Obama takes Afghan war to Pakistan

March 27, 2009

U.S. President Barack Obama set out his strategy to fight the war in Afghanistan on Friday, committing 4,000 military trainers and many more civillian personnel to the country, increasing military and financial aid to stabilise Pakistan and signalling that the door for reconciliation was open in Afghanistan for those who had taken to arms because of coercion or for a price.

He said the situation was increasingly perilous, with 2008 the bloodiest year for American forces in Afghanistan. But the United States  was determined to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan”, he said, warning that attacks on the United States were being plotted even now.

But it is the emphasis on Pakistan that seems to be the most significant shift in the U.S. strategy since it went into Afghanistan more than seven years ago, with an avowedly aggressive carrot and stick approach. Time columnist Joe Klein said the most important aspect of the security review was a refocusing on the situation in Pakistan. “The terrorist safe havens in the tribal areas is the heart of the problem.”

Obama left little doubt that Pakistan was going to be front and centre of the war in Afghanistan, declaring this is where the top al Qaeda leadership was based.  And that their presence there posed a threat to not just America, but countries around the world from Europe to Africa and above all to Pakistan itself.

Here are some excerpts from his speech relating to Pakistan.

“In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al-Qaida’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.”

“But this is not simply an American problem — far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”

America, he said, wanted results from both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“And after years of mixed results, we will not, and cannot, provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al-Qaida and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken — one way or another — when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.”

Will Obama’s stratetgy work? If Pakistan played ball,  it would get an unprecedented amount of military and financial aid, several experts said. “President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that,” wrote Jon Soltz, a former U.S. army captain in Iraq, in the Huffington Post.

Soltz said an even more striking part of Obama’s strategy was his willingness to deal with those who were not hard core Taliban.

“There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province,” Obama said.

In so doing and by signalling that he was ready to become partners with those who the United States was fighting today,  Obama had “given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission – protecting America and the world from terrorism” Soltz said.

But what about Pakistanis themselves? The popular All Things Pakistan blog noted that Obama had spoken to the Pakistani people and so invited them to comment on his remarks. Some of the early comments were generally positive, with one reader saying he was glad the United States had realised the high cost Pakistan was paying. “It is the Pakistanis who have been doing all the dying.”  .

(Reuters photos: President Barack Obama; Afghan women in Taloqan; Pakistani soldiers in Wana)




Let me repeat: whoever has now nuclear arms will not reliquish them and we are in no position to take them away. Indeed, Iran, the only nation determinated to enter the nuclear state catagory is beyond our power to stop it. But, for better or worse, the Asian Region now has THE SHANGHAI ACCORD as a very sophisticated complex platform on which China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran and all the Central Asian states now share. It is a sort of secret society, so secret that we don’t understand who is a member and what that means. It is the ultimate sophisticated application of Hegel’s and Marx’s thesis+antithesis–>synthesis. Contradictions aboud and very clever adaptations are made to get around them. Unity is sweetened with the commercial side of the Accord. But really it is a sort of mutual security pact between antagonists. It is an ingenious idea (that morons in the Bush White house could never dream up) that depends on the whole soothing the anger ond insecurity of the individuals. That is why above I advocate that we leave Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Shanghai Accord to deal with. Holbrook is a bull in a China shop able only at covering up the mess he makes (I know him since Vietnam). Americans have proven to be self-serving (I mean really self, not country) shortsighted simpletons. Whatever their flaws and corruptions, the members of the Shanghai Accord have proven able to smooth over wrinkles in their inter-allies peace. If we pull out our troops and NATO too, offering to assist only in whatever the Accord UNANIMOUSLY decides, they will apply to the region a level of diplomatic sophistication that we have not seem since the Middle Ages when we Europeans were running around naked in rags throwind spears at eachother and they were great empires of rich cultures precticing sophisticated diplomacy. So let’s get out and let THE SHANGHAI ACCORD DEAL WITH AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN. Do you Indian-Pakistanis think you can lay aside your silly debates to discuss that on this site?

Posted by DE Teodoru | Report as abusive

@Do you Indian-Pakistanis think you can lay aside your silly debates to discuss that on this site?
- Posted by DE Teodoru

–Interesting point on Shanghai Accord and ur views on large view of US war–true it is bigger game–not just women rights/prevention of flogging type nothings.

I saw ur views on India/Pak/China/Afghanistan/Tal—-To me your hypothesis is severely flawed in parts.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive


DE Teodoru has interesting view of the situation–the larger picture. Worth discussing I think.


Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/