Reading Woodward in Karachi

Bob Woodward's books have an uncanny ability to create palpable nervousness in Washington. They almost always expose some government officials in a poor light. But though many figures in his latest, Obama's Wars, don't come off particularly well, there is one clear, overwhelming, and irreconcilable villain. It isn't a member of Barack Obama's administration, the Taliban, or even al Qaeda. In fact, it's not a person at all.

In the opening chapter, Woodward introduces his bad guy: "the immediate threat to the United States [comes] ... from Pakistan, an unstable country with a population of about 170 million, a 1,500 mile border with southern Afghanistan, and an arsenal of some 100 nuclear weapons." Never mind the Woodward effect in Washington; in Obama's Wars, the villain is an entire country.

What the sole footnote in Obama's Wars can tell us about Europe's growing fears of a terrorist attack.

By Simon Henderson

Relations between the United States and Pakistan have never been more fraught. Last month, NATO helicopters breached Pakistani airspace several times. In the first instance, they engaged a group of suspected terrorists, killing more than 30. On Sept. 30, in another breach of Pakistani territory and airspace, NATO gunships fired on Pakistani paramilitary troops from the Frontier Constabulary (FC). Three Pakistani soldiers were killed and another three were badly injured. No one even attempted to dismiss the incident as friendly fire. In response, Pakistan has shut down the main border crossing and supply route into Afghanistan at Torkham, and militants have attacked convoys bringing fuel to NATO forces. All this comes after the most intense month of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan since the campaign began.

Into this environment comes Woodward's account of the Obama administration's decision to embrace a surge strategy in Afghanistan, which also offers a pretty good window into what American power sees when it looks at Pakistan. Woodward's emphasis on the "Pak" in AfPak reflects a larger shift in emphasis in official Washington. Perhaps inadvertently, the book is also likely to confirm many of the darkest suspicions that ordinary Pakistanis have about their erstwhile American allies.

Before 9/11, Pakistan's hot and cold relationship with the United States was the object of obsession for three generations of Pakistani foreign-policy analysts, but there were hardly a dozen serious Pakistan scholars in the United States. The imbalance was for good reason. America was a massive ATM for corrupt and lazy Pakistani governments -- especially military dictatorships. Conversely, though Pakistan periodically offered an interesting and useful ally in the South Asia region, it was too cumbersome to trust as a long-term friend.

1234NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

ARYABHAT

5:30 AM ET

October 5, 2010

Respect the Blackmailer?

Wow! Mr Zaidi almost justifies and make us agree to Haqqani saying "Don't humiliate us publicaly, respect us" In that sentence he cleverly confuses us between Pakistanis with Pakistani state!

Unfortunately I fail to grasp how to respect a blackmailer ( in this case Pakistani state - its Army, ISI and political parties) that systematically robs me of my money, year after year, with all my sincere approach to help him get off his addiction of extremism!

And my efforts to ensure that this addicted blackmailer do not keep his gun (Nukes in this case) loaded causes more resentment to him and I am seen as a conspirator who is trying to steal family jewel?

So what am I supposed to do Mr Zaidi? Give him more guns? Or give him more money?

Some sensible folks may say rather take away his Gun? Or may be, if the addict seem to harm me, with or without his gun, beat him blue?

VODKA

2:29 PM ET

October 6, 2010

Haqqani

and who is haqqani and who has given him the right to even say a word?? respect of not Pakistan will be a pain in the rear for the rest of the world for the foreseeable future.
PS: Marty Martel get life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

9:48 AM ET

October 11, 2010

@ Vodka ????

Your post makes no sense.

Perhaps living "under influence" of your name?

Hussein Haqqani is Pak Ambassador to US and I did refer to the Para/Quote which related to him! If it didn't make sense to you, perhaps you need to revisit the site once your hangover is gone? :-)

CEOUNICOM

5:57 AM ET

Why does the article assume that 'respect' should come...

... without any respectable action by the party demanding it?

Meaning, what has Pakistan ever done to deserve the respect that is demanded?

The US was lied to constantly, and its objectives regularly undermined during the 80s, 90s, and to this day by the Pakistani military and political establishment. Funds offered were consistently diverted to ends that ultimately made problems we were trying to address worse.

