Source: Reuters Blog
With Senator Barack Obama looking increasingly confident about winning the Democratic nomination, there have been a new spate of articles on what it would mean for Pakistan if he becomes president.
The most eye-catching, perhaps, was a story in The News about how President Pervez Musharraf’s family in the United States have been giving donations to Obama’s campaign. ”President Pervez Musharraf’s family members here are supporting and giving donations to a US presidential candidate who strongly opposes the Bush administration policy of supporting and keeping the retired general in the presidency,” it says.
The Daily Times, in an analysis by former Pakistani foreign secretary Najmuddin A Shaikh, says there would be little difference between Obama and the Bush administration on the need to hunt out al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan — if needs be through unilateral U.S. action – and on keeping its nuclear weapons safe. What the writer sees is a difference in tone, which would be welcomed in Pakistan:
“What one can expect, however, is that Obama will be less averse - as the candidate for change - to recognising that extremism in the Muslim world flows from causes other than religious injunctions, no matter how this may be portrayed by so-called spokesmen for Islam or misguided scholars in the West,” he says. “He certainly will not be talking about crusades nor will he oppose direct talks with adversaries.”
But what strikes me is how this optimism about Obama may be offset by the United States in general taking a harder line against Pakistan, regardless of who wins the presidential elections. A couple of months ago, in a blog on Obama’s policies on Pakistan, I wrote about how he supports unilateral strikes on al Qaeda targets in the country.
Since then, the background noise in the United States about the need to attack al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan has increased — to the point where you wonder whether any difference in style and substance Obama might bring would be drowned out by a hardening shift in public opinion towards taking a more aggressive stance.
One blog I came across, calling itself the Danger Room on Wired.com, argues that Pakistan is in fact al Qaeda’s best base for planning attacks on the United States and Europe, since unlike more unstable places like Iraq where the United States is free to use force, the group flourishes in countries where there is a reasonable amount of state control.
“Pakistan’s better infrastructure, weak counterterrorism capacity, ambivalent counterterrorism policy, and increasingly prickly sovereignty issues gives al Qaeda a more stable platform to train, shield and export personnel-everything a terrorist group needs to organize an attack against targets in the West, as a string of plots now seem to show,” it says.
There are arguments against this — the most obvious being that al Qaeda developed first of all in the chaos of Afghanistan — but it’s worth reading to see where the tide of public opinion might be headed.
E-mail this article to a friend
Tags: Bush Administration, Musharraf, Obama, US
4 responses so far ↓
1 Moeen // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Pakistan would fare better if it does the following:
1. Clarify to the people and the world what is the actual policy towards Al-Qaeda in Fata areas
2. Give us and the world a timetable within which the threat of Al-Qaeda will be eliminated from the territory of Pakistan.
3. Signs an agreement with the Afghan Government to jointly settle the problem of the militants infiltration along the Durand lines (jointly in military sense also).
4. Makes pacts between the regional countries by which all countries insure the other of zero tolerance of rebellious groups of other countries.
5. Makes it clear that all communication with Afghanistan will be through the Afghan government and not the NATO force commander.
6. Takes strong exception to statements made by the NATO commander and show more understanding of President Hamid Karzais concerns.
7. Give full support to NATO forces where the Afghan government wishes us to
Obama, s popularity is based on his taking positions which have appeal to larger sections of American people. Obama, s position on Afghanistan is not only nearer to the EU and to the Afghan president but now to many in Pakistan. So we can expect a saner approach.
Obama or Hillary for that matter is the best we can expect from the USA which is a mix of the interest of American people and the interest of business groups so if we (the regional countries) are able to set the above agenda we can expect and demand support from the US. In my opinion Obama as president will be good for the region provided we are interested in solving our problems ourselves.
2 Zen // Jun 22, 2008 at 8:40 am
If the Israelis strike Iranian nuclear facilities before the new President is inaugerated, Pakistan will have to sort things out for itself. Obama will have to face a reality which will not allow the U.S. to leave Iraq any time soon. Regardless of what he’s promised his Ultra Liberal Elitist followers, an Israeli attack against Iran would doom a withdrawal.
American casualties will go up like a geyser in Iraq. If Iranian civilians are killed, as they will be, in any Israeli air attack against Iranian facilities, Iranians, and Shi’a everywhere, will strike American targets everywhere on the Planet. The notion that American forces could withdraw from Iraq with a furious Iraqi Shi’a alll around, would basically be a Dunkirk type scenario. Americans would have to fight their way to the sea in Iraq, a withdrawal under extreme pressure.
