Pakistan, not Afghanistan, the central threat
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama warned that Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be treated as the true “central front” in the war on Islamic extremism. As president, he has begun to translate that approach into action, announcing a slow withdrawal from Iraq while committing more troops and resources to Afghanistan.
But quietly, Obama has redefined and broadened the problem in a profound way. When he and others in his administration discuss the issue, they no longer describe the central front as Afghanistan; now, they tend to talk of Afghanistan and Pakistan, together, as a single problem.
“The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan,” Obama said last month in announcing a new policy in the region. “In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al-Qaida’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. … For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.”
The evolving recognition of Pakistan’s importance is also laid out starkly in a new “white paper” issued by the administration on policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Among other things, it stresses the importance of “disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan,” with the emphasis quite clearly on Pakistan. According to the report, “The core goal of the U.S. must be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Pakistan or Afghanistan.”
That language tells you a lot about the thinking of the president and his advisers and generals. Pakistan is no longer considered important just because of its impact on events on Afghanistan; Pakistan itself has become the central focus, with Afghanistan increasingly secondary. Two things have driven that reassessment:
— The stability of Pakistan itself is increasingly threatened. In testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. David Petraeus warned that “the Pakistani state faces a rising —indeed, an existential -— threat from Islamist extremists such as al-Qaida and other transnational terrorist organizations.” Pakistan’s elected civilian government is weak and divided, unable to act to protect itself or its people. It is ceding more and more territory — and more and more of its citizenry — to rule by the Taliban. As Obama described the threat, “al-Qaida and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.”
— Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal estimated roughly at 100 warheads. And while there is no immediate danger of Islamic militants gaining control of either the government or the warheads, the trend line is worrisome. If Pakistan falls, Petraeus warned Congress, it “would provide transnational terrorist groups and other extremist organizations an opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons and a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks.”
It is in Pakistan, in other words, that the nightmare scenario woven by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is most likely to play out. All the ingredients are there: nuclear weapons, a government so far lacking the means and will to defend itself, and a rising tide of Islamic extremism. In fact, the situation has deteriorated to such a degree that before Obama’s first term ends, it is conceivable U.S. troops may be fighting on the ground in Pakistan itself.
U.S. officials of course deny any such plan, as they should. “There is no intention for us to be conducting operations in there, certainly on the ground,” Petraeus said last week, “and there is every intention by the Pakistani military and their other forces to conduct those operations.”
Again, that language is revealing. It is no doubt true that at the moment, the U.S. has no intention of conducting ground operations in Pakistan. Doing so would mark a dangerous escalation of our commitment in that region. But the general’s choice of words leaves the door open should the situation change.
The most likely areas for such an intervention are the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. They are technically part of Pakistan, but the Pakistani government has no presence there. The conditions that might force such an intervention are purely speculative. On a smaller scale, hit-and-run operations against specific targets inside the tribal areas could be launched under the same ground rules already in effect for missile strikes. Those strikes — by some reports launched from within Pakistan itself — occur with private permission but public condemnation from the Pakistani government. Ground raids, rare in the past, are likely to increase in number and scale as the summer fighting season opens.
At some future point, it is even conceivable that a Pakistani government will feel so threatened by Islamic extremists that it requests more direct and extensive U.S. military assistance. In light of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, it would be hard for Obama or any other president to deny that request.
Furthermore, if for some reason the United States chose not to intervene while Pakistan’s government fell to extremists, others in the region — most notably India — would almost certainly feel compelled to act, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The “AfPak” policy laid out by the Obama administration is clearly designed against that calamity. It attempts to bolster the will of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and to give Pakistani forces the training and resources they need to do so. The U.S. government is also working with India to lower tensions with Pakistan, so the Pakistani military can feel free to concentrate on the extremist threat.
India’s restrained reaction to the terror attack on Mumbai — an attack clearly launched from Pakistan, with possible support from elements in the Pakistani government — was an important if temporary success in that effort. It also suggests that India very much shares U.S. apprehension about that trend line in its neighbor.
What makes the problem truly difficult is there’s no short-term or mid-term answer, no chance of anything we might call victory. For a variety of reasons, including a failure to commit enough resources or attention years ago, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become a condition that can at best be managed but maybe not cured.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
131 comments Add your comment
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
9:59 am
Jay:
Blaming Bush for Pakistan (as opposed to the terrorists) is really quite pathetic but I do agree with you on one thing …. EVIL (for the time being) can only be managed … not cured.
OFF TOPIC:
As we approach the Easter Season:
“It is good that Jesus was a carpenter, for he had to make a ladder that should reach from earth to heaven.”
