TW: Pakistan as best I can tell has two governing bodies, the military and the civilian government of Zardari. Both are highly relevant. The military has been most reluctant to aggressively strike the Taliban. They have done so periodically and are doing so again presently. Perhaps this time will be more substantial and more permanent than previous efforts. This piece supports the notion that this time could be different in a positive way.
One of the reasons I believe the U.S. should escalate its presence in Afghanistan is to motivate and provide reassurance to the Pakistanis that their efforts within their border regions will backed by similarly aggressive and long-term actions by the U.S. and its allies. The Taliban are not necessarily popular in absolute terms merely somewhat popular in relative terms where security voids exist on both sides of the AfPak border. Coordinated Pakistani and allied efforts could in time crush the Taliban. Alternatively should the U.S. et al. back off in Afghanistan one could expect the Pakistanis to likewise back off leaving the Taliban with growing voids in which to expand.
From David Ignatius at WaPo:
"RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN Until a few months ago, Pakistani officials often used the term "miscreants" when they described the Taliban fighters operating from the western tribal areas. This moniker conveyed the sense that the Taliban was a nuisance -- a ragtag band of fanatics and gangsters who could be placated with peace deals -- rather than a mortal threat to the nation.
That state of denial appears to be over. This week's offensive against Taliban sanctuaries in South Waziristan is the latest sign that Pakistan has awakened to the seriousness of its domestic terrorism problem...
Popular anger against the Taliban has been building this year. Back in April, the country seemed dazed and politically paralyzed. But as the Islamic extremists broke out of the Swat Valley that month and moved closer to the capital, something changed. The army launched an aggressive campaign in Swat, the Taliban fighters were pushed back and the public cheered.
The Taliban countered with a recent wave of terrorist attacks, and a visitor sees more checkpoints and roadblocks now than a few weeks ago. People are edgy, but the suicide bombers haven't broken public support for the army's assault in Waziristan. Quite the opposite, judging from editorials in the country's sometimes strident newspapers.
"The politicians may be divided over other matters but are united over the need for a military operation against the terrorists," wrote the Daily Times. "If peace is to be restored in Pakistan, militancy has to be crushed," argued the Post. Dawn editorialized that "at the moment, the political will and public support is on the security forces' side."
...Abbas says that to win, the army must be seen as operating independently of the United States: "We told the Americans, stay away. Let us do it." To demonstrate that independence, the Pakistanis asked the United States to halt its highly effective Predator drone attacks over South Waziristan. "Public support is more important," explains one military official.
Pakistan has pledged action against the Taliban in the past, only to make peace agreements when the fighting got tough. It's too early to say whether the early resolve this time will carry through the harsh winter, as the army confronts the notoriously tough Mehsud tribesmen. In the tribal areas, "people are always on the winning side. They wait and see the outcome," says Abbas..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102102848.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
No comments:
Post a Comment