6/25/09

While world attention has waned in recent weeks, the Afghanistan–Pakistan region’s decline has continued. Afghanistan has suffered a spike in violence, which could intensify as the summer continues and the August Presidential elections approach.  In Pakistan, an offensive by the Pakistani military has driven insurgents away from Islamabad, but had the unfortunate consequence of displacing millions of Pakistanis from their homes and into refugee camps.  Addressing these problems is a huge challenge for the U.S. – with many thoughtful analysts noting that our ability to turn the situation around may be severely limited – yet any effective American approach toward the region is dependent on changing the neglectful course pursued by the Bush administration and executing a fully-resourced, comprehensive strategy.  The Administration says it will focus on the primacy of civilian well-being and recognize the limits of military power.  In Afghanistan, President Obama has appointed General David McChrystal, who, in his first few days in command, has explicitly prioritized the Afghan people and said he would seek to aggressively reduce the number civilian casualties caused by Coalition airstrikes.  Across the border in Pakistan, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke has taken the lead in fashioning the U.S. response to the country’s serious humanitarian crisis.  Congress has taken up key roles as well.  Last week’s emergency supplemental authorized billions of dollars in refugee, diplomatic, and economic assistance for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  As bills with further assistance for Pakistan make their way through the House and Senate, progressives are considering key issues around oversight, conditionality, benchmarks and long-term strategy.  These questions are difficult and defy easy agreement.  Yet the debate that is underway offers hope because it returns three factors to the scene that were absent for too much of the last eight years:  comprehensive, well-resourced attention to the region; hard questions and meaningful oversight from people inside and outside the Administration; and an approach that goes beyond the application of military force to focus on the core interest of the region’s people – and of the United States.   

The Afghanistan – Pakistan region is in crisis, a result of years of steady deterioration and neglect.  Trends in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region are sloping downward, posing extraordinary challenges for the U.S.  Afghanistan faces an immediate security threat.  As noted in a recent New York Times editorial, “[i]n the first week of June, there were more than 400 attacks, a level not seen since late 2001,” and according to iCasulties.org, so far this year there have been 82 U.S. casualties as a result of the intensifying violence.  Worse, a recent poll by the International Republican Institute (IRI) found that only 30% of Afghans feel their country is headed in the right direction, down from 79% in 2004.  Meanwhile in Pakistan, a military offensive directed at insurgents threatening the country has displaced millions, creating what U.S. Special Representative Richard Holbrooke described as “a major, major crisis.”  Not only is this crisis a serious test of Pakistan’s civilian government, but according to the International Crisis Group, failing to resolve it could “reverse any gains on the battlefield and boost radical Islamist groups.”  Though weakened by the recent offensive, insurgents still remain a serious threat, as shown by the bombing of the Pearl Hotel in Peshawar earlier this month, “believed to have been carried out by the Taliban in retaliation for the military’s campaign,” according to the New York Times. But, in a sign that there are still many obstacles to gaining Pakistani support for action against extremists, a separate IRI survey found that though large majorities viewed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as a problem, only 10% viewed terrorism as the country’s most pressing challenge.  These downward trends are not recent.  Rather, they have been years in the making.  A CNN article from February cited a 31% increase in violence in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2008, and a 30% increase from 2008 to 2009.  And Pakistan has long faced a number of interlocking challenges, ranging from a weak civilian government to militants operating within its borders. [NY Times, 6/22/09. iCasualties.org, 6/25/09. IRI, 5/16/09. Richard Holbrooke, AFP, 6/10/09. ICG, 6/03/09. NY Times, 6/11/09. IRI, 5/11/09. CNN, 2/2/09. NSN Policy Paper on Pakistan]

Obama administration makes protecting the population a military priority, announces restrictions on airstrikes. Military force is not enough to bring stability and defeat the Taliban – the coalition must gain and maintain the support of the people. In Pakistan, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke has pointed to the centrality of the refugee crisis, stressing “in meetings with Pakistan's government, military, judiciary and political opposition leaders…that getting the refugees back home safely was as crucial, and perhaps even more immediately important, as the ongoing military offensive,” according to the Washington Post.  In Afghanistan, The administration recently appointed General Stanley A. McChrystal as NATO-ISAF commander.  He has demonstrated a keen awareness on the centrality of civilians and of the potential negative repercussions of overly ‘kinetic operations’ (an overemphasis on firepower and airpower) that result in significant civilian casualties. According to the New York Times, in response to growing anger from the Afghan people, particularly after a deadly bombing in Granai last month, McChrystal has placed restrictions on the use of American airstrikes.  And, in his guidance to troops under his command, McChrystal wrote that “[s]uccess will be defined by the Afghan people's freedom to choose their future.”  Additionally, this week McChrystal is set to further his review of military operations as he will “crisscross Afghanistan to meet provincial leaders, villagers and American and allied officials.” [Washington Post, 6/15/09. General McChrystal, 6/13/09. NY Times, 6/22/09]