It’s likely, too, that Shi’a in Pakistan would strike American targets of opportunity. The turmoil in Iraq would surely spread to other Gulf States, driving the price of a barrel of oil to $200 per. There would be Sunni v. Shi’a fights in Iraq, because this is truly what the Bush Admistration has elected to do: side with the traditional Sunni dominant nations v. the Shi’a.
The turmoil would extend to Western Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and the eastern regions of Saudi Arabia. If Iranian suiciders sunk enough shipping in the Persian Gulf, economies will come to a halt. Pakistan would see little American support if internecine warfare erupted there between Sunni and Shi’a. I don’t know the % of Shi’a in Pakistan, but I believe it is around 15%.
It does appear that Pakistan has more Taliban and al-Qaeda type fighters hidden among the population, than even three years ago. The U.S. would be fighting brutal war in both Iraq and Afghanistan; trying to respond to Iranian attacks all over the world; and possibly fighting Iranians coming across the Iran-Iraq border. There wouldn’t be enough forces to dedicate any to Pakistan, and I’d guess Pakistanis wouldn’t want Americans there anyway.
Bush-Cheney are surely advising the Israelis to prepare for a strike before the inaugeration, particularly if Obama is the presumed winner. Obama is, however, open to inquiries about his 1981 trip to Pakistan. What it was about; who he met; who he saw; where he went; the various places he visited and why. So far, all Pakistani and Indian friends of Obama are silent. This is preposterous in an American Presidential election.
No Presidential candidate should be allowed to disclose such a surprise, and then disallow any of his friends to talk about the trip from their point of view. This is basically “stonewalling,” in American terminology. Amazingly enough, no major American news organization has even bothered to ask Obama for a follow on interview, to query him at greater depth on this trip.
I personally could care less about whether he was a Muslim. I believe the American Congress would be bettered if we had more Muslims and Hindu members. The religious or spiritual complexion of the U.S. is changing, and there are undoubtedly districts in America now where a Muslim candidate would be the ideal for the people of that district. Perhaps the same for Hindus.
The trip to Pakistan is a highly vulnerable spot in Obama’s campaign, because no more information has emerged. If Obama was, for instance, in Pakistan to consider studying with a particular Muslim cleric, or a school of a particular type of Islamic study, so be it. If he was there to buy drugs, so be it. But in those events, or, say, he met people who since 1981 have showed up on CIA or Homeland Security “watch lists” … so be it. He will probably not be elected, because that would dove tail with his radical type friends. And, if history is any guide, he has gravitated towards fiery ministers who I believe, serve as his surrogates to express his racial rage.
He is far too inexperienced to lead America. Senator Clinton would be a better choice. If Obama’s trip to Pakistan emerges as a youthful, but indiscreet adventure, then there will be people who will write him off because he’s held on to the details when a candid release of information would have served him better.
Obama has spoken negatively about Musharraf. Maybe that’s why Musharraf’s family gives to Obama’s campaign. And if anyone knows the full truth about Obama’s 1981 trip, it would be Musharraf. Maybe that’s why he has said he’s not about to resign. He “has something” of interest he could divulge if Obama presses him too much. If Obama’s criticisms of Musharraf cease entirely, I’d bet there is a connection.
McCain would have pretty much the same approach to Pakistan as Bush, save, he would probably urge Pakistanis to dump Musharraf. McCain is an unknown to me regards whether he would give a “wink and a nod” to the Israelis to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. I doubt Obama would. I doubt Senator Clinton would, either.
If McCain suffers from memory problems as the intensity of the campaign grows (can’t remember things; acts confused), his age WILL be a negative factor for the Republicans. I’d bet if his memory lapses become significant, and common, the GOP would replace him in midstream.
If Obama’s Pakistan trip, and other issues, cut into his momentum, the Democrats could, wisely, substitute Senator Clinton for him. That would be a very good choice, since she is by far, the most gifted and experienced of the candidates.
Whether Pakistan will see greater democracy with a new American President, I do not know. I would hope so. Pakistani-British men have surely become active in terror assaults against the U.K. This has hurt the image of Pakistan. But we know so little about Pakistani internal politics and cultural issues. Americans are simply too self-centered to really learn much about Pakistan, and really, the rest of the world.
I personally would hope that whoever is the next American President, they urge Pakistani leaders to institute democratic reforms long needed to lift up millions of Pakistanis who have such hopes for a better life. As Sana has said, it is up to Pakistanis to solve their own problems, but we can surely support greater democratic reforms as the vehicle for such changes.
3 John Maszka // Jul 19, 2008 at 8:01 pm
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.
These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.
Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.
Over the years of America’s on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia … etc., etc., etc.,
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.
I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn’t very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?
