Impossible Pakistan Coming to Light

This time last year I didn't realize how bad the situation in Pakistan was. I had a vague idea that they were harboring terrorists like bin Laden, but didn't know it was a complete trainwreck. I came to realize that they are headquarters for Al Qaeda. They are headquarters for the Taliban. They fund and supply troops and arms against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. They harass, destroy and steal NATO supplies travelling through the country. Despite the US sending $2+ billion a year of military aid to Pakistan to help fight the insurgency, the Pakistani army does nothing at best, and openly aids the insurgency at worst.

So when I see "shocking" headlines like this in the New York Post, the pulse does not quicken too much. ISLAMIC LAW TO BE IMPOSED IN PARTS OF PAKISTAN

Officials gave no timetable as to when the new laws -- which will force women to cover their faces when they go out in public and allow for Muslim clerics to advise judges when hearing cases -- would go into effect.

The Taliban said they would observe a 10-day cease-fire in support of the peace process and welcomed the new move.

"Our whole struggle is for the enforcement of Shariah [Islamic] law," said Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan. "If this really brings us the implementation of Shariah, we will fully cooperate with it."

If anything, this is good because it brings the issue out in the open. This has been brewing since the Afghan intervention began in 2001. The Bush administration tried to gloss it over and not acknowledge real problems.

Funny enough, Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson writes: This didn’t happen during the Bush administration. Like this is some new thing that started less than a month ago when Obama took office. Some people are still in denial. Bush should have never made a deal with Pakistan in the first place.

UPDATE: Here's a naive - or disingenuous - report from Yahoo News

NATO warned Tuesday that Pakistan risked creating a safe haven for Islamist extremists after it struck a deal to impose Islamic law and suspend a military offensive in the former tourist haven of Swat.

Like this would be something new. Ever heard of a guy named Osama bin Laden? If alive, he's in Pakistan. So is the core of Al Qaeda. You would think they would mention that, but not a peep in the whole report.

US General Asks for More Troops, Helicopters for Afghanistan

The Globe and Mail reprint this wire piece from AP about how the Obama mission are going to make Afghanistan a priority and are expected to make a bigger push on the mission. (Read full article)

“Gen. McKiernan explained the current situation and talked about the incoming troops and the need for additional enablers...things like helicopters, engineers, military police, transportation assets,” said Colonel Greg Julian, a U.S. military spokesman.

“As we expand in the south, we will need those additional enablers to cover for the troops,” Col. Julian said.

The United States is sending up to 30,000 troops over to Afghanistan, some of whom will go to its volatile southern provinces, to combat a Taliban insurgency that has sent violence to record levels.

At the bottom of the article is this:

Mr. Biden's visit to Afghanistan follows his trip to neighbouring Pakistan, where aides said he met with President Asif Ali Zadari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Mr. Biden also discussed counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and the economy with Pakistan's interior adviser Rehman Malik and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are embroiled in a vicious Taliban-led insurgency, which has claimed thousands of lives.

I keep going on about this but the US and the media who report it are downplaying the Pakistan situation. It's like Vietnam. The Johnson Administration tried to contain the fight to Vietcong guerillas in the south but weren't going after the troop and supply line coming from the North down the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Cambodia and Laos, as if these two were operating in separate vaccuums. Fast forward to 2009 and they are saying, we can only fight the bad guys in Afghanistan, even though the headquarters and supply routes are operating safely from next door in Pakistan.

Doing something about Pakistan is difficult or maybe impossible. They are nuclear armed. But not doing anything means they cannot win. (As Herman Edwards would say: "You play to win the game.")

One could contend that the US are doing something about Pakistan. They are supplying the flimsy government, which barely controls the country with at least $2 billion a year in aid, in hopes that they'll clamp down on the Taliban, and Al Qaeda and cut off the supplies. They haven't done anything significant that way in eight years, the situation has gotten worse, so why do the gamble so much in hopes that they'll have some miraculous change of heart? Or maybe they do have a change of heart, but even with good intentions they admit that they cannot control the tribal areas where the terrorist groups operate. OK then, why are we bothering?

Joe Biden Given Dubious Award by Pakistani Government

Vice-President Elect Joe Biden was awarded the Hilal-i-Pakistan award today. You too can get the award to by pledging $15 billion of US taxpayer to their country. The details of the aid package make one shudder:

Biden, as a Senator, co-sponsored the Biden-Kerry-Lugar legislation for expanding socio-economic aid to Pakistan -- USD 15 billion over next five fiscal years besides advocating an additional USD 7.5 billion over the subsequent five years.

