Recognizing A War Is Not The Same As Expanding One

10/29/2011

Recognizing A War Is Not The Same As Expanding One

This Maz Hussain post critiquing my Pakistan rant proceeds from an incorrect premise but still makes some good points. First:

In effect Ackerman recommends launching full scale war with Pakistan...

Nope. I argued that the U.S. should continue the drone war it's already waging while cutting off aid to Pakistan and realigning policy to favor India. The lattermost part of the proposal would probably be more damaging to Islamabad than keeping the drone war going. I do not mean to diminish the prospect of air strikes in denied air space, especially as U.S. strategy grows more hostile to Pakistan. But it's just not the case that I'm proposing about any military action the U.S. is not currently taking.

What's more, all Pakistan has to do to reverse this U.S. tilt is to stop helping insurgents kill Americans, something that Hussein doesn't address. At this point, Pakistan is simply telling the U.S. that it won't take meaningful action against the terrorist safe havens while enjoying our F-16s and billions in aid money. That is an unacceptable posture that the Obama administation unaccountably tolerates. If Pakistan is to change its behavior, some external pressure has to compel it to do so.

Hussain's broader point is a good one: that rather than confronting Pakistan, the U.S. ought to recognize that it's letting the Afghanistan war's tail wag its policy toward the Pakistan dog. He's right. Afghanistan strategy -- or the flailing series of measures that passes for one -- is determining U.S. actions in the whole region. And that has to stop. Indeed, reduce U.S. forces to what's necessary to ensure the Afghan security apparatus can survive and what's necessary to support a smaller, more focused drone war on the real irritant to U.S. security interests, the safe havens in tribal Pakistan.

Ah, except Hussain contradicts himself. He wants to see the U.S. end the Afghanistan war, admirably. But he locates the origins of Pakistan's complicity in terrorism in an odd place:

The U.S. is planning their exit strategy from Afghanistan, however Pakistan will never be able to “exit” from the region and as such has to live with whatever government is in power in Kabul and with whatever non-state actors are operating on its territory and beyond.

So what's the U.S. supposed to do? Continue the war and stay in the region to placate Pakistan? Or end the war that's supposed to be the big irritant to Pakistan, bring U.S. troops home from the region, and blithely accept continued Pakistani terrorism? The Pakistanis need to resolve this basic contradiction in their stated demands for themselves. They should not expect another dollar in U.S. aid -- including spare parts for the fighter jets their pilots fly -- until they do. And perhaps a frostier U.S. posture, perhaps, can sharpen the choices before Islamabad.

Posted at 11:38 AM in loooooooooong war | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Regarding the last point about Pakistan's tolerance of different groups operating under its purview, its interests are definitely served by having actors with regional ambitions but definitely not by those with global ambitions (ie. Al Qaeda). It doesn't help them to back groups which would bring the heat down on them by launching an attack on the U.S, but they're never going to war against the people that help them maintain their strategic depth in Afghanistan. I'm all for putting a chill on the extremely dysfunctional relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, big difference between that and escalating armed hostilities.

Posted by: MazMHussain | 10/29/2011 at 11:56 AM

I can't believe you're sticking to your guns on this idiocy still. Are you trying to get your old job at the New Republic back? Looking to get invited to some of Marty Peretz's wine and cheese parties again? Goddamnit Ackerman.

Look, cutting off aid while bombing a country while siding with its most hated foe *is* escalating the war in Pakistan and walking straight down the path to full-scale war. The 'aid' dollars are essentially a bribe that's being paid to the corrupt Pakistani government to make bombing the country not a Pak-American war. Stop feigning ignorance about this issue.

I understand you're trying to save face here, but you're embarrassing yourself. Hussain's article sticks a boot right up your ass and now you're trying to play the 'well what I actually meant was...' game. But it's silly and you know it's silly. Just admit that you've been shut down and move on.

Posted by: Naelok | 10/29/2011 at 01:06 PM

Uh, which is it, Naelok? Is the aid we give Pakistan a bribe for it's corrupt leaders, or is cutting off said aid an act of war, or escalating one?

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I'm also a bit tired of the argument that Pakistan supports these criminals because it has to live with whatever government takes power after the US leaves, as if either Quetta Shura or Haqqani would be inevitable without the support from the ISI that created them in the first place. Puh-lease.

Posted by: Bill | 10/29/2011 at 03:48 PM

Bombing = act of war against Pakistan.

Bribing the country to look the other way = Pakistan doesn't go to war after having their territory unilaterally bombed.

Not bribing the country to look the other way while still bombing it = War.

Is this clear? Incidentally, in case you're still having trouble with it, let me throw in this one for free:

Not bribing the country while not bombing it = no war.

Posted by: Naelok | 10/29/2011 at 11:06 PM

According to the IMF Pakistan has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 billion dollars on our wonderful war on terror. We claim to have given Pakistan 20 billion dollars in aid. I think most Pakistanis would be plenty happy and significantly richer and safer with the "no bribes and no bombs" option.

Posted by: empty | 10/30/2011 at 07:31 PM