3/27/09

After more than six years of strategic drift and lack of attention, the United States finally has a focused and comprehensive strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.  As President Obama explained today, “We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”  To achieve this goal the President has outlined a comprehensive approach and for the first time put the necessary resources behind the fight.  The strategy moves beyond the previous near-exclusive focus on military force and includes regional diplomacy, civilian assistance, training the Afghan army and police, helping build up the Afghan government at the national and local level, and making efforts to reconcile with the less extreme elements of the Taliban.  It also recognizes that Pakistan plays a critical role and thus the strategy supports helping the Pakistanis more effectively fight the insurgency on their side of the border, increasing development aid to the people of Pakistan, strengthening democratic government institutions in Pakistan and playing a positive role in defusing tensions between Pakistan and India.  After years with unclear objectives and little or no accountability in US policy to the region, and in response to concerns at home and abroad about just how difficult this challenge will be, Obama made clear that he recognizes the importance of benchmarks and the danger of strategic overreach. “Going forward,” he said, “we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.”  

The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is complicated and difficult.  There are no easy answers.  But the threats the region poses are real and American interests are high.  The President has laid out a focused and comprehensive strategy and signaled that he would provide the necessary resources.  It is a significant step in the right direction.

After more than six years of strategic drift in Afghanistan and misguided efforts in Pakistan, Obama outlines “clear, concise and attainable” objectives for US policy.  Today, Obama outlined the objectives of US policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan: “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”  Obama elaborated on the stakes involved, saying “al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”  “The Politico reported that "[t]he strategy starts with a clear, concise, attainable goal: disrupt, dismantle, and eventually destroy al Qaeda, its support structures, and safe havens," the official said. ‘To achieve this goal, for the first time the President will treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries but one challenge, and will engage both intensively at the highest levels.’”  By announcing the purpose behind America’s involvement in Afghanistan, the Obama administration will make a clear departure from “what officials called a directionless and under-resourced conflict inherited from the Bush administration,” said the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal added that “[t]he strategy will effectively focus U.S. efforts in Afghanistan on the narrow goal of defeating al Qaeda and its Taliban allies, a shift away from the Bush administration's broader nation-building efforts there.” [President Obama, 3/27/09. Politico, 3/27/09. Washington Post, 3/27/09. WSJ, 3/27/09]

For the first time, the U.S. will treat the dual challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a comprehensive strategy going beyond the military to incorporate all instruments of national power.  Obama detailed the components of this comprehensive approach in today’s speech: “To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”  Obama stressed the role of tools beyond military force:  “A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone.”  In Afghanistan, the military emphasis will be on thwarting al-Qaeda, but also transitioning authority to Afghans, so that they “eventually take the lead in securing their country.”  Obama also announced a “dramatic increase” in the US “civilian effort,” saying that “[t]o advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.”  Another aspect of the Administration’s strategy will be a strong focus on both internal and regional diplomacy, aimed at building international support for the Afghan state and facilitating reconciliation within Afghanistan.  According to the Wall Street Journal, “[t]he plan calls for expanded American diplomatic outreach inside and outside Afghanistan. U.S. officials will try to persuade moderate Taliban elements in Afghanistan to abandon violence and join the country's political process.”  And, as the New York Times observed, “[t]he new strategy is notable for the emphasis it places on Pakistan, which senior officials now see as critical to determining whether Afghanistan stabilizes or continues its downward spiral. The U.S. has given Pakistan more than $10 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S., mostly in military assistance. As part of its new strategy, the Obama administration plans to instead give Pakistan at least $1.5 billion in economic development aid in each of the next five years.”  [President Obama, 3/27/09. WSJ, 3/27/09. NY Times, 3/27/09]

The new plan contains bench marks enabling the U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani governments to measure success.  In stark contrast to past lack of accountability, Obama emphasized that, “Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.”  Politico writes that the plan “contain[s] benchmarks that give Obama a chance to review the strategy at regular intervals to decide whether it is working.”  And The New York Times adds “Although the administration is still developing the specific benchmarks for Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said they would be the most explicit demands ever presented to the governments in Kabul and Islamabad.” This system of bench marks allows the U.S. government to measure success and adjust the plan accordingly.  As Politico writes, “The president will embrace the notion of measuring progress. ‘We’re not going to pursue a policy indefinitely if it’s not working,’ an official said. ‘We need to be able to judge it.’”  Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin, “who was part of a bipartisan group that pressed Mr. Bush to set benchmarks for Iraq two years ago, embraced the idea of doing the same again for Afghanistan. ‘There is a determination to set some benchmarks for Afghanistan, and that will be incredibly important,’ Mr. Levin said. ‘We haven’t had them in Afghanistan.’” The benchmarks will also hold the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan accountable. As the Wall Street Journal writes, “The U.S. financial commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan will grow by billions of dollars per year under the plan. Aid will be tied for the first time to performance benchmarks, though administration officials declined to specify what they were or how they'd be measured.” [President Obama, 3/27/09. Politico, 3/27/09. Politico, 3/27/09. NY Times, 3/27/09. WSJ, 3/27/09]

What We’re Reading

President Obama announces a new Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy.

Mullah Mohammed Omar pursues a “determined effort to reclaim power” and Taliban of Pakistan and Afghanistan unite.

Suicide bomber hits a mosque in northwestern Pakistan, killing at least 48 people. In the same week, the Islamabad Marriott reopens after being hit last September by an attack killing 50.  

North Korea readies a long-range missile for launch in early-April. Japan moves missile interceptors to shoot down any debris that could fall on Japanese territory. The U.S. prepares by moving U.S. navy ships to the Sea of Japan.

Vice President Joe Biden travels to Chile for a summit with South American leaders.

A dam burst in Jakarta, killing more than 50 people.

Economic recession hits the entrepreneurial spirit of many Chinese, slowing the economy down from 9% last year to 6.8% growth in the fourth quarter.

Following controversy around the Beijing Olympics, the International Olympic Committee bans international torch relays.

World Trade Organization report warns against protectionism ahead of the G-20 summit.

Israel’s involvement is suspected in an airstrike against Sudan earlier this year, possibly as a signal to Iran supports of Hamas.

Syria’s Western and Arab neighbors begin to open avenues for diplomacy, possibly leading to the end of its international isolation.

Though the U.S. soon begins its withdrawal from Iraq, many American forces may stay behind in key Iraqi cities.

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton ends her two-day visit to Mexico.

Irish republican charged with the killing of two British soldiers.

The New Yorker discusses the differences in economic stimulus between the U.S. and Europe.

Commentary of the Day

David Brooks at the NY Times explores the phenomenon of optimism amongst the troops in Afghanistan.

The President of South Korea offers the lessons of how his country solved their banking crisis to the leaders of the G20 summit.

Sarah Chayes explains why the US should increase the number of US’ goals in Afghanistan, not decrease them, while the Economist discusses why President Obama needs to explain US’ sustained commitment to Afghanistan.

Shmuel Rosner at the New Republic explains how the Likud-Labor alliance will alter the future of Israeli politics.

Clive Stafford Smith explains the need for a public inquiry to uncover if UK government officials authorized torture.