relying heavily on NATO assistance both at land and at sea. They better find G-d right quick and get back in the saddle. NATO support is all that is keeping them afloat.
Squid Shark on May 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Pakistan has better prepare for a major reduction in US aid.
It’s disappointing to think that after almost 7 years in Afghanistan, inadequate NATO troops on the ground have prevented the allies from effectively locking down the entire country. As a result, the Taliban have always been able to retreat into whatever territory allied troops have most recently ceded due to lack of manpower. And the fight goes on…
bayam on May 16, 2008 at 9:09 AM
After 9-11 Bush said, you are either with us or against us. Cut and dry. If Pakistan is allowing incursions into Afghanistan that are attacking NATO, the US and our Allies from their “Sovereign Soil”, Then I would go out on a limb and conclude that they are not with us. I think this can be handled diplomatically though. I believe in the true diplomatic spirit we should give them 48 or 72 hours to start rounding up the Taliban and AlQaeda and make sure they know we will do it our selves if they don’t. At that time we would have to cut off all money to Pakistan so we can finance our work on their border.
Guest1.1 on May 16, 2008 at 9:23 AM
I mostly care about who controls Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and nuclear infrastructure. That’s where careful diplomacy enters in. Apart from that, we should respect Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan as much as they do, which is hardly at all.
RBMN on May 16, 2008 at 9:24 AM
OK so far as it goes. It’ll be interesting to see whether or how loudly they complain about the Pakistanis on the Afghan side of the border who expire in an untimely fashion as a result of that soldiering. Do we return them COD?
DrSteve on May 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM
It is also a strong signal to India that whatever happens in Kashmir is just too damn bad.
What now makes PAK any different then 2001 Afghanistan?
Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 9:37 AM
If a country does not control an area or no law is in said area, that country does not own it.
Thats mt opinion.
Those “tribal areas” are rogue states nobody controls them, they are NOR part of Pakistan nor part of Afghanistan. thats my take
Chakra Hammer on May 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Those “tribal areas” are rogue states nobody controls them, they are NOT part of Pakistan nor part of Afghanistan. thats my take
Chakra Hammer on May 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Chakra Hammer on May 16, 2008 at 9:41 AM
It’s quite simple really. If you cannot exercise sovereignty over a section of your country, it isn’t part of your country. Since Pakistan has abandoned control over the Pashtun lands of the border region, and the people of that region don’t recognize the legitimate government of Pakistan as having authority over that region, those lands are no more part of Pakistan than Taiwan is part of China or the Falklands a part of Argentina. It’s a free fire zone and we should take the fight to the barbarians that use the area as a base of operations. Unfortunately, nobody has the balls to do it other than Rumsfeld, John Bolton and Cheney.
Patrick H on May 16, 2008 at 9:44 AM
President Bush gave one of his old-school, post 9-11 style speeches before the Knesset the other day. It would have been rousing, if my cynical side didn’t believe it all to be empty words.
Pakistan is the President’s latest chance to prove me wrong. Let’s cut off the aid to Pakistan. If no action is forthcoming, we can conclude that they have no national interest in the tribal areas, and operate accordingly to end the terrorist threat there.
joewm315 on May 16, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Um well. . . I don’t understand why we care what Pakistan thinks. This is a WAR, we are getting KILLED. In a WAR we must do what is necessary to protect our troops without regard to borders or ‘allies’ like Pakistan.
We need to do like Turkey did in northern Iraq with the Kurds. Same situation. If they don’t like it, too freaking bad. We aren’t appeasing those who are killing us, our ‘allies’ are. This is the problem with ‘coalition diplomacy’. It was always dumb for us to consider Pakistan a ‘friend’. It has cost us more time and money and lives than if we considered them an enemy just like Afghanistan and the Taliban. The State Department messed up this war just like they messed up the Iraq war in the beginning.
Either fight to win or don’t fight. Fighting to win means attacking the bases IN PAKISTAN.
ThackerAgency on May 16, 2008 at 9:45 AM
It seems odd only because you would think a “democracy” like Pakistan would want to defeat “rebels” and “extremists”. It’s not odd at all when you understand that the Muslims see no rebels or extremists when it comes to Islam. If you give them a raise in “aid”, maybe they will get a little sharper and “western” with the lip service again.
