Politics & policies in Washington
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Editorial, Dawn, Pakistan
By Tariq Fatemi
Thursday, 21 May, 2009
AS always, the US capital is in the throes of raging controversies. President Obama remains popular, while the Republican Party appears not to have found its bearings after its rout in the last election.
This has not stopped former vice president Dick Cheney from becoming Obama’s harshest critic and the previous administration’s most forceful defender.
The Republicans claim that Obama’s sudden reversal on the issue of the release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees held by the US authorities abroad is the result of the pressure mounted by Cheney. While Obama claimed that the release of photos would endanger US troops abroad, a rights organisation charged that it “essentially renders meaningless Obama’s pledge of transparency and accountability” because the president “has become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its cover-up”.
The Republicans have also seized on the opportunity provided by the gaffes of the powerful house speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is caught in a controversy regarding what she was told by the CIA about its interrogation methods way back in 2002. With Pelosi and the Obama-appointed CIA chief Leon Panetta engaged in a major public spat, the Republicans see in it the fortuitous weakening of the speaker with a negative impact on Obama’s legislative programmes.
In the field of foreign policy, Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to occupy centre-stage, with Obama hosting presidents Zardari and Karzai in an unusual trilateral summit. Prior to Zardari’s arrival, Holbrooke was tasked to limit the damage caused by Obama’s remarks and reiterate that the US was “not abandoning it (Pakistan), nor are we distancing ourselves from Zardari”. Administration officials also affirmed Obama’s support for “the democratically elected governments” of the two countries, although there was no personal endorsement of the leaders. Zardari’s spin masters, however, have claimed that the visit was highly successful, pointing to Holbrooke’s characterising of the talks as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”. But the reality appeared at a lunch meeting where one senator made a most inappropriate remark about Zardari’s past reputation and another accused Karzai of taking more of “the illegal [drug] money than the Taliban”.
But the administration is pleased that Islamabad has undertaken a major military operation with greater resolve to eliminate the militants than before. Nevertheless, there is now concern that the exodus of residents from the affected areas to the cities could create a backlash and weaken support for the military operations. Some have expressed the fear that it could also trigger deep-seated tensions in Punjab and Karachi. This has led Admiral Mullen to remark that “my biggest concern is whether (Pakistan) will sustain it”.
In the meanwhile, the word currently in vogue in Washington is “counterinsurgency”. Gen David Petraeus, Centcom chief, is credited with being the inspiration for this latest military mantra. Its detractors however, fear that this doctrine could soon become unquestioned orthodoxy, distracting the US from other strategic options. In the meanwhile, it has already claimed its first casualty, with Gen McKiernan the top US commander in Afghanistan becoming the first military commander to be removed since President Truman fired Gen McArthur from his Korea command. Not surprisingly, his replacement Gen McChrystal and his new deputy, Gen Rodrigues, are both strong advocates of counterinsurgency.
Nevertheless, there is a growing realisation in Washington that it has only limited options to deal with the current situation in Pakistan. For the first time, there are some voices that the administration needs to come up with a more clear and convincing strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In a recent piece in the Washington Post, Richard Haass, a former senior official in the Bush administration and who is currently president of the Council on Foreign Relations, had words of caution for the current set-up in Washington. Though convinced that Obama has opted for “a modest but not minimalist strategy [in Afghanistan] of targeting Al Qaeda, weakening the Taliban and strengthening the central government”, he points out that the US is “stretched economically and militarily”. He therefore recommends lowering its sights because it is better to have “partial success we can afford than expensive failures we cannot”.
Another evidence of ‘revisionism’ was evident in the debate in the house on the administration’s request for fresh appropriations for Afghanistan. While it was approved by an overwhelming majority, 51 members of the president’s party opposed the bill, with congresswoman Donna Edwards explaining that she could not support funding because the president lacked “a strategy for leaving Afghanistan”; while David Obey, the powerful chairman of the appropriations committee told the media that he would give Obama’s strategy a year to work before moving to the opposition. The paper described the move as a “modest but gathering opposition”.
In this context, US leaders (as well as ours), would do well to read the just published Power Rules by Leslie Gelb. A highly respected Washington veteran in government, journalism and think tanks, Gelb argues that the US may be the world’s indispensable power but cannot solve major problems on its own. In his incisive and compelling antidote to the fervour of ideologues, Gelb warns that “unilateral action even in military extremis is not likely to work”. He explains that other key nations — that too are unable to solve problems on their own — are equally indispensable as partners in solving problems and this leads him to the conclusion that the only way out is to promote multi-polarity. He therefore emphasises that “this clear mutual dependence makes mutual indispensability the central operating principle for power in the 21st century”. Finally, Gelb warns the politicians to “avoid the three demons of foreign policy: ideology, domestic politics and the arrogance of power”.
These are developments that need to be analysed by our leaders. For one, it is clear that during the next 12 to 18 months, the advocates of counterinsurgency are likely to be given a freer hand to make a concerted effort to eliminate the Al Qaeda leadership, even if this means more frequent drone attacks and cross-border incursions into Pakistan. But if that option fails, we can expect growing demands that the US review its overall strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, or as Haass counsels: “if it [US] fails to meet its objectives, it should resist increasing its effort much beyond current levels”. What will this strategic review mean for Pakistan, for we know that Obama is far too intelligent to allow the US to get stuck in a quagmire?
