There has always been in American foreign policy circles a virus called arrogance, caused by the hereditary assumption that Americans know better than others. Surprisingly, this does not always prove the case, but the condition seems highly resistant to treatment, even by experience.

There seems a high probability that the disease has struck Obama administration policy circles dealing with Pakistan. (We will leave aside the case of American relations with Afghanistan.) This administration came to office with a conviction that the Afghanistan problem is a problem because it actually is a Pakistan problem, Pakistan being a large country possessing nuclear weapons and a great many Pashtuns, who are the people from whom Taliban are recruited.

Afghanistan is a country with one-sixth Pakistan's population, with a great many Pashtuns, too, harboring only a 100 or so members of al-Qaida (if we are to believe the American national security adviser, Gen. James Jones), whereas popular opinion in Washington is that Pakistan is rife with them, and the country on its way to becoming a "breeding ground" for terrorists who wish to invade the West, blow it up with nuclear weapons obtained from Pakistani stocks, and establish a new global terrorist caliphate amidst the ruins.

It is unknown whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, visiting Pakistan this week, shares so alarmed a view, but she will hear a lot about the damage American pressures are doing to Pakistan, and how fearful the Pakistan populace is, not of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but of the United States.

According to a New York Times article this week, from Jane Perlez in Islamabad, the new fighting there against Islamists "has pleased the Americans but it left large parts of Pakistan under siege, as militants once sequestered in the country's tribal areas take their war to Pakistan's cities. Many Pakistanis blame the United States for the country's rising instability."

A recent and serious poll found that 11 percent of the Pakistani respondents say that al-Qaida is the greatest threat to Pakistan today, 18 percent said India, and 59 percent said the United States. This was in August, before the most recent offensives of the Pakistan army against the Islamists in Waziristan and the Swat Valley, and the retaliatory city bombings that subsequently have taken place.

A vocal part of the Pakistan population clearly doesn't want the United States in their country, and it doesn't even want the aid the United States is sending. A notorious fact in the past has been that civilian and popular opposition to the U.S. was based on the assumption that American aid was meant to keep military governments in place, and buy military cooperation with American policy.

This time, it's the army that doesn't want the $7.5 billion aid package that the Obama administration has put together; the aid is denounced as meant to interfere in the country's internal affairs -- as indeed it is.

The civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari, generally thought put in place by Washington, "is seen as slavishly pro-American (as well) as unable to cope" with the current situation (I am again quoting Jane Perlez).

The country's interior minister was hit with stones by students when he visited the International Islamic University last week, and in retaliation the government closed all the schools and universities in Punjab, the most populous province (supposed to reopen Monday, Oct. 26), "a move that affected Pakistani families like never before."

To judge from the public statements of Obama counselors, Pakistan is seen as the great danger in the region, with erratic politics and nuclear weapons -- and an active Islamist revolt thereby having the potential to create (according to Obama's adviser Bruce Riedel), "the most serious threat to the United States since the end of the cold war."

This would seem why the U.S. wants a government under its thumb to compel the army to fight the Islamists on their home territory even if this alienates the army and sows hatred of America. Is it not possible to allow Pakistan, which has a solid civil service and an excellent army, to act in defense of its own security rather than let the U.S. impose its own ideas?

Is it not imaginable that they know better than the Americans? Would Americans appreciate a Pakistan army installed in Washington, instructing the United States in how to conduct its own foreign policy in ways that suit Pakistan's national interests?

 

 

Victory in Afghanistan Requires Fully Supported Counterinsurgency
James Danly

In order to declare victory, we need to aid the Afghans in establishing a legitimate government whose population does not effectively support terrorist networks. The only viable course is to commit the resources necessary to conduct a full-spectrum counterinsurgency of the kind employed to such great effect during the surge in Iraq

Counterinsurgency Cookie Cutter Doesn't Fit Afghanistan
Gian P. Gentile

'Counterinsurgency' has become the new American way of war. A once obscure theory of internal conflict, it has become ubiquitous in military circles and dominates thinking on both current and future wars. More important, its precepts are being followed without serious inquiry or examination, and the U.S. military has become so enamored with the theory that it seemingly will not consider any serious alternative methods to achieve the president's objectives in Afghanistan.

Despite Obama's Concessions, Russia Remains Unhelpful on Iran
Joshua Kucera

The Obama administration's announcement last month that it was scrapping plans to build missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic removed a prime irritant in the U.S.-Russian relationship; Russians felt the missile defense network was targeted as much at them as against the purported threat, Iran. And the move appeared at first to pay dividends. However ...

Can United States Truly Press 'Reset' Button With Russia
Ian Bremmer and Alexander Kliment

Today, Moscow and Washington elites glower at each other over a host of global disputes, and Russia, far from blossoming into the pro-Western, market-oriented democracy that the 1990s shock therapists dreamed of, has developed into a quasi-authoritarian petro-state at home, guided by zero-sum revisionist ambitions abroad.

For Europe, U.S. Is Country That Cries Wolf
William Pfaff

Officials such as Philip Gordon regularly travel to Europe to ask for support for American initiatives. The Europeans reply that they have not been consulted in making these policies. The Americans say we will be happy to discuss them, but we are putting up most of the men and money, so it's too late to change anything. Maybe next time.

With al-Qaida Diminished, There's No Sense in Expanding Afghan War
William Pfaff

Al-Qaida's relations with the Taliban today are troubled. Effective counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan is on the brink of completely eliminating al-Qaida. There will be no organization to return. This is the result of effective international and domestic intelligence cooperation as well as good police work. So why, one asks, is the U.S. expanding its war in Afghanistan?

Afghan Mythologies
Victor Davis Hanson

As President Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should remember that most of the conventional pessimism about Afghanistan is only half-truth. Remember the mantra that the region is the 'graveyard of empires,' where Alexander the Great, the British in the 19th century, and the Soviets only three decades ago inevitably met their doom?

United States: Single-eyed Vision
Robert C. Koehler

The promise the United States once represented to the world has spent itself, and what we have to offer in terms of opportunity, or at least hope, is overshadowed by the spreading shadow of our hubris. And it's all coming home to roost.

Latin America Low on Obama's Priority List
Latin American Current Events, News & Affairs - Andres Oppenheimer

One year after the election of President Barack Obama, it's time to ask whether his ambitious campaign promises about Latin America are being fulfilled, or whether, like others before him, he has placed the region at the bottom of his foreign policy priorities. Let's look at Obama's key campaign promises for Latin America

In the Quicksands of Somalia
Bronwyn Bruton

The U.S. government needs to change its Somalia policy -- and fast. For the better part of two decades, international attempts to create a government have failed. And since 9/11, U.S. attempts to prevent Somalia from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda have visibly backfired, alienating the Somali population, and propelling an indigenous Salafi jihadist group, called al Shabab, to power

Changing North Korea
Andrei Lankov

When it comes to dealing with North Korea the United States and its allies have no efficient methods of coercion at their disposal; the regime is remarkably immune to outside pressure. Its leaders cannot afford change, so they make sure their state continues to be an international threat, using nuclear blackmail as a survival tactic while their unlucky subjects endure more poverty and terror. Since outside pressure is ineffective

(c) 2009 William Pfaff