The bill calls for tripling non-military aid to Pakistan to 1.5 billion dollars annually during 2009-13 while making military aid conditional on certification that Pakistani security forces were working to prevent al-Qaida and its allies from operating in Pakistan or launching attacks into Afghanistan from its territory.

(My bolding) That's kind of important I would think! After almost eight years, and (my estimate) $15 billion dollars of aid money since 2001, Pakistan is a safe-haven and operations base for three terrorists groups, two of which are directly acting against US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. They are also disrupting, destroying and hijacking NATO supply convoys within Pakistan. How the hell does the increasingly debt laden US think another $15-$23 billion worth of aid is going to help? They're being played for fools. Is there any debate about this? (I had to find this in an Indian newspaper.)

View From the East: Pakistan Uses Terrorism as State Policy

India's news organ "The Hindu" takes note of secretive and duplicitous Pakistan. I find it refreshing that the news story makes no mention of NATO or the Afghanistan conflict in the west of Pakistan. (Refreshing in a sense that their focus is on themselves, and they don't worry about every single problem everybody else in the world has, like the US does.) The Indian PM himself came out publically denouncing them:

In his 30-minute speech, the Prime Minister referred to multi-dimensional challenges of different kinds of which the most serious threats were those posed by terrorism, Left wing extremism and insurgency in the Northeast.

"Extremism is primarily indigenous and home grown. Terrorism, on the other hand, is largely sponsored from outside the country, mainly Pakistan, which has utilised terrorism as an instrument of State policy," he said.

The Prime Minister said India's external policies have been dictated by a desire to have a supportive neighbourhood.

"Unfortunately, we cannot choose our neighbours, and some countries like Pakistan have in the past encouraged and given sanctuary to terrorist and other forces who are antagonistic to India," he said.

Dispatch From Pakistan

Vanessa M. Gezari visits Peshawar in Pakistan and reports on the bleak situation for Slate Magazine:

"I don't see this as a problem of the province, of the frontier, of Pakistan," Khan said. "I see it as a very, very serious international problem."
....

"I want the West to know what we are in and to sound a bell of warning, because I have been telling everyone that this is not going to stop here," Khan said. "It will grow into the rest of Pakistan if it's not stopped here."

The reporter visits the city markets where all kinds of looted NATO goods are for sale.

The attacks on NATO supply convoys have other consequences for Khan and his police. The containers aren't just being burned, Khan said; some are being raided by militants and thieves. In the markets of Peshawar, anyone can buy military uniforms, helmets, night-vision goggles, and high-tech weapon scopes, he said. He himself had bought 500 or 600 pairs of U.S. military boots, at $30 a pair, for use by his traffic police. (He had considered buying bulletproof vests, too, but they weren't the right grade for the weaponry his men faced.)

The US and NATO troops cannot properly fight the Afghan War with this overwhelming problem with its "ally" Pakistan. It's been a sore spot from the start and eight years later it has gotten worse not better. Short of invading outright, there isn't a real solution.

Things We Never Hear About: Tenuous Supply Line Through Pakistan to Afghanistan

Fighting a war in a land locked country like Afghanistan has many logistical hurdles. Right now the main route is through Pakistan and it's become more difficult to control. The Cato Institute has an article explaining the difficulty:

Militants operating in and around the Pakistani tribal region of Khyber Agency have repeatedly hijacked supply vehicles entering Afghanistan. Earlier this month, gunmen torched more than 160 vehicles near the Pakistani border city of Peshawar, the biggest assault yet on the vital military supply line. Last March, dozens of oil tankers were attacked in the tribal town of Landi Kotal. If the Pakistani supply routes are severed, Washington's options are not good.

Relying on providing enough supplies through the air using planes off of aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean is not realistic. That is true even with the current troop levels in Afghanistan, much less with the 20,000 to 30,000 additional forces earmarked for deployment in 2009.
....

For the time being, the U.S. and NATO will have to rely on Pakistan. America's foreign policy in the region remains hostage to events in that increasingly unstable country. Washington would be wise to take steps immediately to repair relations with either Tehran or Moscow if it wishes to have another feasible option for sustaining the Afghanistan mission.

It's sad irony that both NATO and the Taliban/Al Qaida are supplying their principles from Pakistan. The question arises again: What the hell do we do with Pakistan?