BL@KBIRD on May 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM
cut aid and step up cross border bombings in Taliban held Pakistan.
danking70 on May 16, 2008 at 10:13 AM
It’s hard to blame Pakistan for this problem. They really do not have the resources or will to control the western tribal regions. The rest of the country isn’t nearly as radical, but there are some sympathies with the tribes. Attacking those regions only inflames their own population and jeopardizes what stability there is. I see no problem with providing aid to Pakistan while smashing the terrorists at the same time.
Patrick H on May 16, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Ed
You are too generous. The new Paki government isn’t appeasing anyone – they are on the same side as the Jihadis, and the PPP part of the alliance is merely practicing taquiyya – the art of deception in the defense of Islam, as mandated by Islam.
Never forget – it was Benazir Bhutto who first backed the Taliban, shifting support from Gulbuddin Heqmatyar (a thug in his own right, but supported by Benazir’s arch enemy Zia ul Haq.) Neither Nawaz Sharief nor Gilani/Zardari have any interest in fighting the Jihadis: their main goal is to get the US off their backs.
We are never going to resolve this as long as we labor under the illusion that Mohammedans can be our allies, whether it’s here, Iraq, PA, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et al.
infidelpride on May 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I’m as unhappy with events in Pakistan as the rest. We ought to reduce aid and use the money saved to build enough predator drones to provide the media with three new 72-virgin stories out of Waziristan per day. But the Pakis do have a point about doing some soldiering on our part. My take of that point, though, and whether it is the Pakis or not is irrelevant, is that it has little to do our military fighting and a lot to do with, at a minimum, Bush and some to do with our military’s planners.
The CIA Factbook says there are 8,900,000 men aged 15 to 64 in Afghanistan. On a straight scale that, that would be 4,100,000 men of ages 18 to 40.
Last I read, the built out goal for the Afghan military was 70,000, ready by 2009. I suppose there is the NP component which might be double that, but who goes to war thinking their police force is a component. We’ve certainly never done so and if we had run our previous wars the way this one is being run, we’d probably be putting the invasion of Normandy on hold for another ten years because General George B. McClellan, VI, in charge of perpetually training the troops on the plains of the Georgetown Mall parking lot, died of old age advising Abraham Lincoln, VI to muster a sufficient number of troops so the North could use the word battalion.
I don’t know who decided on that 70,000 number, or when, but it is long past time the number should be changed to “less than a million” and keep training Afghans at six week intervals and 1000 at a time, then moving them farther south until every hamlet, village and road in Afghanistan is bristling with soldiers willing, if not fully and completely ready by 21st century American standards, to make the enemy die for their cause.
You may go to war with the army you have but that is no reason to continue fighting with the army you planned seven years ago if you still haven’t built it and you have no idea when you might win with it. And let me tell you, 70,000 Afghan troops will just guarantee it will be another seven and another seven and another seven of NATO.
Dusty on May 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Pakistan is following its own national interest in avoiding a costly civil war. We need to follow our interests and make sure that Afghanistan is not lost. This may involve new radical thinking like purchasing the opium crops directly and cutting out the AQ funding markups and redoubling efforts to create a viable central government. It would be nice to see more focus from the media and the political leadership here. I’m hoping that some of Patreus’s nuance makes it over to this vital theatre.
lexhamfox on May 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
We better have a plan to secure those nukes. Hoping on Islamic(ist) goodwill ain’t working out.
Maquis on May 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM
lexhamfox on May 16, 2008
This may involve new radical thinking like purchasing the opium crops directly and cutting out the AQ funding markups and redoubling efforts to create a viable central government
That wouldn’t work. Whatever we subsidize will expand. If we pay for opium, they’ll grow even more opium. It’s no different than an ethanol subsidy.
Patrick H on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Amen to that my friend, wars should never be fought half-azzed or by committee, it should be fought with overwhelming force until your enemy is defeated and they surrender unconditionally!
Liberty or Death on May 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Pashtunistan is what has made Pakistan so interested in affairs in Afghanistan. If Pakistan can cast a covetous eye on parts of Kashmir, Afghanistan can do the same of the Pastunistan portions of Pakistan.
Why should NATO and the US cross Pakistan’s borders in hot pursuit from time to time? Because Pakistan has the bomb.
I guess we haven’t to encourage a pre-emptive strike by India to cancel out that capability.
Limpet6 on May 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM
It is all well and good to say “F#$% Pakistan” but almost everything that makes its way into Afghanistan to supply the Caolition forces comes through Pakistan. We have endless lines of trucks coming up from Karachi and through Peshawar to Bagram and Kabul. Or through Spin Boldak and Chaman to Khandahar, Farah, etc.