Pakistan seems to want to have it's cake (US $$ and political support) and also throw it in the face of the host (consistently act against US interests at the same time). It is a textbook example of a state that is unable to follow through on its own diplomatic 'promises' because there is no consistent leadership and command and control over both the civilian and military leadership. Perhaps the argument here is that the US is supposed to understand that Pakistan is a quasi-functional state, and adjust accordingly, treating it like a demented cousin, and excuse its incompetence and instability as something endemic to its being. It may come as a surprise to Pakistanis, but Westerners aren't fond of this kind of relationship, which may explain the way things have evolved the way they have, with a sort of 'public friendship' and 'privately adversarial' attitude.

I wonder if its really a matter of an 'American conundrum in Pakistan', versus a 'Pakistani conundrum vis a vis America'. The piece presumes the partner that needs to adjust its existential attitude is the US versus themselves. Few here (and I assume the political and military establishment in the US is in line with broad public opinion) see things that way. All views of foreign policy are of course biased to their origin. Objectivity is perhaps a naive goal. But as an observer, I am generally led to conclude that it IS in fact Pakistan that is the current main source of our problems in Afghanistan.. and that Pakistan is unwilling or unable to help us in any sincere way. In either case, the fact that the back room conversations of politicians and strategists in Washington counters the public face we generally present is completely unsurprising. The fact that this confirms the intensely conspiracy-minded public opinion in Pakistan is probably not that important. Even when we have been straightforward and honestly generous and sincere with Pakistan, we have been back-bitten. It seems to matter little whether the US is either supportive or adversarial with Pakistan, as the country will continue to behave in its barely-functioning, paranoid, fractured state no matter what Western powers do. I assume this conclusion informs a lot of what the current policymakers decide, how they react to emerging events, and what they plan for the future.

I think a more interesting question would be, what do Pakistanis WANT from an international relationship with the US? And how do they think they could achieve it? Most of what I've seen in the past and currently is very one-sided, as this article seems to be: The US needs to comply with Pakistani demands, and not continue to demand things of Pakistan. This sort of unbalanced, non-quid-pro-quo, is doomed to ultimate stalemate; it doesn't work for very long, ever. Perhaps Pakistan has felt they've done more than their part, sending troops into FATA and Swat, etc, but I think most in the West see this as barely doing the minimum. I think the problem is a complete lack of understanding about the nature of each party's expectations... or each party's perceptions of the other. The US has spent 9 years and billions of dollars driving Al Qaeda leadership into North Waziristan... but there they remain untouched. It is perhaps unimportant or irrelevant information to the average Pakistani, but the galling reality that Pakistan hosts these people and cannot do anything about it is a extreme frustration for Americans. Until there is some evidence of some common interest in the complete eviction of these international jihadist elements from Pakistani soil, I do not think there will be any environment for a more harmonious relationship. The fact that this book will do nothing but reinforce deluded public perceptions of American intentions vis a vis Pakistan is regrettable, however, there seems to be a dearth of self-analysis in the Pakistani media (however 24/7 it is)... and perhaps the awareness that even its ostensible 'friends' aren't particularly 'friendly' may eventually convince at least some in positions of power to consider a more realistic view towards their future interests.

MARTY MARTEL

8:58 AM ET

Having recruited terrorist state of Pakistan to.....

Poor US! Having recruited Pakistan to fight terrorism that Pakistan itself created, US is now reaping the fruits of that folly.

Chickens are coming home to roost for US having ignored Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

This US folly started when Bush allowed Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.

As General McChrystal reported in his August, 2009 assessment to the President:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

But Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus have continued to justify Pakistani government’s (Pakistani Army as well as civilian government) terrorist connections by always evading to answer most fundamental question - why haven’t they ordered drone attacks on Mullah Omar’s QST in Baluchistan?

As Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks, “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“

With an ally like Pakistan, it is no wonder at all that US Afghan mission is facing disaster.

JAYDEE001

12:02 PM ET

Is this the nail in the coffin of the U.S.Pakistan relationship?

Perhaps that is to sincerly wish for. The fact is that various Pakistani governments, their military and intelligence services, have sustained and nurtured the Taliban on both sides of the border with Afghanistan. Pakistan has furthered its own agenda in Afghanistan, which is to create a state not alighned in any way with its arch-enemy, India. That remains its most important goal, and the US interest in destroying al Qaeda is of little significance to Pakistan. The only basis for continued "assistance" to the US is the fact that it is a way to blackmail us for more aid money.

Shame on us for decades of complicity with Pakistan in trying to install a government we can live with in Afghanistan. We have ignored how they aided and abetted, then sheltered the forces that plotted against us and brought us 9-11 and countles other attempted and actual terrorist actions.

