Does Obama Understand His Biggest Foreign-Policy Challenge?

The president-elect wants to work with the Pakistani government to "stamp out" terror. It's not nearly that simple.

A consensus is
emerging among intelligence analysts and pundits that Pakistan may be
President-elect Barack Obama's greatest policy challenge. A base for
terrorist groups, the country has a fragile new civilian government and
a long history of military coups. The dramatic attack on Mumbai by
members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e Tayiba, the continued Taliban
insurgency on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the frailty of the new
civilian government, and the country's status as a nuclear-armed state
have all put Islamabad on the incoming administration's front burner.

But does Obama understand what he's getting into? In his "Meet the Press" interview
with Tom Brokaw on Sunday, Obama said, "We need a strategic partnership
with all the parties in the region -- Pakistan and India and the Afghan
government -- to stamp out the kind of militant, violent, terrorist
extremists that have set up base camps and that are operating in ways
that threaten the security of everybody in the international
community." Obama's scenario assumes that the Pakistani government is a
single, undifferentiated thing, and that all parts of the government
would be willing to "stamp out" terrorists. Both of those assumptions
are incorrect.

Pakistan's government has a profound internal division
between the military and the civilian, which have alternated in power
since the country was born from the partition of British India in 1947.
It is this military insubordination that creates most of the country's
serious political problems. Washington worries too much about other
things in Pakistan and too little about the sheer power of the
military. United States analysts often express fears about an internal
fundamentalist challenge to the chiefs of staff. The main issue,
however, is not that Pakistan's military is too weak, but that it is
too strong. And that is complicated by the fact that elements within
the military are at odds, not just with the civilian government, but
also with each other.

Gen. Pervez Musharraf ruled the country with an iron fist
from the fall of 1999 (when he staged his coup against an elected prime
minister) until he resigned under threat of impeachment in August of
this year. His civilian rival, Asaf Ali Zardari, was elected president
in September. Zardari had become the de facto head of the
left-of-center Pakistan People's Party after his wife, Benazir Bhutto,
was assassinated while campaigning for Parliament in late December
2007. In the parliamentary elections of February 2008, which were
relatively free and fair, the PPP emerged as the largest party in

Zardari and his prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, have
vowed to crack down on terrorism. Zardari is said to be committed to
vengeance against the Pakistani Taliban, since he blames them for his
wife's assassination. The possibility that a Western-educated woman
liberal might again become Pakistan's prime minister had been
unbearable for the fundamentalist Taliban. Since Zardari became
president, the Pakistani military has vigorously pursued a massive
campaign against the Taliban in the tribal agency of Bajaur. The fierce
fighting is said to have displaced some 300,000 persons. Of these
operations against the Pakistani Taliban, Obama said on "Meet the
Press" that "thus far, President Zardari has sent the right signals.
He's indicated that he recognizes this is not just a threat to the
United States but is a threat to Pakistan as well."

Likewise, after the attack on the Indian financial and cultural center of Mumbai on Nov. 26-29 of this year, Zardari argued that Pakistan as well as India has been targeted by terrorism,
and that it is a legacy of the ways in which the U.S. used radical
Islam to fight the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Zardari wrote:
"The Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at
Pakistan's new democratic government and the peace process with India
that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan and
non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict do not
want change in Pakistan to take root."

But Zardari will find it difficult to get control of the
entire Pakistani government and the various "non-state actors" it has
spawned to pursue Pakistani military interests in Afghanistan and
Kashmir. Among his biggest challenges will be to gain the loyalty not
only of the regular military but also of those officers detailed to the
Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, an organization of some
25,000 that was founded in 1948 to promote information-sharing among
the army, navy and air force. In the 1960s, military dictator Ayoub
Khan used the ISI to spy on domestic rivals, and over time it developed
a unit focusing on manipulating civilian politics. Zardari tried to abolish that political unit in late November.

During periods of military dictatorship, the ISI has
tended to be given a much-expanded role, both domestically and abroad.
During the 1980s, Gen. Zia ul-Haq created an Afghanistan bureau in the
ISI, through which the Reagan administration funneled billions to the
mujahedin to fight the Soviet occupation. In the late 1980s, dictator
Zia initiated an ISI-led covert operation, Operation Tupac, aimed at
detaching the disputed Muslim-majority state of Kashmir from India.

Kashmir had been a princely state in British India, ruled
by a Hindu raja who took it into Hindu-majority India during partition.
The Pakistanis fought an inconclusive war but failed to annex it to
Pakistan, and the United Nations called for a referendum to allow the
Kashmiris to decide their fate. India, which viewed Jammu and Kashmir
as an Indian state, never allowed such a plebiscite to be held. Obama
has suggested that he might send former President Bill Clinton as a special envoy in a bid to resolve the Kashmir dispute once and for all.