Congress has responded to the Administration in a comprehensive fashion, marshalling attention and resources in order to reverse this troubling slide while raising key questions about benchmarks and oversight.  Congress has moved to authorize not just $225 million to address the immediate refugee crisis, but billions more in foreign assistance for both Pakistan and Afghanistan.  AFP reported that the final emergency supplemental bill contained “one billion dollars to foster economic development and democratic governance in Afghanistan and 433 million for US diplomatic operations and facilities there.” In addition, the bill included “707 million dollars for boosting agriculture and food security, assist displaced residents, boost democratic governance, and improve education,” in Pakistan, along with 900 million dollars to support diplomatic activities in the country, also according to AFP.  A Senate bill by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry and Ranking Member Senator Richard Lugar and a House version by House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Congressman Howard Berman would go far beyond the assistance offered in the supplemental.  Progressives in Congress have also opened a discussion of benchmarks and progress reports – critical to sustaining the support of Americans and to ensuring that past problems with inattention, corruption and mismanagement – also recognized by the Administration – are rectified. [The Daily Times, 6/20/09. AFP, 7/16/09. S. 962. H.R.1886]

Progressive action sharply contrasts with the Bush administration approach, which allowed the region to slip toward chaos while focusing narrowly on Iraq.  The Bush administration, far from acting comprehensively to address Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s interwoven challenges, allowed the problems to fester.  From the beginning, the Administration underestimated the required force levels necessary to secure Afghanistan.  According to the New York Times, “[t]he problems began in early 2002... when the United States and its allies failed to take advantage of a sweeping desire among Afghans for help from foreign countries. The Defense Department initially opposed a request by Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and Afghanistan's new leaders for a sizable peacekeeping force and deployed only 8,000 American troops, but purely in a combat role, officials said.”  Instead, President Bush diverted attention and resources to Iraq.  According to a Congressional Research Service report from 2008, while the war in Iraq received $608 billion over the past five years, Afghanistan received just $140 billion over Bush’s term in office.  Pakistan suffered similar neglect.  The Bush administration’s policy toward Pakistan was “built around one person – and that is Musharraf,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.  Reliance on Musharraf meant that the Bush administration never had a plan to address the region posing the greatest threat to the U.S.  A GAO report titled The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas found that, “The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan…” and that, “No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed.”  The result of this neglect has been a strengthening insurgency in Afghanistan and a growing terrorist presence along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies called “the greatest threat to the Homeland and U.S. interests abroad.”  [NY Times, 9/06/06. CRS, 2/08/08. GAO, 4/08. NIE, 7/07]

What We’re Reading

Ahmadinejad warned President Obama on Thursday to "avoid interfering" in Iranian affairs while his security forces arrested 70 academics overnight. Meanwhile, opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he holds those behind alleged "rigged" elections responsible for bloodshed during recent protests and called for future protests.

A powerful bomb killed more than 75 people Wednesday night at a market in Sadr City, Baghdad's main Shiite neighborhood. The recent spike in violence, which is expected to get worst, cast doubt on the readiness of Iraq's security forces as U.S. troops pull out of the capital and other cities.

Despite misgivings about his leadership, Hamid Karzai enjoys a commanding lead in the race for the presidency, to be decided in a nationwide election on Aug. 20.

French authorities have arrested two suspected members of the Basque militant separatist group Eta on the outskirts of Paris believed to be the leaders of the group’s intelligence operations.

The United States sent a shipment of weapons and ammunition to the government of Somalia, as the Obama administration attempts to thwart a takeover of the Horn of Africa nation by Islamist rebels with alleged ties to al-Qaeda.

Russia’s Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the acquittal of four men accused of involvement in the murder of the investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya and ordered a new trial.

Commentary of the Day

Suzanne Maloney argues engaging Iran remains the only path forward for Washington.

An editorial in the Guardian analyses the possibilities of progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict beginning with the closing of the settlements.

The NY Times calls on the U.S. to more heavily regulate the gun industry, as a study shows that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexican drug crimes can be traced back to legal and illegal gun dealers in the U.S.

In the Times on London, Ali Ansari  examines why Iran’s ruling regime is obsessed with Britain, asserting that “Ahmadinejad's Government has taken the paranoia to new heights and, in so doing, has done nothing in recent years to enhance its image among the vast majority of ordinary Iranians.”