The true value of Woodward's book (is it not a wonder that so many in the administration and the Pentagon actually spoke candidily with this guy?) is the exposure of the US government's deceit in starting a new front in the Afghan war by increasing invasion of the Pakistani tribal areas, without any effort to explain the justification for it and the probable consequences.

The war against al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts has been a fraud and a failure. The failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 2002 when he fled Afghanistan into Pakistan should have been acknowledged at the time. Everything that has come afterward has been a waste of personnel and wealth. Zaidi is right about one thing - the 'surge' has been a failure. It was very short-sighted for Obama to have agreed to it, especially after he knew how relationships really were with Pakistan. Of course, our history tells us that, whenever a specific tactic fails, the next step is to increase the application of it. So, we will continue to pursue this hopeless and ill-fated course.

NPEGASUS

3:42 PM ET

End? I doubt it

The US is known for keeping rogue nation states alive and kicking; especially when such regimes are located at a safe distance from its borders. US-Pakistan relations are no exception. Moreover, there is no one better in South Asia than Pakistan who understands how to manipulate American desperation and who knows how to extract the right price before the US makes irrevocable changes to its policies. To put it bluntly, the mistress, Pakistan, wants more attention and better gifts from her sugar daddy, the US. The US will give in and the bi-lateral affair will survive the new storm.

FREAK.DOM

5:08 PM ET

Recognizing Pakistani effort?

Zaidi, once you begin cracking down on the Haqqani network that is the time we will give your country its due recognition for its "assistance" in the fight against the Taliban.

AEHSAN

5:48 AM ET

And Pakistan should care why?

And not one of the posts replying to this balanced article can state why Pakistan should care about US success. Note it takes 2 to tango. Whats in it for Pakistan to support US victory in Afghanistan? Will you support a long term fight to build a stable Afghanistan? Will you support a civilian led Pakistan? Will you help guarantee Pak security? Will you help pull Pak out of poverty? Will you help bring long term peace to S. Asia? No and its not your responsibility either. So why should Pakistan get involved and work for a face saving US exit? And don’t make me laugh about US aid to date, its perfectly balanced out by what it cost us.

SAIF UR REHMAN

6:25 AM ET

US support is not Even half of Pakistani Sacrifices since 2001

Pakistan lost 50 billion dollars economically in War on Terror, some 150,000 troops still engaged in American War in Tribal areas and around it, almost 200 suicide atttacks on its Citizes, more than 20,000 civilian casualities, more than 3000 soldiers killed.......... a long list of sufferings.... !!!!! Has US itself suffered that much?

Does the US paid Pakistan this much? 1.5 billion a year and more than half of it is taken back by American NGO's and consultancy firms. A very little is tricked down to the effectees............

Unfortunatly Pakistani sacrifices are not heard in the drum peat of Anti Pakistan Propaganda by Indian and Zionest Lobbies.......

JORDANC

5:00 PM ET

Victims

While I'm not arguing that Pakistan and her people have suffered terribly, this notion that it's somehow all the United States' fault is absurd. The US certainly has contributed to your internal problems, but Pakistan has its self to blame just as much; the same way that a lot of the posters here blame Pakistan for the U.S.'s troubles in the region. Like Aehsan mentioned, "It takes two to tango."

Pakistan wanted an ally in Afghanistan, hence why it supported the muj and later, the Taliban. Yes, the U.S. back-handedly funded the muj's military campaign against the Soviets, but it was through ISI and Pakistan. Pakistan chose who to give the money to, and who to withhold it from. Pakistan has as much hand in creating the extremists as the United States does.

My point is - American and Pakistani actions contributed to the chaos they're both experiencing today. Let's not be ignorant or blind to our actions. Rather than choose the childish response of blaming others, take responsibility for what you both have reaped and realize your goals are shared (stability in the region, an economically sound Pakistan, safe nukes, peace between India and Pak) and work together toward them.

I'm so tired of everyone crying the victim card as a way to escape their own responsibility.

AXIS_MUNDI

4:39 PM ET

October 7, 2010

Pakistan should care for Pakistan for its own sake....

your statement speaks volumes about why your nation is in the mess it is.
we owe you nothing. one would have hoped that you would help us get rid of the twin frankensteins - taliban and al qaeda - for its own sake. in any case, pakistan was generoulsy compensated [2 billion dollars per annum since 01] for whatever services your state provided us.
i retired after 30 years of working with a major non-profit that specialized in economic development in south asia, and my sincere advice is : look east, not west, before it's too late.
indian companies are buying western businesses and pakistani "companies" are trying to blow up the west. in my opinion, if the indians can do it, so can you - while far from perfect, at least the indians are on the right trajectory and without any help from us.
also, please remember, you are not arab or persian or turkish, you guys are pakistanis; an overwhelming majority of your ancestors hailed from the indian subcontinent. notice, you have no oil; without oil, the entire arab peninsula would look more like yemen, not dubai...please remember that.
good luck.

