No laughing matter?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, April 13, 2009 - 3:20 PM Share

Was this funny or revealing, or both? In a Sunday article on the growing role of "civilian power" in U.S. foreign policy, Dexter Filkins of the New York Times describes the following exchange between special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, during a recent meeting with a group of Afghan religious leaders:

I've come to the region nine or ten times," Admiral Mullen told the clerics.

Mr. Holbrooke jumped in.

"And each time, things have gotten worse."

Filkins reports that Mullen, Holbrooke, and the clerics all had a good laugh. But does the joke contain a revealing insight as well? Over at Informed Comment, Juan Cole links to a Pakistani report that U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas have killed 687 Pakistani civilians over the past two years, but only 14 al Qaeda leaders. If this is correct (and by the way, I wouldn't assume that it is), it may help explain why the situation has been deteriorating despite renewed U.S. attention. (Even if one halved the number of civilians killed and doubled the number of al Qaeda leaders eliminated, it would still be a troubling report.)

Holbrooke and Mullen undoubtedly know more about the details in Central Asia than I do (at least, I sure hope they do) and so it's possible they will eventually devise a politico-military strategy that stabilizes the situation. But let’s not forget that Holbrooke is a committed "can-do" type who has never been shy about using American power, and if anything, his track record shows a tendency to underestimate difficulties. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, for example, even though he now says that leaving Afghanistan prematurely was an "historic mistake." And though his role in brokering the 1995 Dayton Accord cemented his reputation as a diplomatic trouble-shooter, he and the rest of the Clinton administration told us back then that U.S. peacekeeping forces would only be in Bosnia for one year. The actual number turned out to be nine, and Holbrooke recently admitted that the Bosnia remains a "powder keg."

Holbrooke has already stated that "victory, as defined in purely military terms, is not achievable" in Afghanistan, and the administration clearly believes that success there (defined as what, exactly?) requires a parallel success (again, defined how?) in Pakistan. But how do we do that? And to repeat: what's Plan B if 172 million Pakistanis prove to be even more intractable than the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, who together totaled fewer than 20 million?

AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CENTRAL ASIA, AFGHANISTAN, DISASTERS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN

(10)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BLUE13326

4:30 PM ET

April 13, 2009

One of your fellow bloggers

One of your fellow bloggers here, I forget which, had an interesting post about the danger of the schism in Obama's strategy: Domestically, this is not even any longer a war, but rather an overseas contingency operation, and we're closing Gitmo, slashing defense, and all that; but over there, in the Muslim world, there are US drones shooting missiles into sovereign (allied) countries, with the local media focusing on the civilians getting killed. We're giving Gitmo detainees access to our courts, even discussing releasing them into the US, but at the same time we're executing people that we only suspect may be planning to do bad things in Muslim countries, and killing innocents along the way who just happen to be in the wrong place.

This is likely going to result in a schism between our perceptions of what's going on and the perceptions of the people whom we're trying to win over. It's hard to see us coming to any kind of understanding in such an atmosphere.

KENNETH SORENSEN

9:44 AM ET

April 14, 2009

To understand Pakistan - First understand the tragedy of 1947

Then look at a map of the Indian subcontinent. You will see rich and fertile India being able to feed all of its 1,147,995,904 strong population, and 172 million Pakistanis crammed into the narrow Indus River [Please take a look at the satellite image of the small green valley on this page] valley, -- looking at India making inroads into Kashmir and the US befriendling India and occupying Afghanistan (considered by the Pashtuns as one and the same land as Pakistan, seperated by the artificial Durand Line, the worlds most porous border.)

All earthquakes befell the Pakistanis

And it is the Pakistanis/Afghans who are getting all the earthquakes, when the Indian Plate presses against the Eurasian Plate, - a procedure that have gone on for millions of years and forced the Himalaya and its small extension, the Hindu Kush- range, upwards. Satellite measurements have recorded a lift in the terrain around the epicenter since the Kashmir Earthquake in 2005 of 5 meters.

And India are virtually free of earthquakes; only the areas close to the Pakistani border have occasional earthquakes.

India tests nuclear weapons right up to Pakistans border

This border area (at Pokhran) was also where India detonated its first Nuclear device in 1974, prompting the Pakistanis to do the same in 1998 - in Baluchistan close the Helmand province in Afghanistan.

BRETT

11:12 AM ET

April 14, 2009

I'm not sure what point

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that no matter rain or shine, it's always raining on Pakistan?

That satellite picture sure looks cool, though. I had no idea that the rest of Pakistan was so bloody desolate.

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:38 AM ET

April 14, 2009

deleted by author

KENNETH SORENSEN

1:09 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Yeah, click on the image and

Yeah, click on the image and then make sure you view it in 'full resolution.' You could download it and use it as a background on your desktop.

Neither did I have any idea that the rest of Pakistan (and Afghanistan, whose northern border you can see too) was so desolate. And Brett, you and I know a thing or two. That means that probably 250 million Americans have no idea that Afghanistan and Pakistan are so desolate, with the exception of the Indus valley. The Indus actually runs through Indian Kashmir, something that furher complicates things.

I would say: give Kashmir and Afghanistan to Pakistan , that would be fair, considering how many Goodies India has. For sure Afghans would prefer Pakistani sovereignty to anything western, which they have opposed allways. Pakistan - or Pashtunistan or whatever this country is going to be called, would still have problems controlling all the different tribes, but it would be their problem, and perhaps they would have no want to.