Author unknown
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
10:26 am
The “AfPak” policy laid out by the Obama administration is clearly designed against that calamity. It attempts to bolster the will of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and to give Pakistani forces the training and resources they need to do so. The U.S. government is also working with India to lower tensions with Pakistan, so the Pakistani military can feel free to concentrate on the extremist threat.</i.
Oh, so now we get a synopsis of the exact same Bush policy that you libs whined about for 6 years, hahaha.
O’Bushie The Second.
Sarapathi Kumaran
April 4th, 2009
10:28 am
Many readers have felt that Jay Bookman should do his stories when his head is clear. But, this is impossible. Being a non-curable drug-addict it is almost rare that he ever writes without taking hard drugs like cocaine, heroine, pure opium, crack, and marijuana. This article was also written when he was dangerously ‘high’ with such a large dose. Its incoherence is the proof of our judgement.
Donovan
April 4th, 2009
10:39 am
Well now, let’s see…Jay and his buddies thought that Pappa Bush should have finished the job in Gulf I and brought down Hussein when we had the troops over there. Then, when W went in there in Gulf II it was “ill conceived and unwarranted”. Jay and the boys thought that the invasion had no exit strategy and it only promoted Islamic extremist recruitment. Now it is ok with Jay and the boys to ramp up troops in Afghanistan and play possible invader for Pakistan. It sounds like they are endorsing a bigger cowboy who also has no apparent exit strategy. Hmmm…could this new ideology about fighting evil be as simple as who backs who in their political philosophy? It’s ok for liberals who support a liberal Obama to wage war, but it is not ok for their conservative political opponents to wage war on evil. Oh…let’s not forget that Jay and the boys voiced their opposition to the war in Iraq at the expense of denegrating America and her Commander-in-Chief. Jay and the boys made sure that this country had no resolve in winning Iraq, but now wants to make a case whereby “we all” are needed in this new struggle against Islamic fascism.
SuperDave
April 4th, 2009
10:39 am
“non-curable drug addict”
Apparently it takes one to know one.
Have great weekend!!!
TnGelding
April 4th, 2009
10:43 am
When do the B-52s start rumbling down the runways?
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
10:45 am
Let’s say Bush had expanded the war in Afghanistan to include major troop involvement in Pakistan rather than go to Iraq. Would we be reading a Jay B story that told us how Obama would now have to deal with the looming threat of Iraq because Bush had been distracted with his Pakistan folly and taken his eye off the real hot spot?
I’d say the likelihood is about 99.999999% yes.
SuperDave
April 4th, 2009
10:46 am
Donovan 10:39
I think there is at least a slight difference between invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and where the terrorists had no presence, and concentrating on an area where OBL and the terrorists are actually operating. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama had promised to do during the campaign.
SuperDave
April 4th, 2009
10:48 am
RW 10:45
Pure speculation
Curious Observer
April 4th, 2009
10:52 am
The more likely scenario is another Pakistani army coup once the existing government grows so weak that it can no longer defend itself against the insurgents. In any case, India would never allow an insurgent government to be installed. We would see nuclear war between the countries first.
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
10:52 am
Sarapathi Kumaran
April 4th, 2009
10:28 am
Many readers have felt that Jay Bookman should do his stories when his head is clear. But, this is impossible. Being a non-curable drug-addict it is almost rare that he ever writes without taking hard drugs like cocaine, heroine, pure opium, crack, and marijuana. This article was also written when he was dangerously ‘high’ with such a large dose. Its incoherence is the proof of our judgement.
Jay,
Why don’t you expose the poster of that trash for what it really is. I cannot imagine any real person objecting.
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
10:53 am
SD 10:48,
What was your first clue, Sherlock?
Perhaps the beginning where it said Let’s say?
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
11:03 am
Let’s say Reagan never sent Rumsfeld over to shake hands with Saddam. Oh well. Just another in a long list of Republican failures.
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
11:06 am
Hahahaha, yeah, the “world” “loves” our little Special Olympian, sure thing-
Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan-Reuters
Smile for the camera, bozo.
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:09 am
Even the Guardian is making fun of our stuttering dunce.
The question that flummoxed the great orator
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
11:09 am
Let’s say Reagan never sent Rumsfeld over to shake hands with Saddam. Oh well. Just another in a long list of Republican failures.</i.
See Saddam shake hands. See Saddam receive gifts from the United States, not Chia Pets like you would get now, but instead he got honest to goodness American made heavy weapons. See Saddam point his new heavy weapons at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. See the Revolutionary Guard fly through the air in pieces. See Reagan smile. See Taxpayer fetch, fetch Taxpayer, fetch.
