US Calling Pakistan's Eight Year Bluff? Supporting a Coup?

Supposedly, the Americans are imposing a deadline on the Pakistan Army to do something about the Taliban take-over of their country. The Daily Telegraph Reports:

Gen Petraeus reportedly said that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the next course of action for the US.

"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and al-Qaeda extremists operating out of north-west Pakistan, the general added.

He made these assessments in talks with US congressmen and members of the Senate, according to the Fox News channel.

Officials said that Gen Petraeus and senior officials in the Obama administration believe that the Pakistani army, led by Gen Ashfaq Kayani, is "superior" to the civilian government.

Petraeus is a very credible voice in the US Army, and we'll what that means. By the sound of it, they appear to be supporting a Coup d’état from the Pakistani military. This makes for interesting intrigue.

I'm surprised they are using such candid words about the military being superior to the civilian government. Bringing supposed democracy to Afghanistan but supporting a military coup in the neighboring country looks hypocritical. (Or maybe this is the American version of a bluff.)

This has always been a problem the US will face in the region. They promote democracy, but what happens if the popular vote elect a fundamentalist, and terrorist supporting party, like they did with Hamas in Gaza? Or in the case of Pakistan a weak, ineffectual government that is not stopping a Taliban take-over of their country? It's a difficult question. Too difficult to make a hands on decision. Therefore, the answer is a hands off solution: Leave the region entirely. Send the tankers, protected by the navy to pick up the oil, and leave it at that.

Is withdrawing from the region so crazy and unthinkable? Compared to dealing with this irrational region, with its shape shifting allegiances? The US is draining its Treasury, and wasting time and effort trying to stabilize it. Unfortunately, it's ending up destabilizing themselves. Get. Out. Of. There.

Obama Toughing Out His Campaign Promise?

President Obama is seen as a messiah like figure, to lead the US out of darkness to the promise land. I haven't seen this kind of over-hype since U2 put out Rattle and Hum. However, maybe there is a chance that he can show good leadership?

During the campaign, Obama promised to start withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as soon as he took office. The generals, and many other in Washington seemed to believe that once he took power he'd realize how difficult this decision will be and would back down.

If this eye opening article from InterPress, republished in the Huffington Post, is credible, Obama is very serious about it. To the dismay of senior military officials. (read)

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16
months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

The HuffPo is a voluntary propaganda arm of Obama. Still, this looks very promising. But...

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.

If this is true, I'm not surprised in the least. As I mentioned a few days ago, there is going to be major resistance to them leaving. They'll say: "We can't leave the country in chaos!"; "Look what happened when we withdrew from Vietnam!" It's missing the point of the whole endeavor. If the country cannot stabilize by itself in seven years, there's not much use in spending another seven or seventy years and getting more troops killed and spending zillions of dollars.

Obama has a real opportunity but a small window. If he pulls this off it will be an astonishing accomplishment.

Petraeus Interviewed in Foreign Policy

The general has his orders, and he's paid to carry them out to the best of his abilities. However, reading this interview doesn't satisfy some of the basic questions. The Pakistan question for example:

Patraeus: ... Progress there will require a sustained, substantial commitment. That commitment needs to be extended to Pakistan as well, though Pakistan does have large, well-developed security institutions and its leaders are determined to employ their own forces in dealing with the significant extremist challenges that threaten their country.

Now that's a quick summary of things. Does he mean nation build Pakistan? Does he really trust that its security institutions and leaders are determined to deal with extremist challenges? That last statement is almost laughable.

And then the million dollar question:

DP: I didn’t say it could be. I said it would be. My assessment was that Afghanistan was going to be the longest campaign of the long war. And I think that assessment has been confirmed by events in Afghanistan in recent months.

FP: Just how long did you have in mind?

DP: Those are predictions one doesn’t hazard.

Let's see. Clear goals? No. Time frame: Won't hazard a guess. Exit Strategy: Nada. They should start working on these if they still expect support and funding for the campaign.