A New Pakistan Policy - Containment - NYTimes.com

A blunt assessment by Mr. Riedel of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan and recommendations for what should be done. Pakistan is a dangerous country and only marginally supportive of some or our efforts in Afghanistan and in the region.

Our present policies are not working well, yet we cannot afford to isolate them and totally alienate the people.

Targeting bad actors may offer some relief, but that policy is unlikely to change the country from military to civilian control. They have nukes and who knows what pressure would cause them to use them.

"It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down. Putting sanctions on organizations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has — as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest."

'via Blog this'

Brutal Haqqani Clan Bedevils U.S. in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

From this article and other reports, I conclude that the chances of a political settlement in Afghanistan are negligible. We simply cannot deal with the radical Islamists, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, because they have more to gain by waiting until we tire of the war.

So much agony and death, so few options.

"...But as Washington struggles to broker an endgame for the Afghan war, there is widespread doubt about whether the Haqqanis will negotiate, and whether their patrons in Islamabad will even let them. After a decade of war, there is a growing sense among America’s diplomats, soldiers and spies that the United States is getting out of Afghanistan without ever figuring out how a maddeningly complex game is played.

“Is there any formula for Pakistan to agree to stop supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan and instead help broker and be satisfied with a political settlement?” asked Karl W. Eikenberry, who served as both America’s top military commander in Afghanistan and its ambassador to the country.

“We don’t know the answer to that question,” he said."

'via Blog this'

Mullen - Pakistan’s Spy Agency Supported U.S. Embassy Attack - NYTimes.com

Such bold and frank talk by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signals to me that the U.S. may be considering some bold move in Pakistan.

"“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani Army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence,” he said. “They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. But in reality, they have already lost that bet.


“By exporting violence, they’ve eroded their internal security and their position in the region. They have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well-being.”"


'via Blog this'

Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan - NYTimes.com

Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan - NYTimes.com:

President Obama sees the need to continue the polices of the Bush Administration in fighting terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. His foolishness about closing Guantanamo to satisfy his liberal constituency without a plan to deal with the prisoners smacks of political opportunism, rather than sound policy.

Meanwhile, saying little publicly, Obama, Clinton and Holbrooke seem to be working their private channels to step up the killing of terrorist leadership via drones. But wait, don't their liberal backers believe that killing terrorists merely creates more terrorists?

The time will come when American forces, in addition to Special Operations, will be placed on the ground in force in this part of Pakistan to go after the leaders that they don't kill with drones. Some Army Special Ops troops are there now as advisers to Pakistani troops. Obviously, the Pakistanis are unwilling or unable to do it on their own.

A friend of mine likens the actions in the 'tribal areas' of Pakistan as 'another Vietnam.' That implies we will be mired for years, then ultimately give up trying to win. I hope not.

"...While the administration has not publicly criticized the Pakistanis, several American officials said in interviews in recent days that they believe appeasing the militants would only weaken Pakistan’s civilian government. Mr. Holbrooke said in the interview that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others would make clear in private, and in detail, why they were so concerned about what was happening in Swat, the need to send more Pakistani forces to the west, and why the deteriorating situation in the tribal areas added to instability in Afghanistan and threats to American forces.

Past efforts to cut deals with the insurgents failed, and many administration officials believe that they ultimately weakened the Pakistani government.

But Obama administration officials face the same intractable problems that the Bush administration did in trying to prod Pakistan toward a different course. Pakistan still deploys the overwhelming majority of its troops along the Indian border, not the border with Afghanistan, and its intelligence agencies maintain shadowy links to the Taliban even as they take American funds to fight them...

...American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan’s tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence."