U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan

[karan.1970]

---

---

U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan - Council on Foreign Relations

Overview
Ahead of President Obama’s December review of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)-sponsored Independent Task Force report on U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan finds that the current approach to the region is at a critical point. “We are mindful of the real threat we face. But we are also aware of the costs of the present strategy. We cannot accept these costs unless the strategy begins to show signs of progress,” says the Task Force.

While the Task Force offers a qualified endorsement of the current U.S. effort in Afghanistan, including plans to begin a conditions-based military drawdown in July 2011, the Obama administration’s upcoming December 2010 review should be “a clear-eyed assessment of whether there is sufficient overall progress to conclude that the strategy is working.” If not, the report argues that “a more significant drawdown to a narrower military mission would be warranted.”

The Task Force, chaired by former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage and former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger, and directed by CFR Senior Fellow Daniel S. Markey, notes that nine years into the Afghan war, the outcome of the struggles in the region are still uncertain and the stakes are high. “What happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan matters to Americans,” affirms the report. It warns that “militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose a direct threat to the United States and its allies. They jeopardize the stability of Pakistan, a nuclear power that lives in an uneasy peace with its rival, India.”

The Task Force supports the U.S. investment in a long-term partnership with Pakistan, but underscores that it is only sustainable if Pakistan takes action against all terrorist organizations based on its soil. Concrete Pakistani actions against terror groups “are the bedrock requirements for U.S. partnership and assistance over the long run.” In Pakistan, “the United States aims to degrade and defeat the terrorist groups that threaten U.S. interests from its territory and to prevent turmoil that would imperil the Pakistani state and risk the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program.”

The Task Force notes that these goals are best achieved through partnership with a stable Pakistani state, but that “the challenge of fighting regional terrorist networks is compounded by the fact that Pakistan draws distinctions between such groups.” Flood-ravaged Pakistan also faces “enormous new stresses on the state—already challenged by political, economic, and security problems—increasing disaffection among its people, and weakening its ability to fight extremists in its territory.”

In Afghanistan, “the United States seeks to prevent the country from becoming a base for terrorist groups that target the United States and its allies and to diminish the potential that Afghanistan reverts to civil war, which would destabilize the region.” Afghanistan faces the challenges of “pervasive corruption that breeds the insurgency; weak governance that creates a vacuum; Taliban resilience that feeds an atmosphere of intimidation; and an erratic leader whose agenda may not be the same as that of the United States.”

The report’s recommendations include:

Pakistan

“To further enhance Pakistan’s stability, the United States should maintain current levels of economic and technical assistance to help military and civilian leaders reconstruct and establish control over areas hard-hit by the flood, including those contested by militant forces.” The Task Force recommends “continued and expanded training, equipment, and facilities for police, paramilitaries, and the army.”
“To reinforce U.S.-Pakistan ties and contribute to Pakistan’s economic stability in the aftermath of an overwhelming natural disaster, the Obama administration should prioritize—and the Congress should enact—an agreement that would grant preferential market access to Pakistani textiles.”
“As it cultivates a closer partnership with Islamabad…the United States still needs to seek a shift in Pakistani strategic calculations about the use of militancy as a foreign policy tool. Washington should continue to make clear to Islamabad that at a basic level, U.S. partnership and assistance depend upon action against LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba], the Afghan Taliban, especially the Haqqani network, and related international terror groups.”
Afghanistan

