Is Containing Al-Qaeda the Real Endgame in Afghanistan-Pakistan?

[bigtree]

from Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent: http://washingtonindependent.com/69701/is-containing-al-qaeda-the-real-endgame-in-afghanistan-pakistan


12/4/09 11:07 AM

Dedicated readers know that since March I’ve been trying to determine how the Obama administration conceives of the actual endgame in Afghanistan-Pakistan — that is, the point at which we can say the mission is successful. The whole strategy is geared around the elimination of al-Qaeda’s safe havens in Pakistan and strategic depth in Afghanistan. But the path out of Afghanistan articulated by the Obama administration, and reiterated at West Point on Tuesday, is through a transition to overwatch with the Afghan security forces. So, once again: could we be transitioning to Afghan security control in the future, and sending U.S. and NATO forces home, while the al-Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan still exist?

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East and South Asia, got asked a modified version of this question by NPR’s Steve Inskeep this morning: “Can you win so long as there are safe havens outside of Afghanistan for the people you’re fighting?” Petraeus responded:

Depends how large the safe havens and sanctuaries are, obviously. And again, the objective is to see those whittled down on either side of the border. Again, there has to be a continued level of pressure and progress in that regard.

. . . There’s a word for that: containment.

“Containment” in the post-9/11 age has acquired an unfortunate pejorative connotation. The Bush administration contrasted “containment” with “victory,” and repeatedly said that it was impossible to contain stateless terrorist networks. In doing so, George W. Bush ended up overtaxing American power without ever articulating how “victory” could be achieved; accordingly, it never was. But al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has proven over the past eight years that it does seek to hold territory, operating from somewhere. Reducing its ability to branch out from that place effectively limits the threat it poses, and gives U.S. and allied forces a place to respond if the cordon proves to be porous.

But is this actually how the Obama administration conceives of how the endgame is achieved — which is to say, an endgame that looks more like long-term vigilance and partnership with Afghanistan and Pakistan? When I posed that question in March to Denis McDonough, one of the most influential of Obama’s advisers, that seemed to be his answer. But the actual answer still remains unarticulated — by President Obama, by his critics, and by the entire constellation of U.S. foreign-policy analysts. And if containment is the answer, does the U.S. transition to Afghan security forces beginning in 2011 mean subcontracting out the military edge of containment to the Afghans?


read: http://washingtonindependent.com/69701/is-containing-al-qaeda-the-real-endgame-in-afghanistan-pakistan

[Schema Thing]

1. the Taliban have to be kept weak

in Pakistan as much or more so than in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has nukes. It's a real concern.

[BeFree]

6. Containment

It can take many forms. No doubt the 'bad' guys must be contained.
I'd start by containing some of the war hawks we have right here in the US.

The best thing that can be said of this whole matter is that we contain the Pak's nukes and keep them from being used by the bad guys. I say we buy Pak's nukes. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

Then we get rid of our own nukes.

[bigtree]

8. Paks contain the nukes

I don't buy the view that our force in Afghanistan is keeping the Pakistan Taliban from them. The Pakistan army is seen by most observers as politically and militarily capable and in control.

[BeFree]

10. Oh, ok

Yeah, I guess India has nothing to worry about then?

Our force in Afghan is, imo, driving Taliban to get Paks nukes. That's my fear.
They get their hands on the nukes, and that's all she wrote.
It could happen.

Actually - in a deep dark conspiracy frame, that may be what Cheney wants to happen.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

17. Not sure that's the case

Are you basing it on anything in particular?

[BeFree]

19. What's not the case?

What is exactly it you need to know?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

21. This here.

What are you basing your belief (that our presence in Afghanistan is driving the Pakistani Taliban to attempt to obtain Pakistan's nukes) on?

[BeFree]

23. Ok

If you were being oppressed by an overwhelming force wouldn't you look around for the nearest big weapon you could find?

Too, Senator Kerry is of like mind. Common sense, really.

Did you know some people have evidence that Cheney was at least partly responsible for Pak having nukes?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. So it's just a guess?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

16. I'm not sure it's that cut and dry

After all, the Pakistani military is being backed up by our surveillance on the ground and in the air, as well as our drone strikes. There's clearly a partnership involved (though the opposite could be said of elements of the Pakistani military and the Taliban as well, I suppose).

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. My concern with the nukes is not that the Taliban will seize them

but that an unrestrained Taliban and AQ can destabilize Pakistan enough to spark a coup, then pick a fight with India over Kashmir like they've been trying to do for years. That would likely turn into a nuclear exchange, and destabilize the entire region for decades.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

25. I think that's the real danger

The Taliban couldn't control Pakistan in their wildest dreams, but they can destabilize it enough to create major problems.