Better to simply take whatever cross border actions are necessary. If Pakistan has ceded sovereignty, then they shouldn’t mind too much if Coalition air power is routinely employed in the three province area….
major john on May 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
This is correct. No external power can control the hills tribes of Afghanistan for long, and neither we nor NATA nor Pakistan have the will for the ruthless, extended campaign that it would take to do so even for a short time.
We have two main worries: a resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaida, and the future of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. As to the second, our military aid and cooperation help us keep an eye on the nukes, and (we hope) keep the military more or less aligned with us.
As to the first, we need a new approach. Replacing al Qaida and the Taliban as the chief purchasers of the main crop of Afghanistan, opium, would help align the tribesmen with us, would deprive al Qaeda of a major source of funds and influence, and would give us an opportunity to get lots of cash and infrastructure assistance into the hills (schools, roads, hospitals, etc.).
There are a lot of legitimate uses for opiates, mainly medical, and we can probably find more. A steady, legal supply would work to our benefit, too. Patrick H above is right that the incentive would be to grow more. But the incentive is there right now. We can put the stuff to much better use. I’d tell them, “Grow all you can. We’ll not only pay you well, we’ll get you all the goodies that the West can provide: TVs, cars, iPods, you name it.”
MrLynn on May 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM
The real question is what is the ground reality. The Pak govt is trying to keep its domestic powder keg unlit. Toward that end it might be construed in their best interest to create some distance from the US, particularly in front of US elections which might bring in an administation that is less aggressive at fighting Islamic terrorist. In addition, the political and social climate is uneasy.
Having said that, we seem to be getting pretty good intel from within Pakistan that has allowed us to go after bad guys.
From the Pak perspective it might make sense to talk down cooperation with NATO/US while going forward with solid intel that allows us to kill people. They get to deny associations with the killings, tamps down domestic charges of cooperation while killing the very same people who have actively sought to topple the govt. This would be a logical approach in a time of added perceived risk.
Just a thought.
moxie_neanderthal on May 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM
“Pakistan, he said, should not be saddled with America’s mistakes, especially if a solution involved breaching Pakistan’s sovereignty, a delicate matter in a nation where sentiment against the Bush administration runs high.”
America’s mistakes??? Pakistan’s sovereignty??? There is no, repeat, no sovereignty in Pakistan’s FATA.
HELLO: Earth to Pak-i-stan! Heard of the agreement Musharraf signed with the tribes in 2007?
FYI, Pakistan created the Taliban too, remember??? That wasn’t our mistake, either!!!
Miss_Anthrope on May 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Major John points out the weakness in just cutting Pakistan off. The only port capable of supplying our troops in Afghanistan is in Pakistan.
This not only forces us to work with Pakistan, it is also going to limit that “troop build up” in Afghanistan that the Democrats promise once we surrender in Iraq.
There is simply no way to supply an Iraq sized military force without a seaport. And since Iran is unlikely to accommodate us, that leaves Pakistan
“Captains study tactics, Generals (and, I guess, Majors) study logistics”
schmuck281 on May 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM
I quite “admire” the nationalist stance taken by the Pakistani architects of the Taliban. “…Pakistan is a sovereign nation…High time they (NATO) did some soldiering…”
Sovereign enough to export their people to the Middle East for remittance economy, or providing ISI sponsored “missionaries” through out SE Asia.
Soldiering like painting rocks in Somalia and using your military as a UNDPKO sponsored senior army officer retirement fund? Or like doing the “Ole’ passage of friendly lines” when the Afghani/Pakistani Jihadis make a beeline for Waziristan?
Would we be having this “dialogue” with the South Asian neo imperialists if we had followed up with Armitage’s “stone age” threat? Maybe we ought to control complete access to the port side of Pakistan…Better yet, maybe we ought facilitate India’s Blue Water Navy to do similar…
lpierson on May 17, 2008 at 2:07 AM
We do, it’s called a bunch of empty missile tubes on an Ohio class boomer. Insh’Allah!
traderdfw on May 17, 2008 at 8:08 AM
We do, it is called a bunch of empty missile tubes on an Ohio class boomer.
traderdfw on May 17, 2008 at 8:09 AM
A man with tact and clarity. I like that. You must be English.
Holmes on May 18, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Comment pages: