Image: NY Times/Reuters
President Obama unveiled his new Afghanistan strategy to reporters today, after a “careful policy review” led by Brookings Institution‘s Bruce Reidel. In his speech, Obama asserted the situation “is increasingly perilous,” and sought to answer the questions, “What is our purpose in Afghanistan?” and “Why do our men and women fight and still die there?” The President emphasized that Al Qaeda and its allies are in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the organization is still planning attacks on the United States from its safe haven in Pakistan. Ultimately, the President stated that his administration’s purpose is to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat AQ” in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and prevent its return to either country in the future.
At the same time, Obama promised neither to write a “blank check” nor to “blindly stay the course” if his risky new strategy does not achieve its ambitious goals. Instead, he affirmed that we cannot succeed with “bullets and bombs alone,” adding, “We stand for something different.” The President therefore called upon Congress to pass the bipartisan Kerry-Lugar bill, which would authorize $1.5 billion aid to Pakistan every year for the next five years, as well as a bill that would create “opportunity zones” for exports. According to CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, this conditional aid would offer an incentive to the Pakistani government and military to crack down further on the militants. For Afghanistan, Obama announced the U.S. “will send 4,000 more troops to train Afghan security forces on top of the 17,000 extra combat troops that he already ordered to Afghanistan shortly after taking office.” The NY Times reported, “For now, Mr. Obama has decided not to send additional combat forces, they said, although military commanders at one point had requested a total of 30,000 more American troops. Even so, the strategy he endorsed on Friday effectively gives Mr. Obama full ownership of the war just as its violence is spilling back and forth across the border with Pakistan.”
Obama’s speech was based in rhetoric, and therefore wasn’t particularly groundbreaking, [actual benchmarks for both Afghanistan and Pakistan are slated to be released soon]. However, the newly elected U.S. president did consistently frame Al Qaeda and its allies’ goals as contrary to those of the Pakistani and Afghan people. Not only that, but he likened the needs and desires of Americans to those of Pakistanis, noting they all wanted an end to terror, access to basic services, and an opportunity to live their dreams within the the rule of law. “The single greatest threat to that future,” he added, “comes from Al Qaeda.” President Obama further asserted,
Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater number than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan — a future without hope or opportunity; a future without justice or peace.
The U.S. President also pledged to help Pakistan with its economic crisis and support its institutions. He also promised to help lessen tensions between India and Pakistan by engaging in “constructive diplomacy” with both nations. A trilateral dialogue among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States, led by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates will also be held regularly, and the United States will work to enhance intelligence sharing and military training along the Pak-Afghan border.
All in all, I liked President Obama’s speech. However, I am still cautious and skeptical. I appreciated how he addressed the Pakistani people [he obviously knows that the war against militancy can only be won if the Pakistani people support it], and asserted support for our economic crisis, as well as the importance of improving relations with India. His rhetoric demonstrated an understanding that Pakistan’s problems cannot be solved through military means alone. However, because the goal of disrupting, dismantling, and defeating Al Qaeda is so broad, I am anxious to learn what methods will be used to achieve that strategy. Will that involve more U.S. drone strikes with collateral damage, attacks that threaten to create more sympathizers for Taliban and AQ militants? Or will the Pakistani military and police be trained to take further ownership of the fight [to the U.S. liking]? The U.S. government has to begin redefining their approach to Pakistan. However, if these attacks continue, it may damage their ability to successfully undertake this new strategy.
CHUP! - Changing Up Pakistan 
Other good readings that I forgot to mention (I’m sorry it’s been a looong week):
NY Times piece, “Pakistan and Afghan Taliban Close Ranks”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/world/asia/27taliban.html?_r=1&ref=world
Here’s an excerpt:
“In interviews, several Taliban fighters based in the border region said preparations for the anticipated influx of American troops were already being made. A number of new, younger commanders have been preparing to step up a campaign of roadside bombings and suicide attacks to greet the Americans, the fighters said.
The refortified alliance was forged after the reclusive Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, sent emissaries to persuade Pakistani Taliban leaders to join forces and turn their attention to Afghanistan, Pakistani officials and Taliban members said.”
White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group’s Report on U.S. Policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27text-whitepaper.html?ref=washington
In terms of reactions, it’s been positive from both the Afghan and Pak governments – FM Qureshi pledged their support, noting: “I think the new Obama administration’s approach is a very positive. They are looking towards a regional approach to the situation.”
[…] }); Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan afghanistan pakistan, ambitious goals, barbara starr, blank check, brookings institution, cnn, […]
Although it is unclear whether or not Obama’s policies will enough to defeat AQ, the aid package (if properly administered) could be a great help to Pakistan’s economy. Pakistan’s government/ministries should act responsibly and allow this money to work towards improving livelihoods instead of lining their pockets.
Good point Eman. I think there needs to be a proper assessment before the aid goes out of who/where the money is going. There also needs to be conditions and benchmarks properly administered, so that if the projects aren’t having the desired impact, they can be re-routed or altered. We need to fix the way we implement U.S. aid to Pakistan to ensure that we get more effective results, (courtesy of Dr. Samia Altaf’s upcoming book).
