Vote totals:
Yes:
0%
No:
100%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: IS OBAMA RIGHT TO PROPOSE THE INVASION OF PAKISTAN TO HUNT DOWN THE TALIBAN?
IS OBAMA RIGHT TO PROPOSE THE INVASION OF PAKISTAN TO HUNT DOWN THE TALIBAN?
The shift towards official operations in Pakistan is a recognition of the regional scope of the threat
The Taliban are only the most visible Islamic militant movement in Central Asia and are certainly not just confined to Afghanistan. The multi-ethnic makeup of the Taliban forces, which contains hardened fighters from Chechnya as well as the remnants of the anti – Soviet mujahedeen, represents a microcosm of a struggle that stretches from the Caucusus’ to Xinjiang in China
Despite the recognition of the breadth of the threat, NATO’s approach to Pakistan is solely an extension of the state centric approach used in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s depth comes from the Central Asian Republics, Iran as well as Pakistan, but NATO have simply switched their focus to one state. Without a holistic approach that attempts to deal with Islamic militancy across the region, NATO cannot succeed. Operations in Pakistan can only be a step in the wrong direction.
IS OBAMA RIGHT TO PROPOSE THE INVASION OF PAKISTAN TO HUNT DOWN THE TALIBAN?
It might help against Al-Qaeda
The second aspect is the more elusive goal of eradicating al – Qaeda. Both Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al – Zawahiri are believed to be harboured by tribesmen in the Federally Administered tribal regions. Their capture or deaths would be a coup in the American and NATO war on terror. Their deaths would similarly demoralise the radical Islamist threat facing Western orientated regimes across the Middle East. Their capture is, of course, a big “if” but possibly one worth seeking given that it could mark a milestone in countering al – Qaeda across the globe.
IS OBAMA RIGHT TO PROPOSE THE INVASION OF PAKISTAN TO HUNT DOWN THE TALIBAN?
It isn’t getting at the real root of the problem.
Official intervention in Pakistan to stem support for the Taliban is a misdiagnosis of the problem faced by NATO in Afghanistan. While in the first years of the war the Taliban were hemmed back to the Hindu Kush mountain range straddling the Pakistan – Afghan border, the recent Taliban attack on French troops outside Kabul indicates the changed dynamic of the conflict. The Taliban’s reach now extends much further than the south of Afghanistan. The proposal to operate in Pakistan appears more an admission of failure; unable to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, NATO is opting to broaden the conflict in hope of victory. Vietnam offers an abject lesson in the failure of broadening a counter-insurgency. The bombing of North Vietnam and then Cambodia did nothing to undermine the Vietcong. In Afghanistan, America is faced with the same predominantly rural insurgency which is highly self-sufficient. An extension of operations into Pakistan is likely only to cause damage to Pakistan without undermining the Taliban.
IS OBAMA RIGHT TO PROPOSE THE INVASION OF PAKISTAN TO HUNT DOWN THE TALIBAN?
Pakistan is already unstable enough
When Britain formalised the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan it divided the Pashtun community on either side. This community now harbours both the Taliban and al – Qaeda in the Federally Administered Tribal regions in Pakistan and the south of Afghanistan. In an ideal world, the Pakistani government would deal with the Taliban in Pakistan and NATO in Afghanistan. Political turmoil in Pakistan has, however, made it manifestly clear that even the most pro – Western Pakistani administration cannot even extend its control over the Federally Administered Tribal areas. Therefore, in order to tackle the Taliban, NATO must deal with the whole Pashtun – occupied region itself. Otherwise NATO is left with an unwinnable insurgency that uses the border as both a shield to replenish itself as well as a staging – post for further attacks.
There is a failure of prioritisation in any proposal for operations in Pakistan. In the previous year Benazir Bhutto, a former Prime Minister, was assassinated and the Western-orientated President Musharraf was thrown out of office. The Pakistani population has already responded negatively to incursions into Pakistan and any official sanction of intervention will put greater pressure on the Pakistani government. Pakistan, moreover, is a country with 190 million people, nuclear weapons and a simmering dispute with India over Kashmir. Any action that might destabilise Pakistan must pose the greater evil and so must be avoided at all costs. That is not to say that NATO should not co-operate with Pakistan. The Pakistani People’s Party has shown a willingness to counter the militants in the Federally Administered Tribal areas and NATO should support them. A solution provided by the Pakistani government is far better than unilateral action.
IS OBAMA RIGHT TO PROPOSE THE INVASION OF PAKISTAN TO HUNT DOWN THE TALIBAN?
It will make Obama seem similar to Bush, destroying goodwill shown toward him and undermine his claims of ‘change’.
Obama’s strength in world politics is his perceived distance from George Bush. Any unilateral, official action in Pakistan will be a reminder of the pre – emptive Bush doctrine. Obama may find that all of the goodwill quickly evaporates and he loses his main advantage. Obama’s multi-national background, intellect and sheer charisma are his most powerful weapons in foreign policy. Indeed as an icon he offers an alternative model for the youth across the world including the Middle East. Any attack will undermine the goodwill that has been unleashed across the globe.