See also

The Balochistan earthquake 1935

The Balochistan Earthquake 1945

The Balochistan Earthquake 2008

-or perhaps you may wish to click on the danish language version in the panel to the left marked 'Dansk'. Here you will see click-able maps made by me, which gives an overview of all the eathquakes and how they fit perfectly to the boundary of the plates.

WAFA

2:52 PM ET

April 14, 2009

give away what-is-not-yours?

Heheheh this is a joke, right?

Your suggestion is akin to rewarding the errant child for its bad behavior by punishing the child taking the brunt of the mischief of this errant child!

1) In the first place, how can anyone (esp. a non-Indian or a non-Afghani resp.) just give away Kashmir and Afghanistan to Pakistan? Why not give away a fertile piece of your own country to the 'poor' Pakistanis?

2) What goodies has India got in the first place that they should even think about such weird 'giving away' ideas? what little India has achieved is from unplanned chaos and hardwork. It sure has a long way to go in terms of improving its government, bureaucracy, people welfare, education etc. but it sure does not deserve this uninformed, ignorant and callous approach.

3) What has it got from Pakistan: hatred, Pakistan-initiated wars, terrorism? And yet India must forget all of this and give away Kashmir to reward such an 'exemplary' neighbor?

4) More about earthquakes in India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Earthquakes_in_India
Have you even heard about the ones in Latur and Bhuj in the recent past?

KENNETH SORENSEN

5:23 PM ET

April 14, 2009

Thank you for the link, Wafa

Thank you for the link. As this page about Earthquake hazard zoning of India shows, the most severe earthquakes in India (zone 4 and 5) happens in the North, as one would expect, with the exception of the two Maharasthra earthquakes, in 1967 and in 1993 and the inexplicable 1997 Jabalpur earthquake

WAFA

6:55 PM ET

April 14, 2009

As per this map, the North,

As per this map, the North, North-East and East parts of India are Zone 5 i.e. "highest risk zone that suffers earthquakes of intensity MSK IX or greater" - so, any claim like "India are virtually free of earthquakes" is not true!

Anyway what is the rationale behind 'giving away Kashmir and Afghanistan to Pakistan' idea (as a solution to it being earthquake prone or it having difficult terrain)?

Who is anybody to give them away in the first place? and in the second, must creation of non-stop militancy and terrorism, constant demolition of democracy, creating problems in Kashmir, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the name of religion, ever-continuation on foreign aid be rewarded with more and more?

And as far as "rich and fertile India being able to feed all of its 1,147,995,904 strong population, and 172 million Pakistanis crammed into the narrow Indus River", one must remember that India has the second highest population
density in the world - so cramming (if any) is in India. India is struggling and inshallah with deal with its many shortcomings successfully.

On the other hand, according to wikipedia, "Pakistan is a net food exporter, except in occasional years when its harvest is adversely affected by droughts. Pakistan exports rice, cotton, fish, fruits, and vegetables and imports vegetable oil, wheat, cotton, pulses and consumer foods. The country is Asia's largest camel market, second-largest apricot and ghee market and third-largest cotton, onion and milk market." Its economy has suffered in the past from decades of internal political disputes, a fast growing population and mixed levels of foreign investment. Is the ever-burgeoning US aid to Pakistan not enough of a carrot?

KENNETH SORENSEN

6:28 AM ET

April 16, 2009

What I meant to say

The reason that I emphazised the artificial state Pakistan's position on top of one of the worlds most unstable geological areas, and how they were hurdled together there 62 years ago (and I furthermore informed you that the majority lives in the narrow Indus-valley, so that the population density in reality are greater than apppears, if you just divide the surface-area of Pakistan with the number of people) was to give you a feeling of what it must feel like - on top of this - to have Americans shooting supersonic missiles down on their folks (in addition to occupying Afghanistan and befriendling India), whose guilt haven been proven before a court, and who haven't had a change to defend themselves. If it is correct that the overwhelming majority of the casualties are innocent, the people of The United States of America have a huge moral problem for apparently letting this go on, without any significant debate.

WAFA

12:29 PM ET

April 16, 2009

That sure makes more sense

That sure makes more sense but I still don't see how and why USA can 'give away' whole or a part of another country to assuage any of its real or imagined 'huge moral problem'!

It would be fabulous to not believe the biased media reports blindly, research, dig out the reality, debate and come up with a 'legitimate solution for all'.

On the other hand, an idea like 'giving away Afghanistan and Kashmir to Pakistan' because

- American drones are killing innumerable innocent people in Pakistan

- America is occupying Afghanistan and making some friendly gestures to India

- India's 'goodies' - huh? what goodies? do you mean the recent economic growth? It has been achieved (as I mentioned before) due to unplanned chaos (that is India) and sheer hardwork. 'Goodies' from USA, if any in this scenario, are the unquestioned and ever-increasing economic and military aid to Pakistan (for history and background http://www.usaid.gov/pk/mission/background/index.htm )

is irrational, ludicrous and guaranteed to generate larger problems in the already volatile area. I am pained by loss of lives, irrespective of nationality, religion, ethnicity and all, but making a larger blunder to correct a wrong is foolish and harmful.