8:00 PM ET

should I tell y Pakistan suffered than India................?

@Axis
Pakistan was much progressive than India in 60's. The Problem started in 80's, escalated in 90's and much aggravated in 2000's. It all was due to the faulty foreign policy of Pakistan to align itself with western block.

India benefited from both the adversaries of cold war by maintaining a neutral policy in 80's. But Pakistan, a much liberal and moderat society was infested with this virus by bringing jihadis from all over the world and using Islam as a tool in furthering foreign policy objectives by Pak, US and Allies.

When the allies abandoned Pakistan after achieving their goals in Afghanistan did they took along all this jihadi culture,the weapons , the mafia with them?

The wrath and destruction brought to Pakistan by these groups in collaboration with few international agencies/actors since 2001 is beyond repair.

But still we hope to revive, In presence of a vibrant media and an independent Judiciary we see a stable political system ahead. Then of course we will have an economic revival and improving security situation ( unless Pakistan do not opts to become a battle ground for proxy wars).......... Now Pakistani nation is making their voices heard, so no more any chance to a dictator to decide the fate of the country as per his desires..........

7:10 AM ET

Excellent Analysis .................. Mr Zaidi ..!!!!!

Very rightly brought out by the writer that Pakistani citizens donot have any ideological, cultural, or religious ferver in its anti US sentiments, but weary of double standards in policies of its allies of SEATO and CENTO in 50' s and 60' s, Cold War alliance against USSR and Non nato Ally status in War On Terror....

I see all the comments on this article and wonder how many Lobbies are working to destabilize and destroy Pakistan. The Pakistani Nation which has suffered so much to guarantee its security ....... will it give in the determination to preserve its integrity.....? No and Never.........

So, Its my humble advise to Those War monger, those Propagandists, those conspirators, those inside planners of 9/11 , those responsible for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, those purpetrators of barbarism in Kashmir and Palestine, to stop living in fools paradise........

Pakistan can only be occupied or destroyed if 170 million people of this country perish from the face of earth.......

5:07 PM ET

Dude...

This may come as a surprise to you, but not everything is a conspiracy.

The last thing the U.S. wants is a destabalized Pakistan. We want you to accept peace with India, instead of both of you sponsoring destabilizing terror campaigns against the other. We want the extremists that are in your midsts - the ones that US/Pak created and funded - dead or jailed. We want your nukes secure so as not to fall into terrorists' hands. Believe me, that's the last thing in the world you and the U.S. want - a terrorist organization getting Pakistani made nuclear material. That would end up worse for you then the United States.

We're allies man. The U.S. and its people (at least the majority of them) do not wish any harm to Pakistan. Instead we want the best for Pakistan and its citizens.

Have errors been made by the U.S ? Of course. Is there a double-standard? Yes. But has Pakistan made similar errrors? Absolutely. Is there a double-standard in Pakistan, that looks to blame the U.S. for all of their problems? Equally yes.

YASIRSHEIKH

5:51 PM ET

JORDANC Quote:

"We're allies man. The U.S. and its people (at least the majority of them) do not wish any harm to Pakistan. Instead we want the best for Pakistan and its citizens."

I would have believed you how sincere US govt. and people are in their efforts for Pakistan, have they not killed my innocent countrymen. The last time I checked, out of 1700+ people (including women and children) killed by your drones, only 50 were militants. And that count does not include the injured and economic damage. I doubt if a terrorist is hiding in bay area, you'd bomb him out.

10:57 AM ET

Alternative

Two things:

One: The number of killed militants is skewed on both sides of the coin. In Pak, you're saying drone strikes have killed only 50 militants out of 1700 deaths. That's an accuracy rate of about 3%. That's pretty terrible. Do you really believe those figures?

To show you similarly skewed numbers - on LongWarJournal, stats show a militant kill rate of 95%. Now I know this is surely skewed but so are your numbers. My point is to realize that everything you hear is not factual - on both sides of the coin. So please don't spew such ridiculous numbers as fact. Instead, let's meet in the middle (if only our leaders would show such compromise) and say that the militant kill rate is 50%. This is still not acceptable but it's probably a much more accurate figure than either 3% or 95%.

