Inside Pakistan

TW: Londonstani is a pseudonym for a reporter from the Abu Maqawama blog. His stories reflect the challenges we face in Pakistan. No doubt our use of targeted missile strikes inside Pakistan does not curry favor with many locals. Nor does our support of the Pakistani elites who are frequently corrupt (kind like many of our elites). On the other hand, Pakistan's comfort with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda means we are bound for a certain level of conflict. Oh the conundrums...

From Abu Muqawama blog:
"...Part of the reason for Londonstani's tour was to find out what the much-mentioned "real" Pakistanis think. In Londonstani's mind this phrase is used when people mean "poor, probably illiterate and unexposed to Western media, outlooks or views". There is a nagging feeling then that wealthy, literate (at least in English) and Western educated/travelled Pakistanis are then "unreal", however, that is another discussion.

What follows is a summary of many conversations had in Punjab, Pakistani Kashmir, NWFP and Sindh:

In very stark terms; the army has lost its traditional authority as the only neutral and relatively competent public institution. Previously, the army stepped in to separate warring tribes in FATA. Now the tribes gang up to take on the army. It's previous aura has gone.

The government is full of incompetent crooks, installed by the Americans, who are like rabbits in headlights when it comes to the country's many economic and political problems (not even counting security). While the country slides off a cliff, the ruling party guys line their pockets and wait for the last plane to Dubai/London. The government is not providing educational services, electricity, water, jobs or anything else. At the same time, for the average man or woman any interaction with the government is likely to be short and brutal or long and grindingly painful. This is true whether to you getting paperwork done or are stopped for a driving offence.

Outside the main cities, the army/police is not in control. Even in the towns where they have garrisons, they are boxed in. There's a definite sense that "ungoverned spaces" are expanding and government control is shrinking. On certain main roads in Punjab (let alone NWFP or Sindh) locals advise against driving at night in case of banditry.

In terms of perception of religious observance and its role in public life, there seems to be a shift towards the more severe and less tolerant. This doesn't necessarily translate always into practice, but more a shared understanding that more severe and more rigid must equal more righteous, and that those who are very severe (or even just look it) must be deferred to.

Now, where this gets scary is when you hear a conversation like:
Person 1: "The Taliban couldn't have blown up the market in Peshawar because a Muslim wouldn't do that."
Person 2: "No, the Americans did it. But you know, the market that got blown up catered for women. And you know it's haram for women to go out of the house."
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/11/pakistan-dispatch-state-nation.html

Wagah

TW: Wagah is the border town between India and Pakistan where their respective border guards face-off daily in a stylized kabuki of mutual aggression. Thankfully daily ritual is essentially for tourists although the mutual enmities at the national levels are most certainly not.

Maybe a Strategy Headed In the Right Direction

TW: Afghanistan and Pakistan are tough nuts, but perhaps Obama is moving towards a viable strategy. One, he is clearly integrating the two areas into the single overall challenge they represent given the almost seamless movement of Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other challengers across those artificial borders. Two, while he is sending a modest additional group of troops, the focus on training and the Afghan army is good. Most counter-insurgency experts would agree indigenous forces must be the ones to put down the insurgency rather than foreigners. The fewer western troops there the better. Three, de-emphasizing democracy in an area where democracy is the least of their worries is a good thing.

As for Pakistan I am skeptical that more $ is the answer. Will the Pakistanis change their core policies in return for a few billion $, I doubt it but for now I know of no better alternatives.

I disagree with the meme that Obama is "doubling-down". This is a measured response. Doubling-down to me would mean many tens of thousands of additional troops and more neo-con rhetoric about spreading democracy etc. As long as Obama focuses on building up indigenous Afghan forces, I will remain comfortable that he is taking the prudent path.

From NBC:
"...President Obama will announce that he’s sending an additional 4,000 military trainers and advisers to Afghanistan, on top of the 17,000 he’s already deployed there...the president's new strategy will focus on accelerating the training and doubling the size of Afghan security forces to take over the fighting. But this isn’t just about Afghanistan; today’s policies will also be about neighboring Pakistan...“Obama also would support legislation to triple economic aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year in exchange for that country cracking down on Taliban and terrorists hiding out along border… The goal is to weaken and ultimately destroy al-Qaeda’s havens and sanctuaries in Pakistan and prevent the terrorist group from returning across the border to Afghanistan, the officials said.” Some might see today’s announcement as a ramping of activity in Afghanistan, but is sending 4,000 trainers/advisers an acknowledgement of the opposite? Everything about this announcement today, in fact, has the feel of trying to minimize the military aspect of the conflict. To put it another way, this is a dramatic shift away from the philosophy some in the Bush administration pushed -- which was democracy for Afghanistan."

Pakistan the Challenge For Which No Answer Exists

From WaPo Interview with David Kilcullen*:
"Q: What is the real central front in the war on terror?
Ans: Pakistan. Hands down. No doubt.

Q: Why?
Ans: Pakistan is 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the U.S. Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn't control. The Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don't follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state. We're now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems. . . . The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover -- that would dwarf everything we've seen in the war on terror today."

TW: Many allude to the instability and risk associated with Pakistan. As Kilcullen mentions, it is huge, nuclear-armed, and governed loosely. It is also riven by tribalism and generally consider India its primary enemy far more so than any other potential threat. So many fear a blow up with really interesting consequences. I really do not have any suggestions on this one. The only good news is that I do not think any countries would benefit from a blow-up so they are presumably not stirring the pot as is often the case (i.e. note India did not retaliate for Mumbai bombing, Iran hardly wants a Taliban Sunni group at the head of 175MM neighbors etc.).

*Kilcullen is an Aussie counter-insurgency expert who was heavily engaged in developing the US counter-insurgency effort known as the "surge".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031903038_pf.html