[bigtree]

27. though

. . .I think our military forces are the most aggravating influence right now. If there is some insurrection or unrest it's on our watch and a consequence of our presence and activity next door. Pakistan has already complained that they might not be prepared for the fleeing combatants and the reaction of their own Taliban to the escalated NATO activity in Afghanistan.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

28. Those are serious issues, however, I'm not sure how realistic the threat of an insurrection is

at least at the moment. The Pakistani public seems very much in favor of taking the fight to the Taliban. If an insurrection is going to come from anywhere, I would think it would be the Pakistani military.

[bigtree]

29. The leadership of the military is said to be politically well-situated

. . . and not inclined to some revolt against the government. Pakistani politics, however, is still as volatile as ever.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

31. True.

[closeupready]

14. India has to denuke simultaneously.

And Kashmir must be resolved. Or else that will never happen, no matter what we are promised.

[bigtree]

7. in my view

The (escalated) presence and activity of our military in Afghanistan against what is essentially just resistance fighting from those outside of the protected line of the NATO forces is increasing the violence and killings in proportion with the increased deployments and offensive mission. The offensive action by the U.S. in Afghanistan has, so far, increased the Taliban's violent activity, not lessened it.

NO one is saying that Pakistan's military isn't in firm control of the nukes or that the nuclear weapons and material are vulnerable to the Pakistan or Afghanistan Taliban or 'al-Qaeda. Anyone can dream up a scenario where the Pakistani government and military collapse in the hands of 'extremists' there, but there isn't anyone actually involved with any authority or direct knowledge who believes it's likely.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

20. Question

Couldn't that just as easily be because an increased number of troops heightens our ability to track down and engage the enemy? And not necessarily proof that we're creating a similar number of Taliban fighters to the number of troops we're putting in?

[bigtree]

26. sure

I didn't mean to say that we're creating 'similar numbers' of resistance to our own troop numbers, but it's clear that the resistant violence has increased with the increased presence and activity of our forces. Whether the escalation succeeds in ending the suicide bombings and the roadside bombs which represent most of that resistance remains to be seen.

Thing is, even Bush's intelligence agencies collectively concluded that our force presence and activity in the region was fueling and fostering more resistant violence than our forces could reasonably put down. I don't think that equation changes just because we're increasing the NATO force to 100,000 or so. After all, the Pentagon's premier manual on COIN says some 700,000 troops are needed to effectively quell an insurgency. This is just poking the bear and hoping and praying that he's frightened enough not to poke back. I'm not optimistic on that score.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

30. It seems that it all depends on our ability to win the trust of the people

Frankly, a major change has to take place, though it seems Obama realizes this. No one is going to rat out the Taliban when we can't provide them some form of reliable protection. It's going to be difficult, but I don't think it's impossible.

[mike_c]

9. Pak has had nuclear weapons for the Taliban's entire existence...

...and the mujaheddin before them. The Taliban is a TRIBAL movement with no international ambitions, although I can certainly imagine they'd use nukes if they perceived the need to use them in self defense. This whole argument about the Taliban and Pakistan's nuclear weapons is just the latest fearmongering from Washington to justify wars of aggression and empire. It simply recycles Bush's threat of the Iraq smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.

Half of America seems gullible enough to swallow that line over, and over, and over.

[closeupready]

15. This.

n/t

[BeFree]

18. Well

Senator Kerry thinks it is an issue.

And:
To equate Iraq with this situation is wrong. Iraq never had nukes.

What? Nukes are nothing to worry about? Don't be so damn gullible and/or distracted.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. no

[MNDemNY]

3. Of course, just ask a unicorn!

[Sinti]

4. LOL I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you :) n/t

[valerief]

5. These wars are SCAMS and nothing more. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The "End Game" is like Nixon's "Secret Plan" to get us out of Vietnam.

The whole scheme, as outlined by Obama, is a rather pathetic attempt to deliver "Peace with Honor" and avoid the embarrassment of the "World's Mightiest Military" losing another war.

[smirkymonkey]

12. Pipeline!

:tinfoilhat:

[closeupready]

13. Separately, is Afghanistan now a province of Pakistan? Are we going to give Pakistan

Afghanistan when we pull out? The way media neocons love to parrot Penta-speak, it would seem so, what with how they've adopted terms like "Af-Pak".