By Tariq Fatemi
Thursday, 21 May, 2009
AS always, the US capital is in the throes of raging controversies. President Obama remains popular, while the Republican Party appears not to have found its bearings after its rout in the last election.
This has not stopped former vice president Dick Cheney from becoming Obama’s harshest critic and the previous administration’s most forceful defender.
The Republicans claim that Obama’s sudden reversal on the issue of the release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees held by the US authorities abroad is the result of the pressure mounted by Cheney. While Obama claimed that the release of photos would endanger US troops abroad, a rights organisation charged that it “essentially renders meaningless Obama’s pledge of transparency and accountability” because the president “has become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its cover-up”.
The Republicans have also seized on the opportunity provided by the gaffes of the powerful house speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is caught in a controversy regarding what she was told by the CIA about its interrogation methods way back in 2002. With Pelosi and the Obama-appointed CIA chief Leon Panetta engaged in a major public spat, the Republicans see in it the fortuitous weakening of the speaker with a negative impact on Obama’s legislative programmes.
In the field of foreign policy, Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to occupy centre-stage, with Obama hosting presidents Zardari and Karzai in an unusual trilateral summit. Prior to Zardari’s arrival, Holbrooke was tasked to limit the damage caused by Obama’s remarks and reiterate that the US was “not abandoning it (Pakistan), nor are we distancing ourselves from Zardari”. Administration officials also affirmed Obama’s support for “the democratically elected governments” of the two countries, although there was no personal endorsement of the leaders. Zardari’s spin masters, however, have claimed that the visit was highly successful, pointing to Holbrooke’s characterising of the talks as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”. But the reality appeared at a lunch meeting where one senator made a most inappropriate remark about Zardari’s past reputation and another accused Karzai of taking more of “the illegal [drug] money than the Taliban”.
But the administration is pleased that Islamabad has undertaken a major military operation with greater resolve to eliminate the militants than before. Nevertheless, there is now concern that the exodus of residents from the affected areas to the cities could create a backlash and weaken support for the military operations. Some have expressed the fear that it could also trigger deep-seated tensions in Punjab and Karachi. This has led Admiral Mullen to remark that “my biggest concern is whether (Pakistan) will sustain it”.
In the meanwhile, the word currently in vogue in Washington is “counterinsurgency”. Gen David Petraeus, Centcom chief, is credited with being the inspiration for this latest military mantra. Its detractors however, fear that this doctrine could soon become unquestioned orthodoxy, distracting the US from other strategic options. In the meanwhile, it has already claimed its first casualty, with Gen McKiernan the top US commander in Afghanistan becoming the first military commander to be removed since President Truman fired Gen McArthur from his Korea command. Not surprisingly, his replacement Gen McChrystal and his new deputy, Gen Rodrigues, are both strong advocates of counterinsurgency.
Nevertheless, there is a growing realisation in Washington that it has only limited options to deal with the current situation in Pakistan. For the first time, there are some voices that the administration needs to come up with a more clear and convincing strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In a recent piece in the Washington Post, Richard Haass, a former senior official in the Bush administration and who is currently president of the Council on Foreign Relations, had words of caution for the current set-up in Washington. Though convinced that Obama has opted for “a modest but not minimalist strategy [in Afghanistan] of targeting Al Qaeda, weakening the Taliban and strengthening the central government”, he points out that the US is “stretched economically and militarily”. He therefore recommends lowering its sights because it is better to have “partial success we can afford than expensive failures we cannot”.
Another evidence of ‘revisionism’ was evident in the debate in the house on the administration’s request for fresh appropriations for Afghanistan. While it was approved by an overwhelming majority, 51 members of the president’s party opposed the bill, with congresswoman Donna Edwards explaining that she could not support funding because the president lacked “a strategy for leaving Afghanistan”; while David Obey, the powerful chairman of the appropriations committee told the media that he would give Obama’s strategy a year to work before moving to the opposition. The paper described the move as a “modest but gathering opposition”.
In this context, US leaders (as well as ours), would do well to read the just published Power Rules by Leslie Gelb. A highly respected Washington veteran in government, journalism and think tanks, Gelb argues that the US may be the world’s indispensable power but cannot solve major problems on its own. In his incisive and compelling antidote to the fervour of ideologues, Gelb warns that “unilateral action even in military extremis is not likely to work”. He explains that other key nations — that too are unable to solve problems on their own — are equally indispensable as partners in solving problems and this leads him to the conclusion that the only way out is to promote multi-polarity. He therefore emphasises that “this clear mutual dependence makes mutual indispensability the central operating principle for power in the 21st century”. Finally, Gelb warns the politicians to “avoid the three demons of foreign policy: ideology, domestic politics and the arrogance of power”.
These are developments that need to be analysed by our leaders. For one, it is clear that during the next 12 to 18 months, the advocates of counterinsurgency are likely to be given a freer hand to make a concerted effort to eliminate the Al Qaeda leadership, even if this means more frequent drone attacks and cross-border incursions into Pakistan. But if that option fails, we can expect growing demands that the US review its overall strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, or as Haass counsels: “if it [US] fails to meet its objectives, it should resist increasing its effort much beyond current levels”. What will this strategic review mean for Pakistan, for we know that Obama is far too intelligent to allow the US to get stuck in a quagmire?
Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, America, Counter Insurgency, Insurgency, Taliban
posted @ 11:42 AM,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment