Following his speech on Tuesday night announcing his plan to increase American troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000, discussion has turned to the obvious question: Does Obama’s plan provide opportunity or danger for Pakistan?
PM Gilani has said that he would like “more clarity on the situation” before he can implement the plan, and the editors of Dawn said that the announcement raised questions as well as providing answers.
As strategies go, the one laid out by Mr Obama is not especially ambitious, at least in theory: ‘the three core elements of our strategy [are]: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan’.
But experience suggests that the war zone in Afghanistan does not lend itself to a ‘civilian surge’ in quick order.
The British discovered this in Helmand several years ago. And Mr Obama should himself know this because he promised a similar civilian surge in his March speech on his ‘first’ AfPak strategy, but it did not materialise.
So even if there are military successes thanks to the additional troops that are to be injected into Afghanistan, it is not clear whether success on the civilian side is possible within the time frame that Mr Obama has set.
The editors of The News had a similar reaction:
Mostly, the speech was about the bricks and mortar of warfare. What was missing was a description of the bricks and mortar that would go into nation-building and here lies the weakness at the heart of the Obama strategy. A sketchy 272 words were devoted to the process of nation-building and reconstruction. It is the failure to give equal weight to the military and civilian vision that has bedevilled the engagement of America and the NATO countries in Afghanistan from the outset.
This part of the plan – the process of reconstruction in Afghanistan – is something that the Americans rarely talk about because they don’t have the experience or expertise to do it. Let’s look at the facts.
- First, it does not need to be stated that peace and stability in Afghanistan requires Pakistani help. The Americans know this, which is why Obama very openly pledged “to remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent.” Here we have the worlds only superpower, who can destroy a country at will, pledging to support a strong and prosperous Pakistan. This should not go without notice.
- Second, Pakistan needs peace and stability for our own security and economic growth. Ignoring militantism in Afghanistan will only increase the violence that plagues our nation today. It was years of neglect that has given the TTP and LeT the ability to attack our own military headquarters. It is this same violence and the resulting political instability that scares away investors from China, UAE, and USA, preventing our own economic growth to rival that of India.
But Pakistan not only needs a stable and secure Afghanistan for our own security and prosperity, we alone have the experience in building a civil society that is necessary to save Afghanistan. Such a success would not only result in our having a strong ally on our Western border, it would give us strong allies throughout the West – US, UK, EU, etc.
While many items in the Obama plan remain to be worked out among the involved nations, the Obama plan presents a vital opportunity for Pakistan to get a seat at the world’s table and demonstrate that we are an important player in global affairs. Obviously, no success will be had in Afghanistan without the all-important investment from Pakistan’s military and civil government.
The Obama plan is filled with both danger and opportunity for Pakistan. Danger if we put our heads in the sand and turn our backs on reality. Opportunity for us to take our proper place at the world’s table, securing a strong and prosperous future for our country.