“In Afghanistan, core American security aims can best be achieved at a lower cost if the United States manages to shift a greater burden to Afghan partners,” explains the Task Force. “The United States should encourage an initiative with three complementary elements: political reform, national reconciliation, and regional diplomacy.”
“Political reforms should aim to grant a greater voice to a broader range of Afghan interests,” states the Task Force. “Rather than leaving the reconciliation process to [Afghan] President Karzai and his narrow support base, Washington should participate fully in guiding a broad-based, inclusive process, bearing in mind that a rapid breakthrough at the negotiating table is unlikely. Afghan reform and reconciliation should then be supported by a regional diplomatic accord brokered by the United States.”
“To foster Afghanistan’s viability as a security partner, the United States must continue to build cost-effective Afghan security forces appropriate to the capabilities necessary to protect the population. This will require more army and police trainers, as well as an expansion of community-based stabilization forces.”
“Afghanistan needs a self-sustaining foundation for generating jobs and revenue that will reduce dependence on international assistance. To meet this need, the United States should encourage private sector investment in Afghanistan’s considerable mineral and energy resources, its agricultural sector, and in the infrastructure needed to expand trans-Afghan trade.”
The bipartisan Task Force includes almost two dozen distinguished experts on Pakistan and Afghanistan who represent a range of perspectives and backgrounds. The report concludes: “For now, the United States should assume the lead, with the goal of encouraging and enabling its Pakistani and Afghan partners to build a more secure future. Yet even the United States cannot afford to continue down this costly path unless the potential for enduring progress remains in sight. After nine years of U.S. war in the region, time and patience are understandably short.”

[muse]

US relations towards Pakistan not only continue to be marked by deceit, deception and duplicity, but even the future relations, according to the think tank CFR, should maintain those foundations:

“the challenge of fighting regional terrorist networks is compounded by the fact that Pakistan draws distinctions between such groups.

Wait, is this the same US which backs negotiations with Mullah Brader and his Quetta Shura, but not with the Haqqani?? What, making distinctions among terrorists??

Deceit, Deception and Duplicity.

In Pakistan, “the United States aims to degrade and defeat the terrorist groups that threaten U.S. interests from its territory and to prevent turmoil that would imperil the Pakistani state and risk the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program.”

This, then is what the US claims is the substance of US policy - Kill those who oppose our interests or we will kill your nuclear program -- and blow the Pakistani house down??

Again, US Deceit, US Deception and US Duplicity - While the US claims the nature of the relationship is confined to the issue of terrorism, reality is that the US is actively engaged with her regional ally to destabilize Pakistan and to shape events such that Pakistani interests in Afghanistan are not just under continual threat but are degraded such that only hostility is to emanate from Afghanistan toward Pakistan, on the Eastern border the US has encouraged her regional strategic ally to not ease pressure and continue to maintain hundred of thousands of strike force elements on the ready, in Captive Kashmir, the US has increased pressure on Pakistan by ensuring that negotiations with regard to the final status of captive Kashmir not proceed and be held hostage to what it calls "terrorism".

All of this should raise the issue of just how relevant the US can be to Pakistan ? Friends, US policy's real aim is to ensure that Pakistan is "realigned" - the alignment US seeks is aimed against China, with Pakistan playing second fiddle to the US's strategic regional ally - Will Pakistan play, can it be made to play??

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

All of this should raise the issue of just how relevant the US can be to Pakistan ? Friends, US policy's real aim is to ensure that Pakistan is "realigned" - the alignment US seeks is aimed against China, with Pakistan playing second fiddle to the US's strategic regional ally - Will Pakistan play, can it be made to play??

With the current state of affairs the US is in no position to have that level of leverage to Realign the Pakistani Establishment against the Chinese.
Pakistan continues to be resilient to such US demands despite All the pressure Tactics and False Propaganda against Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal.

[muse]

I very much agree with you - I think US policy makes the US more and more irrelevant - shortly, you will see that the US will threaten military operations in Pakistan, or something to that effect - I am waiting for that and my reason is that these US policy makers no longer craft policy based on reality on the ground, you will note increasingly their policy options are creations of contingencies -- and you will note the trajectory of those contingencies.

While many here have repeatedly advised readers that Pakistan security forces should be oriented in a more general sense against particular capabilities our adversaries enjoy and not against a particular adversary - because the adversary we should be concerned about will confront Pakistan as a "coalition" - if you follow my meaning.

[Vassnti]

---

---

This, then is what the US claims is the substance of US policy - Kill those who oppose our interests or we will kill your nuclear program -- and blow the Pakistani house down??

In Pakistan, “the United States aims to degrade and defeat the terrorist groups that threaten U.S. interests from its territory and to prevent turmoil that would imperil the Pakistani state and risk the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program.”

Perhaps i am missing some thing but i just dont see how you draw the conclusion you did from the statement.

The US seeks to prevent turmoil in Pakistan, becomes we will blow your house down??