Two: Drones are obviously not the best strategy but what are the alternatives? U.S. troops on the ground? Leaving the Taliban and al Qaeda alone hoping that they won't attack the U.S. or Pakistan's government? Leave the responsibility to the Pak military? None of these are that attractive are they? So again, we need to realize that the safe havens in western Pak are a severe threat (for both of us) and cannot be ignored. We (Pak and the U.S.) must act. So what do we do if not respond with drones to try and disrupt them, their supply lines, and their training facilities?

I ask sincerely. Again, as an American, I want you and your people to know that the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans wish your country or you, no ill will whatsoever.

6:39 PM ET

Pakistan has no clash of interest with USA

In all the comments above and other articles of this site Pakistan was posed as a bad guy around. Few of the people talk of occupying Pakistan and destroying it. To those in fact , I intended to reply.

Let me tell you, Pakistan was a very much moderate, liberal and progressive society upto 70's. When the mujahideen were brought here from all over the world and Islam was used as a tool by US-Pak to fight USSR, that changed the demography of the region bordering Afghanistan. We do not blame USA, we hold responsible our rulers who opted to become a part of that game plan.

I accept we are allies, no country in this world has suffered more than Pakistan in War on Terror except Afghanistan, Alqaeda is enemy of both as it does not serve the interests of Muslims.

With this front line line state in war on terror, can USA enter into a deal of civil nuclear technology?which India has been given. ( Is it not double standard?) can America give drone technology to this non Nato ally? Pakistan took a U turn of its Afghan policy after 9/11 and supported Karzai govt. Can America convince Karzai not to host Pakistani Insurgents of Balochistanin his soil? Can America stop India from spreading terrorism inside Pakistan from Afghan soil?

What interest Pakistan will have in sabotaging American efforts in Afghanistan?( the way being propagated) This all is just Propaganda based on vested intentions of few elements. The maximum it can do is to have steps to secure its western border from Indian incursion, to which America also need to support being an ally.....

RAY GIBBS

11:02 PM ET

Reading Woodward Anywhere

We are close to major revelations "inside" Pakistan:
(1) exact or near locations, 150 "safe-havens" for Command & Control Centers the Afghan & Pak Talibans, insurgencies.

(2) exact or near locations for Command & Control Centers for Al Qaeda within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

From which flow death, wounding & destruction our American, allies's soldiers & innocents. Death, wounding & destruction the soldiers & innocents, Afghanistan & Pakistan.

War is not be about "safe-havens" or the fight is less. Did we not learn from the Ghost (s) of "Nam"?

NUANCE

1:31 AM ET

End Game

It is true that the war in Afghanistan is destabilizing an already fragile Pakistan, but the main existential threat to Pakistan is from within. This is why it should be doing everything it can to eliminate this threat and to bring this war to a peaceful conclusion.

GHULAM MUHAMMED

1:14 AM ET

October 9, 2010

Reading Woodward in Karanchi -

Respect, dignity, humiliation are terms that triumphalist West will have difficulty in absorbing as concrete facts of life in the East. It is a major corollary of that old hackneyed term -- Clash of Civilization. Haqqani is correct in putting the blunt advice to US to address its relationship with Pakistan within the parameters of his country's sense of national integrity, respect and dignity as a free nation. For the US, like for a hammer, every problem is like a nail. Bang it and it disappears into the wood work. For all its democratic pretenses, US is still ruled by its military establishment and the recent differences between the army warlords and their ultimate Chief, the US President, are ample proof that army is not ready to learn any lessons, other than own old book of war, war and more war. It has no qualms in violating the boundaries of its own friendly country. It is surprising how people have not yet revolted in any public manner to US Drone strikes intruding Pak airspace. But the way Khyber route is blocked, it seems the time had come for the worm to turn. Obama must stop Drone strike forthwith. It should come as easily as its apology for the death of the Pak soldiers in a NATO air-strike across the border. The successes claimed by Drone strike are not worth it, if the entire country is lost to the US. US is being sucked into another war with Pakistan and Obama apparently is not prepared for any further misadventure. Obama should move with confidence to gain Pakistan back, with diplomacy rather than armed strikes, that is good for short time publicity back home, but most counter-productive in the long run.

Foreign Policy Magazine

Is this the nail in the coffin of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship?

BY MOSHARRAF ZAIDI | OCTOBER 4, 2010

(21)

Slate Highlights