Last night I watched the presidential debate. Whatever. But one part that really pissed me off was when Obama and McCain talked about Pakistan (here’s a transcript).
First off, McCain mispronounced or did not know the new Pakistani president’s name, Zardari, as “Kadari”. While McCain knew a lot of past leaders in the old NATO playground of eastern Europe, his flub on Zardari falls in a long line of flubs by senior American leaders on Muslim names. As an Arabic linguist, I know that there is only one conclusion: complete ignorance of Muslim culture. But I guess we knew that already.
Second, McCain claimed that Pakistan was a failed state before General Musharraf (yes, “General”…) took over. What a fantastic piece of revisionism. Pakistan was enjoying a rather democratic period in its history with Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, who were not altogether uncorrupt but who are now (after Musharraf’s ouster) still prominent figures of Pakistani democracy.
So what McCain was saying was that Pakistan was a failed state until General Musharraf undertook a coup d’état and would later try to arrest a Supreme Court judge, tease along a dog-like US eager for bin Laden’s head, and try to obtain lifetime rule.
When people criticize the US for speaking about democracy but undertaking and espousing anti-democratic views of other nations, this is what they are referring to!
A last note on McCain. I can’t confirm this but I’m pretty sure McCain falsely claimed that he traveled to Waziristan. Waziristan, as you might know, is an area in northwestern Pakistan outside of the government’s control and firmly Talibanized, lawless, and incredibly dangerous not only for any white man but for any foreigners. I can’t imagine McCain went to Waziristan in any shape or fashion. If he did, he was part of the greatest covert operation ever, involving a wonderful disguise of his skin color, clothing, linguistic abilities, religious belief, etc. The only way Americans get into Waziristan is with massive special operations escort.
Obama on the other hand was better, but disappointing. He wants to send more troops to Afghanistan (and I imagine McCain does too). Afghanistan will not be contained by American forces, no matter how many we send in. What is the historical precedent? What are we going to do there? Wall off Kandahar and Kabul?
It’s veterans like me who will have to fill the slots to go to war there. What will we accomplish? Iraq is a dismal failure, despite McCain’s promises that it’s wildly successful, and it will be even worse in Afghanistan, the home of mujahed legend, where population density is sparse and economic activity is even lower. That Obama and McCain do not recognize that Waziristan is outside of Pakistani control (read NYTimes’ recent article on the subject), even after very bloody and humiliating attempts by the Pakistani military to contain it, is haunting. Our politicians are trying to remain “strong” on terror but they have no long-term focus, or even one that takes into account international relations theory. But then again, even the Pakistani experts are wrong on this issue.
What we should do in fact is withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and during the logistical flight mess, attack Waziristan and FATA. It might even be worth doing so while troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should withdraw funding to Pakistan (and Israel, and Iraq, and…). My logic is that we know that bin Laden and Zawahiri are in FATA somewhere. We have set up a large martial law-like apparatus in airports worldwide, which should have been a temporary move instead of a permanent one.
If we were to use our offensive military advantage in FATA, we could disrupt and flush out long-entrenched senior leaders. They know they are perfectly safe there for now, even while we put clamps down on the rest of the world. But if they are forced to move, we will generate intelligence and have better leads on them, especially if they attempt to flee to potential future havens like Yemen.
But this must be combined with withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. This will drain the mujahed solidarity more than you might think. It’s counter-intuitive. Yes, they will celebrate another “victory”, but it will not collapse the US like it did the Soviet Union. I hope. The financial crisis here at home has made that less clear.
One problem in Pakistan is that it’s a nuclear state. Destabilizing the government could cause nuclear weapons to get in the hands of Al-Qaeda, which does indeed desire to use nuclear weapons against its enemies. But wouldn’t its arsenal be fairly centralized and easy to protect? Couldn’t we (or China, going by that Wiki article above) help to secure those arms and thus have an avenue to cooperate with Pakistan while going into FATA? I understand the concern on this issue but don’t think it’s a deal-killer.
But they will lose incentive for arms flows (the US is flooding Muslim nations with weapons), ease of access to killing Americans, ease of training and impact evaluation for missions, public support for jihad. The US can shore up its domestic support, re-tool its military, and stop draining its coffers. Regionally, neighbors of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will have to close their borders. Up till now, they’ve had a strong incentive to open their borders: they’ve been able to release their extremists and send them to fight the jihad in other countries, increasing their security by ridding themselves of problem people. With an outside enemy gone, they will have to return to their pre-Iraq postures.
I believe in sovereignty and self-determinism and all that, but I do believe that we have a very simple mission: kill bin Laden and Zawahiri. Even the dumbest soldier understands that mission. But we have failed for about seven years in this mission. That is unconscionable. Critics would say that the mission has changed, or that bin Laden’s death will not end jihad. No, it will not end the jihad, but killing or capturing key leaders of insurgencies substantially reduces the institutional capacity of an organization. It is also an incredibly simple metric for governments to pursue.
And to be honest, how politically unpopular would it be to say that we will go balls-to-the-wall to kill bin Laden in his safe haven, regardless of Pakistani “sovereignty”? They don’t control FATA, and we have history on our side when we almost got bin Laden in Tora Bora.
This scenario won’t happen. We may get lucky and nab bin Laden and Zawahiri. Both parties will claim success. I guess the last question I should leave you with is, “If we’re not going into FATA, then whose interests would it be in to make sure we never do?”