Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Taking it to the Taliban
I’ll be at a luncheon panel at The Century Foundation tomorrow, discussing Central Asia strategy with Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress and Francesc Vendrell, the former EU special representative in Afghanistan. As readers know, I’m something of a skeptic about our deepening involvement in this region, and I’m looking forward to an interesting discussion.
We’re getting lots of encouraging reports about the Pakistani army’s current offensive in the Swat Valley, and I hope the optimism is justified. But two features of the situation give me pause. First, the area has been pretty much off-limits to journalists, and we are therefore relying almost entirely on the Pakistani army's reporting of its own achievements. Needless to say, there is a long and rich history (and not just in Pakistan) of militaries exaggerating their achievements on the battlefield. And even if they have killed a fair number of Taliban fighters and forced the rest to flee, the real question is whether the gains will endure. Remember that it was an unnamed "senior Administration official" who warned at the outset "they'll displace the Taliban for awhile. But there will also be a lot of displaced persons and a lot of collateral damage. And then they won't be able to sustain those effects or extend the gains geographically."
That’s my second concern: does it make strategic sense to displace upwards of three million people in order to go after around four thousand Taliban, most of whom aren't "global terrorists" in the same way that al Qaeda is? The Pakistani army has reported only light losses thus far, which suggests they aren’t risking their own soldiers in careful counter-insurgency operations but are relying instead on firepower and other indiscriminate tactics (which helps explain why people are fleeing in such large numbers and could be why the region has been off-limits to reporters). If the operation has left a lot of destruction in its wake, as seems likely, will it make the government or the Taliban more popular in the long run? And given that we helped egg the Pakistani government into this, are we likely to get blamed for it down the road?
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
forced the rest to flee, the
Yes, Professor, you are right;-> Flee to where?! Under the Magic Carpet;->> Those guys Fleas made to flee;->>
I think Pakistani Shahs feeding you with BS reports to grant the aid you promised to fill their buckets;->>
Yeah, yeah Taliban is sittting duck waiting to be picked up in Swat Valley by slow moving AF-PAK regular armies;->>
If you move 2M people from their homes just for a few fleas, we have a saying for that;->
"Trying to burn the blanket to get rid of the fleas;->>"
In fact in this case the blanket is not even burned, it has been temporarily shifted to enother bed most probably with all its fleas and all;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Note: Professor, listen to this, you haven't mentioned this book in your list of IR books but have a look at it:
Quite an accurate prediction of SU/EUS dissolve of internationalism. Watch it Mate, it is just around the corner.
Of course we'll be blamed for it.
Thanks for this post. The U.S. will undoubtedly be blamed for failure in Pakistan, but at least we'll also enjoy some benefits if they succeed. This post made me realize I had some strong feelings on the subject; I linked to you at http://thehegemonist.com/2009/06/the-hegemonic-conspiracy.html
In the best case the USA
In the best case the USA would get most of the blame, but I'm afraid the pakistani government will get a big share.
So as this operation winds down the effect will be to shrink pakistan. Here's a big area where pakistan does not collect taxes or send police. One effect that will be useful to the war effort is that actual pakistanis won't consider it part of pakistan so they won't so much mind us bombing it or invading it. But I'm guessing the pakistani army won't be much help. They have a diverse population and they point to islam as their unifying factor. So now they're blowing up people's houses and killing people for being muslim.... They're heading for problems. Their best bet is probably to go back to focusing on defending against india. That's a big threat they can agree on.
What does this do about support for Taliban? It weakens support, because the poorer the people are the less support they can give. They were pretty poor before, and now they'll be poorer. A whole bunch of poor ignorant people will not be much threat so long as we stay out of rifle range from them. They aren't going to sneak into the USA and do sophisticated sabotage -- they don't have the money, they don't have the skills, and they don't speak english. If we want to we can spend a hundred billion dollars a year for the next 20 years to keep kicking their butts and there just isn't much they can do about it except pray and desperately try to hit back. They are no threat.