4 Zen // Jul 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I have read some interesting comments here. I would like to suggest that if Obama is reckless enough, as President that he would actually direct troops into the border regions of Afghanistan-Pakitsan, he will risk a third war with Islam. I fear that as much as he rejects any connection between himself and Islam, he will, in effect, have to “prove” such a connection BY bombing Pakistani terrirtory, or, even worse, sending Americans into Pakistan in “hot–pursuit” of Taliban and/or al-Qaeda forces.
The combination of an al-Qaeda and Taliban attack on a remote outpost of Americans recently along the border regions, was apparently such a success that the Americans have withdrawn from that remote post. At first, I suspected that was a Special Forces post. Based on the type casualties of the killed in action, I’d say it was a remote post for a regular Army unit. That the attack was so well coordinated and engineered suggests it had been practiced somewhere else — and I believe the Americans, who have tactical and strategic overhead surveillance, believe the practice site was in Pakistan.
As Pakistan has “the bomb,” attack Pakistan would be very dangerous, but Obama is a phony, and a manipulator. I cannot believe that Pakistani ISI has not learned the details of Obama’s 1981 trip to Pakistan. Perhaps he has “held back” from disclosing or leaking details to it’s press. But the Pakistani ISI, reputed to be highly efficient, undoubtedly knows why Obama went to Pakistan in 1981; who he met; where, precisely, he visited (including supposedly a Pakistan to Hyderabad, India side trip), and whether any of those personalities THEN have become al-Qaeda personalities NOW. It is stunning that the Pakistani press hasn’t unlocked the secrets of that trip, but so far, no details of any note have emerged for months.
Obama was surely there for some reason related to Islam. Perhaps he wanted to study Islam more in Pakistan; learn more about Islam; delve into special study with a specific Islamic cleric or school; or, perhaps he was on a “mission” for his mother. Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetero was undoubtedly a “non-official cover” agent for the CIA. She may have actually sent her son there to learn more about the emerging mujahadeen movement in Pakistan then. Who knows?
But, Pakistan then and now are different entities. Pakistan has to chart it’s own course, and not be a lackey of the United States. In reading about the 1981 trip to Pakistan by Obama, I’ve been stunned at how much of Pakistan’s press is focused on how Pakistan is seen by the U.S., and how Pakistani are rightfully frustrated that if the Pakistani government sees it’s shadow, it believes the Americans are somehow behind the image. And, it would appear, Pakistan has a right to wonder: what would America think if WE were them, and they were Pakistan? Would the average American being angry that so much of the geopolitical posture was dominated by another country?
Musharraf’s comments about the Americans abandoning him and Pakistan eventually is correct. America will not stay involved with Asian or Southwest Asia nations for very long. They do not have the attention span, as a people, to stay connected with non-white nations as they have with Western Europe, following WW II. I don’t believe the U.S. population wants to have troops in Afghanistan say, twenty years from now, as we did with troops in Europe following WW II. For that reason, long term alliances and understanding of each other doesn’t seem possible. If the U.S. stood by it’s principles, they would have caused Musharraf to be thrown from office by now. And, supported a replacement more visibly.
I fear that if Obama is elected, he will have to “prove himself” to the Muslim world. He will do something to provoke Pakistani so far as the border strongholds of the Taliban and al-Qaeda are concerned. He will have to show, in other words, that he is tough. While I do not support either American candidate, I think John McCain would have less personally to prove in terms of some precipitous and reckless attacks on Pakistani soil.
He, as a former professiional naval aviator, knows that our armed forces are strapped, and that starting a new war with Islam, against Pakistanis, would be foolish.
I for one, hope that American withdraws soon from Iraq, and finds ways to work with both Iran and Pakistan which will not precipitate a new, third, or even fourth war with Islam. We need to mind our own business.
Finally, Pakisanis, it seems to me, would want to know the details of that 1981 trip to Pakistan, when Obama was a 20-year old man. I think the details of that trip, if splattered across the world media, would put Obama in an awkward position. He would have to explain any connections as a young man, to Islam, and that would only be good for everyone. I do not personally care if he wanted to be a Muslim then. That is fine. His refusal to allow his Pakistani and Indian friends the right to discuss the details implies a hidden secret he does not want divulged.
We need to know the details, so that Americans can see he is swaggering when it comes to reckless talk about attacking al-Qaeda IN Pakistan. We need to neutralize that swagger. We need to understand the full dimensions of Obama’s connection to Islam. Then, and only then, can Americans know what the man really is “about.” And so can Pakistanis. Perhaps, by pulling back the cloak of secrecy, we can all learn more about ourselves and each other.
Leave a Comment