Democracy and Society » Pakistan

Friends

Barak — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:38:10 +0000

All else equal, it’s harder to win a fight when the guy who can help you the most appears to want the other side to win.

Other

I am not sure I agree with Caroline Glick

Barak — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:23:32 +0000

Caroline Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, believes one problem with the war or terror is that the US has been insufficiently aggressive in fighting it. In particular, she would like the US to expand its efforts to countries such as Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Although she doesn’t directly call for US-led regime change in these countries, it seems to me that at a minimum she would like the US to do something to make these countries more unstable than they already are. After carefully considering her point of view, I have come to the conclusion that she is totally nuts. Let’s leave the merits of the policy aside (of which I think there are few) and look at the US record on regime change in the broader Middle East over the past decade. We have tried it in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the record is, to put it charitably, mixed at best.

Don’t get me wrong – I very pleased that Glick has such confidence in the US’s capacity to get other countries to govern as we wish they would through a policy of military aggression. The problem is that I find it really hard to believe that the world would be a safer place if the US provoked more instability in the Middle East. Perhaps in a future column Glick will outline why she thinks the US military would be more successful in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria than it has been in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Until that day comes, I hope that our joint chiefs of staff don’t read her work and think, “hmm…she’s got a point. Lemme run it by Obama.”

Other

Complicated Relationships in the War on Terror

Imara — Fri, 06 May 2011 03:30:23 +0000

To be blunt, the governments of the United States and Pakistan are far from kindred spirits. Our national relationship with Pakistan is largely strategic in nature and is at best a unity of mutual benefit. The Pakistani regime has been challenged throughout the war on terror by a need to balance its relationship with the United States with its own sovereignty and has suffered in the eyes of its people as a result. Thus it strikes as particularly amazing to see pundits who weeks ago bemoaned our government’s failure to support our authoritarian allies in the Middle East, now questioning Pakistan’s commitment to the war on terror in the wake of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

This strange policy of public antagonism seems illogical from just about any point of view- assuming we aren’t looking to broaden our current conflicts to include previous allies. The termination of the United States’ most wanted target is an achievement to be pleased with, and however crass some of the week’s celebrations may seem it’s hard to be too judgmental of a jubilant US populace. But parties at ground zero or outside the White House are much more understandable than “off the cuff” accusations of terrorist complicity from government officials.

It’s a relative rarity for me to agree with John Boehner on much of anything, but the current antagonism toward Pakistan’s government strikes me as genuinely mind-boggling. Of our varied allies in the war on terror, few have been as critical as Pakistan. In my ever increasing hopes that the recent death of a terrorist leader might lead to an eventual end to this costly pursuit the recent commentary of Leon Panetta certainly wasn’t reassuring.

Other

US Pakistan Relations & Operational vs. Strategic Success

Imara — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:51:55 +0000

A week or so I wrote a brief academic paper on our activities and aims in Afghanistan in response to literature on the subject by Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. In part, Simon and Stevenson’s writing focused on the successes of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or “drones” in our war on terror, and more specifically problems in Pakistan. Hinging upon the operational successes of drones in eliminating US targets, the authors spent some time discussing the legality of these tools of warfare and even at times the ethical implications of doing so. Yet the overall strategic viability of drones seems overlooked both by the authors and similar thinkers in our armed forces. Thus in light of recent protests over the continued use of drones to essentially assassinate militants on Pakistani soil, the subject seemed worth bringing up here.

One of the justifications for the use of drones in “targeted killing” lies in the reality that Pakistan is one of our core strategic allies in the region and that our continued military presence in Afghanistan rubs the people of Pakistan the wrong way. This argument is typically used to express why a counter-insurgency policy in Afghanistan might be counter-productive and why it might be in our best interests to withdraw our military interests from the region. In policy making, this issue of public opinion has grown much more noteworthy lately, particularly since General Stanley McChrystal’s less than politically appropriate statements of last year. It seems that many recognize this issue of public sentiment and the difficulty it poses in our efforts in Afghanistan and the broader war on terror, yet somehow the assumption has been made that the use of UAVs and targeted killing either doesn’t cause the same problem or isn’t quite as offensive to Pakistani popular opinion.