Of course out of millions of people there will be a few exceptional ones who might find ways to hurt us severely. That's just the risk you take when you spend 20 years and 2 trillion dollars kicking butt.
Algeria, Pakistan, Chabad, and American Jews
When I spoke with Joost Hilterman of the International Crisis Group a few years ago, he suggested that Algeria fabricated a lot of Islamist violence in order to justify suspending democracy and to increase aid from Western states that feared Islamism.
I have to wonder whether Pakistan is not to some extent trying to shake some money out of the US pocket so to speak.
Anyway, since the Afpak mess ties directly into the last century of Zionist aggression and the last 150 years of East European Jewish political violence, sabotage, assassination, and murder that preceded and paralleled Zionist criminality, dealing with Jewish Zionist aggression, whether ethnonational financial warfare against non-Jews as described in Forbes or the recent Zionist terrorist rampage in Gaza, is far more important for Americans than events in the Swat valley.
We cannot have a rational realist foreign policy unless we analyze Jewish extremism and fanaticism just as we might discuss Islamic extremism and fanaticism.
My blog entry Minnesota Chabad Rabbi Demands Destruction of Muslim Holy Sites underscores the level of insanity and radicalism among American Jews.
Keep in mind that former Harvard President Larry Summers, who has a major influence over US economic policy, has been very close to Chabad for years.
Realism demands that we look at the fanaticism and subversion of American Jews with eyes wide open just as we would treat any other group threatening the safety, well-being and constitutional rights of Americans.
a joke?
Yah, typical Ismaili nonsense. "Zionist extremism"?!
Are you saying the Temple Mount is yours?
After you stole it in the 8th century?
Give me a break.
As per Chabad, it has a history of anti-Zionism the likes of which would make your mouth water!
Zionist Extremism
I go into the subject of Chabad's effective Zionism in detail in the articles linked into the original comment.
Chabad effectively supports Zionism through anti-gentile arguments and not by means of standard Zionist logic.
You can have it anyway you want. We should really talk about Jewish racism, extremism and murderousness. Whether the underlying principles are Zionist, racist, or Marxist, the result is the same. Over the last 150 years Jews have managed to bring about the murder, ethnic cleansing and plunder of a tremendous number of people.
Right now, we Americans must look seriously at Jewish Zionist subversion of our politics before we can even have a rational discussion of foreign policy.
As for the rest of AlanGreen's comment, Zionists claim Palestine on the basis of the etymological relationship between the word Jew and Judea.
The idea is so extreme that it is psychotic.
Why shouldn't Irish Roman Catholics claim Rome by the same logic in order to invade and to genocide the native Romans?
There was no Roman exile. Take a look at No, Rivkele, The Jews Weren't Driven into Exile by the Romans from Jerry Haber.
Karin Friedemann discusses the same subject in her Khaleej Times op-ed Israel Steals Palestinian Heritage, History.
I am more of an expert on the subject than either of them, but it is irrelevant. All genuine experts on the subject agree as does Judaism, which has no concept of Galut Rom (Roman exile) outside of Chabad rantings.
Ethnic Ashkenazim are the descendants of Eastern European and Southern Russian/non-Levantine Southwest Asian populations that adopted some form of Judaism in late antiquity or the Medieval period.
2nd Temple Judaism differed radically Medieval Judaism and even more so from Modern Judaism.
Orthodox and Syrian Christianity are far closer to 2nd Temple Judaism as practiced by the Jerusalem elite than any form of modern Judaism while Islam is basically a minor evolution of the 2nd Temple Judaism of the ordinary people of Greco-Roman Judea.
To believe that any people have a claim to the Temple Mount or to historic Palestine besides the native Palestinian population, which is descended from the ancient Judean population, is totally insane by any reasonable standard.
We have a real problem with US ME foreign policy because Jewish Zionists have subverted the US government to back an ideology that is racist, anti-democratic, anti-human rights, and completely psychotic.