Working in an agency directly tied to Obama’s aid policy to Pakistan, I can say that this is an issue of utmost importance not only to the U.S. (which has seen it’s aid and assistance drained by corruption and misallocation) but also to the Pakistani private sector, with businessmen fed up and taking matters into their own hands to shore up new strategies for aid allocation–such as having foreign governments deal directly with targeted private sector interests and bypass the central government altogether. These are serious considerations on the table.
Although this is not likely to happen due to financial appropriation measures and accountability issues, it is encouraging to see the private sector of Pakistan increasingly playing a larger role in the formation of foreign and economic development policy in their country. India has set a standard with their business councils routinely visiting the U.S. and Pakistan is now doing the same in a concerted and meaningful effort.
i’m a bit skeptical regarding obama’s plan. for one, it was crafted by bruce reidel, who is a longtime “expert” in south asia. from what i’ve seen, reidel tilts towards india.
ultimately, nothing can succeed unless pakistan doesn’t feel like india will have the option of using afghanistan to wage war in balochistan. without some sort of security agreement or friendly government in kabul, pakistan will never be fully on board. without pakistan fully on board– no progress will be made.
$1.5 billion per year? What a waste of taxpayer money!
Is this change we can believe in?
It’s just Bush policies on crack, except now it’s coupled with parades of soft-minded benevolence.
This is why Obama and his “expert” central planners get almost everything wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26Kristof.html
Beg to disagree with HGW. This is a departure from the Bush policy in that non-military aid to Pakistan will tripple. Furthermore, this soft power approach is focused on economic development and business creation in regions most directly affected by insurgent and terrorist breeding as well as drug trafficking.
For example, the goal of the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) is to create employment opportunities in designated areas by grating them duty-free access into the U.S. market. A similar approach in Jordan led to the creation of thousands of jobs and businesses. The hope is that new economic opportunities will employ large segments of the population prone to the influence of destabilizing forces. It is a tremendous break from the old policy and a good example of bilateral public-private partnership which could lead to greater investment and hope in the region.
Let’s see where it goes. It’s a daring and fragile policy, no doubt, but one which holds tremendous potential for socio-economic benefits in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
rusnam – I was referring to the old policies of excessive spending and overseas intervention. Whether the money is spent on direct or soft war is effectively irrelevant because the agenda is the same. None of the things you pointed out are productive or morally justifiable, in my opinion, regardless of whether or not they bring “socio-economic benefits” to Pakistan.
HGW, I have to agree with Rusnam simply because I do see the bigger picture he is referring to. Socio-economic stability in the region will definitely bring about a change which is extremely necessary. Change is all around and I do believe that the majority of the population has had it with the corruption, the delaying tactics, the dramas and and…the list goes on. Hopefully, the Government and others who have lavishly benefitted from their positions and status may think twice before indulging themselves. Positivity will yeild positive results and if we all concentrate on that rather than punching holes, there might be hope yet for all of us.
I suppose we have a difference of opinion on this–and I certainly don’t blame you for your stance, as previous policy has been an utter failure in all respects.
I’m not sure where moral justification comes into play, but this is an initiative which is directly engaging the private sector of Pakistan, and it’s one which is heavily endorsed by large private sector players in Pakistan who have been dismayed by the central government’s misuse of aid funds.
Also, I know that policy officials here at the government level are genuinely working on this in a meaningful way. Having sat through meetings with various officials, I can say that the intentions are in the right place, and responsible minds are on this task.
All this said, justifiable or not, the new economic aid initiatives are designed for the people of Pakistan to take advantage of. If anything, it creates a headache on the part of U.S. policy makers to justify the U.S. jobs that will be lost as a result of duty free imports from ROZ’s, especially in the middle of a recession.
rusnan & KP-
I really appreciate your desires to help the people of Pakistan, and I respect you for having faith in the Obama policies against all odds and against all evidence available that suggests nothing but failure.
In regard to ROZs, I don’t think it will boost Pakistani exports, except very marginally. Many goods ALREADY enjoy duty-free passage to the US while the same goods from China suffer a 10% import duty. Despite the unbalanced playing field for China, Pakistan is still unable to compete. I myself am a private industrialist in Pakistan who exports 100% of output to the US, and I am in the process shifting the factory to China. Why? Without being too specific, if one skilled worker in Pakistan can achieve 10 units of production per day, a Chinese worker is able to achieve 100 units of production in a day, given the same technology, resources, and training. It is a fact that Chinese workers are at least ten times more productive than their Pakistani counterparts. So Obama is just throwing good money after bad. I say this because Governments have no ability to provide resources to anyone, because they simply HAVE NO resources… that’s very important to understand. They only have the ability to steal (tax) resources away from one area (which is productive) and throw it at one that’s unproductive. Capital comes from savings and private investments, it doesn’t come from aid.
Giving subsidies to Pakistani exports is effectively the same as allowing cheaper Chinese products to enter the market and then slapping a 50% sales tax on it (representing the higher cost to manufacture in Pakistan). Then take that cash and throw it at unskilled Pakistani workers and subsidize them to sit in their villages, to tell stories all day, and to not to blow themselves up. So, I strongly disagree with the establishment of ROZs, it’s a waste of money unless it’s allocated by private investors.
In regard to moral justification… the main issue is taxation on the American side. It’s HIGHLY immoral to use American taxpayer for wild speculations such as this.