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
11:13 am
Dear RW,@10:45
You got that right! There’s little speculation about the way liberals think. Just say “Bush” and they are against it. Been going on now for over eight years. You’d think liberals would outgrow it at some point and act like adults.
No sign of it yet. Liberals are too busy gushing over Obama. They did not notice that he is getting no help in Afghanistan from NATO nations but ..oohohhhh…didn’t Michelle look so good in a little black dress? Better than Mrs. Sarkozy!! Anybody worrying about NATO? Afghanistan? Nawwwwwwww…
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:13 am
Paul,
If you should show up here -
RE: last night’s thread -
Yeah, DB definitely said American bands – so of course I had to leave ABBA out.
Did you mean “Twilight” as in Stephanie Myers?
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
11:15 am
Taxpayer:
Didn’t Roosevelt shake hands with Stalin (how many millions did he murder) ?
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:15 am
Curious Observer,
Good point. Yes, India has more at stake in this particular scenario than we do, and they’ve already suffered a recent terrorist attack due in part to the Pakistani’s loss of control over certain factions.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
11:19 am
To SuperDave (from yesterday):
SuperDave:
Excellent points you have made ……… but we differ a little.
Here are my thoughts ….
1) A federal district judge has just ruled these “combatants” in Afghanistan have full Constitutional rights. This is absurd of course on its face and even the Obama administration (for now) thinks so.
The point is, should an out of control Supreme Court eventually agree, I revert to my “fall back” position …….. #2
2) The terrorists are absolutely NOT criminals. They are involved in war! We treat this as a law enforcement function at our peril. They ARE “enemy combatants” and they choose not to wear a uniform because they are cowards. A simple visible “patch” worn 24/7 would suffice.
Therefore, the should be treated no better (and in my opinion worse) than a “soldier” caught out of uniform on the field of battle. The simple “Eisenhower” method will suffice.
Taxpayer
April 4th, 2009
11:22 am
See Andie continue with his expected displays of stupidity. See Andie welch, again.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:30 am
Dusty,
The only problem with your theory is that we base our opinions about Bush on things he actually did as opposed to your problem with Obama which is based on things you think he might do in the future, and the only person to bring up Michelle’s wardrobe so far has been you.
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
11:30 am
Let’s say certain bloggers weren’t lobotomy candidates…
Last night there was a “discussion” about the five ways a batter can reach first base. For you supposed baseball fans, there are actually eight:
1. Hit
2. Walk
3. Hit by Pitch
4. Fielder’s Choice
5. Reached on Error (includes MLB Official Rule 7.05 i)
6. Dropped Third Strike
7. Catcher’s Interference (hindering the batter while in the batter’s box)
8. Fielder’s Obstruction (hindering the batter while he is running to first base)
My bold baseball prediction for 2009 — the Texas Rangers will not win the World Series!
The current 4 week “rally” in the stock market is due to:
a) Sunspots, volcanoes and wobbles in the earth’s orbit
b) Mission Accomplished
c) Trickle Down Your Thigh economics
d) Jesus, Yahweh and Allah
e) Holes in the fossil record
If you answered f, you are correct…
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:32 am
RW,
Well considering that AQ wasn’t in Iraq until we went there, I say your speculative numbers are a bit off – sure anything could have happened, AQ goes where we go.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:34 am
RW,
And whose to say that we MIGHT have to be worrying about any of the other ME countries if we’d concentrated on Afghanistan back in the day.
fearless fosdick
April 4th, 2009
11:36 am
AmVet .. Actually the question was WITHOUT hitting the ball..So that would eliminate your #1,#4,#5!
Just saying
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:38 am
amvet
The discussion was reaching first base WITHOUT hitting the ball.
Bosch,
That’s the great thing about speculation.
/and there’s no freaking way there was no AQ in Iraq before we went there. Clinton knew it, Bush knew it, Richard Clarke knew it, and anybody with a drop of common sense knows they couldn’t have come in after we were there and established communication lines and a network of safe houses completely undetected and with no previous contact.
fearless fosdick
April 4th, 2009
11:39 am
Bosch on your recommendation I picked up a 12 pak of Yuengling traditional lager this morning while at Kroger….Your beer savy is on the line…I hope it is as good as you say!
mighty casey
April 4th, 2009
11:41 am
RW 10:48/11:38
Did you not know the rule on speculation?
Please, don’t confuse the Monday Morning Quarterbacks.
