Money, Weapons and Pakistan
17 October 2009 7:00 am by Taylor Marsh
–bumped and updated–
–UPDATE for 10.17– The military had been planning the operation for months, amassing nearly 30,000 troops in the area and attempting to soften targets with aerial strikes. Military officials and security experts estimate that between 5,000 and 10,000 “hardcore” Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents are based in the area, which the United States views as a terrorism hub and has targeted with unmanned drone strikes. The offensive comes after two weeks of bloody militant attacks killed more than 100 people in Pakistan, assaults that officials say are nearly all planned in South Waziristan. A U.S. missile strike in August that killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, had temporarily slowed insurgent attacks, but the recent spate of violence made it clear the group had reorganized. – Pakistan Army Launches Ground Assault
Heh… hearts and minds, indeed.
But talk about touchy. Yesterday, Senators Kerry and Berman had to release a statement that basically said their $7.5 billion aid bill, which Obama signed today, wasn’t meant to appear like a down payment on Pakistan.
Yes, that’s snark, but as much as people ruminate over Pakistan and that al Qaeda is actually quartered there, which it is, along with a particularly virulent Pakistani Taliban strain, one has to wonder if U.S. foreign policy minds have had the thinking portion of their brains removed.
A story out of the daily Pakistan News has an alarming report for everyone involved.
The US embassy has been found involved in importing sophisticated weapons to Pakistan without the permission and knowledge of the authorities here. … According to a source, Musharraf had given so much liberty to the Americans after 9/11 that different government departments and agencies started directly dealing with the Americans. As a result, nobody knew what the other was doing. This situation, it is said, led to the governmentís ignorance about what the US embassy was doing. … (read more)
All righty then.
Considering everyone has tied their rhetorical harangues in knots over Obama possibly sending more troops to Afghnistan, I’d say there is a much better case to make there than there is in escalating money, weapons and troops (reported recently as many as 3,000 Marines for the Islamabad embassy) into Pakistan. A country, let me add, that has a weak leader, with Islamic militants woven inside ISI (and always has, let me add), as well as nuclear weapons. All the better for the U.S. presence, right? Hardly, especially since the militancy has increased over the last years, with U.S. leverage in Pakistan dwindling. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it’s not.
Segue to Laura Rozen who’s got this right:
But it does raise the question of whether a central Holbrooke assumption that expanding the U.S. government presence in Pakistan, growing the embassy, bestowing billions of dollars in aid directly by US personnel to Pakistani entities, having more US government personnel on the ground, etc. might rather than be a reassuring sign to the Pakistanis, have the opposite effect, and play into the hands of anti American constituencies there. So far, it’s fair to say the evidence has been thin to zilch that the assumption that a bigger U.S. presence is making the U.S. more beloved in Pakistan is proving correct.
Yes, Pakistan has nukes and people are nervous. But as Laura points out, does anyone think it’s a good idea to make Al Qaeda’s case for them through a muscular U.S. presence in Pakistan?
It’s a very bad idea.
UPDATE: AP chronicles major attacks inside Pakistan, so far in October.
