For those of us who believe in diplomacy, Sen. Barack Obama’s recent pledge to dialogue with Cuba, North Korea and Iran offered a much-needed ray of hope. Amidst the security tough-talk by Democratic presidential hopefuls, at least one leading candidate was committed to a conversation.
A candidate, we thought, was emerging who was courageous enough to challenge the lemming-like walk toward a Bush-lite security policy.
However, all those hoped Obama would offer a real alternative in dealings with the Middle East and Central/South Asia, given his disapproval of the Iraq war and aforesaid promotion of diplomacy and refusal to engage nukes, now must be feeling disappointed by Obama’s newfound enthusiasm for bombing Pakistan.
Criticized for his ill-fated Woodrow Wilson Center speech — “getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan” and “if the US has “high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will” — Obama surprisingly has not since changed course or rescinded comments.
Why the military bravado now? Was it because Clinton handily dismissed Obama’s direct diplomacy and nuclear weapons embargo? Likely Obama felt the need to dispel the notion that he was naively dovish and sought to define his campaign with a troops-out-of-Iraq-and-into-Pakistan maneuver. Sadly, however, this distinguishes him little and likens him more to President Bush than ever before.
He should know that an overt attack by US forces on Pakistan’s semiautonomous regions — the provinces bordering Afghanistan inhabited for centuries by tribal leaders — does more damage than good, for three reasons. First, mistakes by the US and Pakistani troops have enraged locals, turning former allies into enemies.
Second, any US attack on the tribes merely serves to further instigate local and regional opposition, thus fueling (not reducing) terrorist activity.
Third, the majority of people in Pakistan, once on the fence vis-à-vis their willingness to partner with the US in the war on terrorism, will quickly jump off if Obama jumps in. Already, Pakistani-Americans are protesting Obama, having lost faith in a candidate once considered a favorite. Attack the tribal regions and Pakistan, as an ally, is lost completely.
Thus, the way to win in Pakistan requires much more than willingness to bomb. Obama should know there is nothing new about this approach. Last year, Richard Armitage, then US Deputy Secretary of State, allegedly threatened President Musharraf’s intelligence director that if Pakistan failed to comply with the US war on terror, it would be bombed back to the Stone Age. Consequently, if Obama wants differentiate from the pack yet still talk tough on terrorism, then he should consider the following:
First, withhold military aid from Musharraf until assurances are given guaranteeing free and fair elections. Allowing Musharraf (who is prepping the constitution for an extended stay) free reign as an unelected president, severely undermines US credibility among the Pakistani public. Moreover, the tribes never liked Musharraf; continued US support for the dictator will only create more extremism.
Second, transfer US military aid to Pakistan into economic aid. Since 2001, more than $10b dollars in military aid have been funneled to Musharraf and for what? Musharraf’s military is now hated by most if not all parties in Pakistan, even judges. Simply put, Musharraf is the wrong horse to back. Ensure that economic aid is provided to the very impoverished, the ones ripe for recruitment by the Taleban and Al-Qaeda. This will be arduous and time-intensive but it will undermine recruitment.
Third, build alliances with Pakistani-Americans who are ready to help defeat extremism in Pakistan. Many among the diaspora are intimately networked into the religious schools (madrasas), nongovernmental organizations, businesses, law offices, and universities and could leverage US interests if invited.
This, and more, is what it means to be tough. Why? It requires more prudence, patience, and partnership than a quick statement detailing an attack. As the US learned in Iraq, a military offensive offers little chance of success.
It is the political, economic, and social fronts to which one must attend. Take note Obama.
— Michael Shank is an analyst with George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.