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:43 am
Good point, mc.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:47 am
RW,
That may be so, I certainly have to access to NSA or CIA intelligence, but I don’t think it was enough to justify a full scale invasion, and apparently it wasn’t much of a bother to any other nation in the world to help us – except for the Brits.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:50 am
fearless fosdick,
I hope I don’t disappoint, but I think it’s good – I think it’s also trendy, kind of like when Coors started being sold over on this part of the Mississippi. But it certainly has been very popular in my neck of the woods – Floyd’s having a hard time keeping it in stock.
And also thank rcs, he’s the one who brought it up last night!
But, in my opinion, any sunny Saturday with a cold six/twelve pack of good beer is an excellent day indeed! Enjoy it!!!
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:51 am
Bosch,
Haven’t we sufficiently beaten this dead horse over the last few years? We’re never going to agree and you certainly didn’t need classified information to listen to what the various players said in public statements going back into the 1990’s. Furthermore the invasion of Iraq was never based on going after AQ.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:52 am
RW,
The interesting player in this particular game will be India – and see how they react. They certainly have more at stake at this point in time. I mentioned earlier that they had suffered a terrorist attack directly related to what’s going on now, and that certainly doesn’t discount our horrible terrorist attack – but at this point in time, they are more at risk by simple geography as they always have been.
Do you know – I don’t, but does India have nukes?
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
11:53 am
I’m beginning to think the Refresh Gremlins were deliberately placed here to run us off. I’ve had all of them I can take for today.
Later y’all. Try not to waste this beautiful Saturday since global warming is getting ready to bring us April snow showers.
Bosch
April 4th, 2009
11:54 am
RW,
Yes, I think this horse has been beaten to death, and that’s cool with me to agree to disagree.
Again, do you know if India has nukes?
RW-(the original)
April 4th, 2009
12:01 pm
Bosch,
Yes India has nukes.
Later!
NRB
April 4th, 2009
12:11 pm
Jay, where’s your column detailing how the surge in Afghanistan won’t work, and that Obama should’nt be sending out poor minorities to die for oil in a white-man’s war? Huhhhhh?
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
12:14 pm
Sadly, some apparently will never, ever stop justifying and apologizing for BushCo’s Big Botched Adventure in Iraq.
The Republiconned – lied to and loving it…
NRB
April 4th, 2009
12:22 pm
Sadly, some apparently will never, ever stop whining about the Iraq war either. Even as President Whats-His-Name, a chickenhawk who never fought in a war, sends 20,000 troops to Afghanasta-Bananastand to die for oil. THE SURGE WON’T WORK! IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! NO JUSTICE NO PEACE! ETc.
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
12:29 pm
And some of the never-served, never-will will never stop cheerleading for the real chickenhawks and deadly f&ckups who have the blood of 4600+ American GIs on their hands.
Disgusting and gutless little people…
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
12:32 pm
Dear bosch,
Perhaps you don’t read the home page of AJC.com.
First..a large picture of Michelle plus a big discussion printup of her outfits, etc. etc. etc. and a yes or no selection for readers to “vote”.
Second…the Democratic budget of over three trillion dollars just passed in the Democratic-led Congress. It was Obama’s baby and he gets all the credit.
.
Corporal
April 4th, 2009
12:34 pm
AmVet:
And don’t forget the 58,000 ………………..
“If there was immorality in the war in Vietnam, it was that a democratic nation called her citizens to war, had them killed by the tens of thousands, and then, like a faithless lover, turned and scorned the survivors. Oh, perfidious nation!” David Donovan
Jesus
April 4th, 2009
12:36 pm
Impeach Obama now!
AmVet
April 4th, 2009
12:43 pm
Corporal, one of the many unanswerable mysteries to me regarding BushCo is how the “leaders” of this country could ignore the lessons of that clustrf&ck in such a shockingly short period of time.
And were absolutely thrilled to create a second one.
Along with the support of the fools who elected them in the first place.
An American tragedy and the neo-conned “faithful’ here still joyously shuck and grin for it…
Dusty
April 4th, 2009
12:56 pm
Oh dear, where is our hall & word monitor this morning? There is a brainwashed one amongst us who is calling Republicans all kinds of unpleasant names he cannot even spell out in full. Is that OK?
OH, I see. That ONE is not well and isn’t housebroken yet. Besides that, he is a liberal. OK……
Bud Wiser
April 4th, 2009
12:57 pm
It’s really Pakistan vs India here.
Border.
Disputed land.
Or, as an Indian flight attaendant once told me, “They eat cows, we don’t.”
NRB
April 4th, 2009
1:04 pm
The surge won’t work! Impeach Obama! No blood for oil!
I Report/ You Whine
April 4th, 2009
1:08 pm
Where’s bin Laden at, huh, huh?