Practically by definition, foreign policy insanity cannot be realist, and foreign policy realists should be addressing this aspect of the current US approach to the ME.
While I will only have 10 minutes, at 18:30 today GMT (2:30 PM US/Eastern) I will take part in an Iranian PressTV news discussion of Obama's trip to ME and may address Zionist extremism and subversion if they turn out to be relevant to the session.
Hey if you can get on TV, why
Hey if you can get on TV, why couldn't I?!
Your take on Ashkenazim is about as informed as my take on Halal. I'd give you an award if it existed. "Non-Levantine" -
ok - at least we know who you are Siculo - you're an "Arab" christian from Lebanon who joined Hezbollah in licking Israel. Right.
You seem to know little about Galut Rom other than what a Neturei Kartist has fed you. I've actually read Salo Baron, and I bet you'd have less than ten minutes to do that - so you may want to consult your Kartist fellows.
The Temple Mount was occupied by Muslims, in the eight century - prior to that, it was ours - except there was no money to rebuild the temple - even with Byzantine good-will (as debatable as that is, in light of Constantines stipulations)! I don't see why we have to put up with some damned well converted into a Dome on our Holy Mount!?
Islam has no claim to the site - none - apart from 1200 years of occupation.
As per Galut - yah, it trully started only with Islam - up till then, there was still a sizable population of Jews in Jerusalem.
For once I agree with you -
For once I agree with you - it isn't clear we should be involved Central Asia - because it only leads to grander coalitions against us. Since we had no problems using the Norther Alliance, we should seek to build stability by drawing the Collective Security Treaty Organization into rebuilding Afghanistan instead of having the CSTO become the new Anti-NATO.
Unfortunately, we are not prepared to make such moves - as there seems to be some Cold War inertia in our Foreign Policy establishment, when it comes to Russia.
As for Pakistan - its a fabricated victory - conceived in a placeless PR room with the windows shut. Look for it to move off the radar afterwords, to total oblivion, while the Taleban rests in place, indistinct from all the other retrogrades that pass for Jihadis & Associattes.
Pakistan isn't stupid. It knows the US wont risk its skin going in all the way - so it will play the PR script.
Political Fundamentals
I agree with your concerns about Pakistani strategy.
How about thinking about this hypothesis: In a peasant based insurgency, the side that escalates the military activity is usually the side that is weakest politically and will lose the conflict.(I'll let someone else phrase that into a measurable form)
Military campaigns are usually a last resort or a smoke screen for not being able to penetrate local communities, recruit or maintain political control. When you think about it, a military campaign is often irrelevant to those political functions.
Also, many of the refugee families have close kin that have been drafted or recruited by the Taliban. Those families are loyal to their immediate family members and consequently loyal to the Taliban. If they stayed contained in their home areas, then the government would have a chance to penetrate those communities and try to create new alliances or patronage ties. But, since they have been dispersed all over the rest of Pakistan; now, the Taliban essentially has agents and contacts in places where they never before had access. That is a serious long term problem.
The Pakistani leadership and any U.S. intervening facilitators need to think seriously about the political organization fundamentals.
Bob Spencer
Pak strategy
The Pak govt. has perfected the art of doing just the minimum to assuage western concerns, and nothing more. What accounts for the fact that while Taliban foot soldiers are being killed, none of the top leaders have till now been apprehended? Given that the ISI has extensive contacts with the bearded fringe, one would expect them to have reliable intel to take out the leadership. Obama or not, the US looks like a babe in the woods as regards its South Asian policy. Take away the rhetoric that the US is seeking to do things differently, the US policy in that region looks similar to previous strategies.
Thinking about it, what you
Thinking about it, what you say is important.
In my comment, I was talking about penetration into the communities and recruiting the leaders' participation into the national system. But guess what? The ISI has already done that. At least, they have done it through the Taliban leadership and probably with others, as well.
I guess this means that some sort of coalition needs to think about recruiting away the ISI alliance base.
Thanks
Bob Spencer