I would argue that the core of this problem lies in recognition of operational rather than strategic victories. The use of UAVs has certainly been successful operationally, with no cost of American lives and a high rate of successful elimination of al-Qaeda assets. However there is the broader issue of just what strategic end is ultimately being satisfied by the focus on targeted killing. Assuming that the purpose of these attacks is to eliminate important figures and thus destabilize enemy leadership; the question remains whether or not that is a worthwhile goal in light of the increased public discontent and radicalization that results. The question isn’t an easy one, but it is critical to answer in order to develop a consistent policy in the region. Ultimately there is quite a bit of difficulty in actually defining our goals in this conflict, let alone the wisest means to accomplish them. No matter how you slice it, the continued use of targeted killing via UAVs is putting the US, and consequently our allies in a very difficult spot politically.

Other

“Pakistan’s Media” Webcast

Imara — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 06:17:03 +0000

Once again a friend at USIP contacted me to inform me of an event being webcast by their Center of Innovation for Science, Technology & Peacebuilding. The event is to focus on Pakistan’s broadcast media and should be a quality opportunity to engage panelist and participants on issues of Pakistani society. Information on the event is listed below, enjoy!

Live Webcast and Online discussion: Pakistan’s Media: Dissecting its Coverage of Extremism, Terrorism and Pakistan-U.S. Relations

December 6, 2010, 2:30pm – 4:00pm EST

Location:
U.S. Institute of Peace
2nd floor
1200 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

Click Here to find a full list of speakers and more details about the event.

Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 2:30pm EDT on December 6, 2010 at www.usip.org/webcast.html. Online viewers will be able to engage panelists and each other through live chat and Twitter discussions (hashtag #usippak).

Predominantly state-run until a decade ago, Pakistan’s broadcast media has transformed into a largely independent and proactive presence in Pakistani society. Complementing this is the rich vernacular and English language print coverage that the country has possessed for years. Combined, the print and broadcast outlets have strengthened a significant element of Pakistan’s civil society as the media is now extremely vocal in covering international and national issues, heightening public awareness and critical understanding.

Perhaps most pertinent to understand from the U.S. perspective is the Pakistani media’s coverage of issues pertaining to extremism, the war in Afghanistan, and more broadly, the Pakistan-U.S. relationship. Often, there have been concerns raised by outside observers that Pakistani media outlets paint too negative a picture of the Pakistan-U.S. bilateral ties and that major Pakistani media outlets have not taken a strong enough stance against extremist outfits. Is this criticism true? What are the motivations and constraints which lead the Pakistani media to determine how they present issues? And what are the nuances and differences in messaging between broadcast and print, and vernacular and English language media?

This event, which will seek to answer these questions, is being co-sponsored by USIP’s Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention and USIP’s Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding.

Other

MENAPIA

Barak — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:59:43 +0000

I was writing about the broader Middle East tonight (i.e., the Middle East, North Africa, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) and my language was very unwieldy. The problem is that we don’t have any term that refers to these countries, despite their importance (singly and as a group) for US foreign policy. The Arab world doesn’t work as Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are not Arab countries. The Muslim world doesn’t work because lots of Muslims live outside these countries (think India, Indonesia, and Nigeria). The best I can think of is to use an acronym. Everyone knows MENA (Middle East and North Africa), so how about MENAPIA (Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan)? I like it because it rhymes. MENAPIA, MENAPIA!

Other

Contextualizing the flood

Barak — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:26:32 +0000

In a recent issue of Democracy and Society, MA in Democracy and Governance alum Jack Santucci made the astute observation that climate change is likely to cause severe governance and security challenges in some of the world’s weakest and most fragile states. The floods in Pakistan are a good example of his point.

Other

Apres le deluge

Barak — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:30:47 +0000

Ahmed Rashid argues that Pakistan’s natural disaster could lead to a major governance and security crisis.

Other

Suicide bomb rocks AfPak border

Barak — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:47:50 +0000

60+ dead; > 100 wounded

Other

Thinking before acting is a good idea

Barak — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:33:21 +0000

Readers of this blog know that I am not a fan of the war in Afghanistan. That being said, I am not on board with the increasing calls that we leave. It’s not that I think its a good idea to stay or a bad idea to leave. Rather, the answer is I don’t know what would happen and that’s a problem.

Leaving Afghanistan could lead to renewed civil war between the Pasthun (i.e., Taliban) and non-Pasthuns (an Afghan solution for certain, but likely a very bloody one). It could lead to greater meddling by other countries in the region, primarily India, Iran, and Pakistan. Either could be highly destabilizing and most certainly could have consequences for the US (e.g., increasing tension between India and Pakistan). If parts of this sound familiar, they should because some of this happened the last time the US hastily abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Perhaps the negative consequences of these scenarios don’t justify pouring more money into the country. I don’t know the answer to these questions and until we get some clarity on them, calls to leave Afghanistan strike me as irresponsible.

Other