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'

Smart Power Setback - NYTimes.com

Smart Power Setback - NYTimes.com:

Will we ever learn that western-style nation-building in tribal societies like Afghanistan cannot be done quickly...if at all?

"Violence doesn’t stem from poverty. It stems from grudges, tribal dynamics and religious fanaticism — none of which can be ameliorated by building new roads. The poorest parts of the country [Afghanistan] are not the most violent.

Meanwhile, the influx of aid has, in many cases, created dependency, fed corruption, contributed to insecurity and undermined the host government’s capacity to oversee sustainable programs.

In the district of Nawa, for example, Usaid spent $400 per person last year. The per-capita income before aid was $300. According to the World Bank, 97 percent of Afghanistan’s G.D.P. derives from spending related to the military and donor community presence." [emphasis added]

McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Magazine - NYTimes.com

McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Magazine - NYTimes.com

Assuming real fire is causing this smoke in the Rolling Stone story, the aesthetic General McChrystal soon will be relieved from his command of the Afghan effort.

TeamObama or any President cannot tolerate this public display of 'attitude' from a top commander in the field. General McChrystal has crossed a line. Whether he's right or wrong makes no difference, a President cannot tolerate and a sage general should never make such remarks.

Nevertheless, with these attitudes out in the open, TeamObama's Afghan policies will gather yet more detractors. In any event, my guess is the military was already not in the TeamObama camp. None of this bodes well for him and his policies

I wonder what Secretary of Defense Gates will say and do? He cannot support McChrystal and remain Secretary.

Update 6/22/10

Gates' initial statement:

"I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of “Rolling Stone” magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."