From a Pakistani nationalist point of view, Indian rule
over Kashmir differed only in longevity from the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, and both involved the illegitimate occupation of a Muslim
people by an infidel government. The ISI helped create six major
guerrilla groups to operate against India in Kashmir, including the
Lashkar-e Tayiba (Army of the Good), a paramilitary arm of the Center
for Missionizing and Guidance (Da'wa wa Irshad) of former Islamic
studies professor and mujahed in Afghanistan, Mohammad Hafiz Saeed.

From 1994, the ISI backed the Taliban in the quest to take
over Afghanistan from the warlords who came to power after the fall of
Soviet-installed Muhammad Najibullah in the early 1990s. Elements in
the ISI favored a hard-line form of fundamentalist Islam and so were
pleased to support the Taliban on ideological grounds. Others were
simply being pragmatic, since the Taliban, from the Pushtun ethnic
group, had been refugees who attended seminary or madrasah in Pakistan.
They were pro-Pakistan, while many of the warlords had become clients
of India, Iran or, ironically, Russia.

In 2001, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush
administration gave Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf an
ultimatum. He had championed the Taliban policy despite being a
secularist himself, but was forced to turn against his former allies,
who were then overthrown by the U.S.-backed warlords of the Northern

Elements in the ISI and the military, however, continued
to back the Taliban. They were deeply dismayed that the Karzai
government in Kabul was independent of Islamabad and had strong ties to
India. Under U.S. and Indian pressure, in 2004 the Musharraf government
blocked the Pakistan-based guerrilla groups
from further attacking Indian Kashmir from Pakistan, causing many of
their members to go fight instead alongside the resurgent Taliban in
northwestern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. In response to the need
to distance themselves from the terrorist groups, the Pakistani
government and the ISI are alleged to have created cells made up of former officers who covertly give training, arms and other support to the Taliban and to the organizations fighting India in Kashmir.

To some extent, then, Pakistan's powerful
national-security apparatus has been divided against itself for much of
the past decade. The contradictory agendas of various parts of the
Pakistani government and of its shadowy networks of retired or
ex-officers have created policy chaos. Even while the army is engaged
in intense fighting against the Pakistani Taliban of Bajaur, it appears
to be backing other Taliban groups that have struck at targets inside
Afghanistan from south Waziristan, another tribal agency on the border
of the two countries. Last June, when U.S. forces engaged in hot
pursuit of these Taliban staging cross-border raids, they came under
fire from Pakistani troops who sided with the Taliban.

The complex layers of the ISI, a state within the state,
make it questionable whether Musharraf ever really controlled it. Now
Pakistan's new civilian president is even less well-placed to control
it, or to discover how the militant cells work, both inside the ISI and
among the retirees. It is not even clear whether the ISI is willing to
take orders from Zardari and other officials in the new government.
When Prime Minister Gilani announced that the ISI would have to report
to the civilian Interior Ministry, the decree was overturned within a
day under "immense pressure from defense circles."
When the government pledged to send the head of the ISI to India for
consultations on the Mumbai attacks in late November, it was apparently
overruled by the military.

The captured terrorist in Mumbai, Amir Ajmal Qassab,
appears to have told Indian interrogators that his group was trained in
Pakistani Kashmir by retired Pakistani officers. It is certain that
President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, and Army Chief of Staff
Ashfaq Kiyani were uninvolved in the terrorist strike on Mumbai. But
were there rogue cells inside the ISI or the army officer corps that
were running the retirees who put the Lashkar-e Tayiba up to striking
India? On Sunday, Zardari's forces raided the Lashkar-e Tayiba camps in Pakistani Kashmir
and arrested a major LeT leader, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, whom Indian
intelligence accused of masterminding the Mumbai attacks. The move was
considered gutsy in Pakistan, where there is substantial popular
support for the struggle to free Muslim Kashmir of India, a struggle in
which the Lashkar has long been the leading organization.

This murky Chinese puzzle raises the question of how Obama
can hope to cooperate with the Pakistani government to curb the groups
mounting attacks in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The government itself is
divided on such policies, and there appear to be cells both within the
state and outside it that have their own, militant foreign policy. The
United States, going back to the Cold War, has long viewed the
Pakistani army as a geopolitical ally, and Washington tends to prefer
that the military be in power. Since Gen. Musharraf was forced out,
U.S. intelligence circles have been lamenting the country's
"instability," as though it were less unstable under an unpopular
dictatorship. If Pakistan -- and Pakistani-American relations -- are to
have a chance, it will lie in the incoming Obama administration doing
everything it can to strengthen the civilian political establishment
and ensure that the military remains permanently in its barracks. The
military needs to be excluded from political power, and it needs to
learn to take orders from a civilian president. At the same time, Obama
should follow through on his commitment to commit serious diplomatic
resources to helping resolve the long-festering Kashmir issue.

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world

Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.

We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference.

Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today!

© 2023 Salon