X

Email Address:

Password:

Forgot password?
OK

Sign In | Home | Customer Service | About Us | Advertise

advanced search
  • Subscribe
  • Give a Gift
  • Renew
  • Register Online
  • Customer Service
  • Back Issues
  • Buy Articles
  • Donate
    1. The Naked Novelist and the Dead Reputation
      Algis Valiunas
      September 2009
    2. Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium
      David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol and Jeff Jacoby
      September 2009
    3. The Art of Obama Worship
      Michael J. Lewis
      September 2009
    4. Clyde and Bonnie Died for Nihilism
      Stephen Hunter
      July/August 2009
    5. The Path to Republican Revival
      Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
      September 2009
  1. Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium
    David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol and Jeff Jacoby
    September 2009
  2. The Naked Novelist and the Dead Reputation
    Algis Valiunas
    September 2009
  3. The Art of Obama Worship
    Michael J. Lewis
    September 2009
  4. The Path to Republican Revival
    Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
    September 2009
  5. The Path to Republican Revival
    Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
    September 2009

Advertisement



contensions.jpg
about us | contact us | archive | contributors | subscribe to commentary | advertise | RSS

Pakistan Speaks Up

Max Boot - 09.29.2009 - 12:15 PM

Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the deposed dictator of Pakistan, and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence are hardly the most reliable interlocutors. Both are notorious for playing a duplicitous game of conniving with jihadist militants at the same time they work with the United States to root out terrorists. But even a self-serving statement can be right, and it is in that vein that we should pay attention to their statements on Afghanistan.

Musharraf was interviewed by the Washington Times and told its writers “that the U.S. would make a ‘disastrous’ mistake if it withdrew from Afghanistan and warned that a delay in sending more troops would be seen as a sign of weakness.”

Meanwhile, senior leaders of the ISI talked to David Ignatius of the Washington Post. He summed up their message as follows:

The Pakistanis, meanwhile, view the United States as an unreliable ally that starts fights it doesn’t know how to finish.

A test of this fragile partnership is the debate over the new Afghanistan strategy proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The ISI leadership thinks the United States can’t afford to lose in Afghanistan, and it worries about a security vacuum there that would endanger Pakistan. But at the same time, the ISI fears that a big military surge, like the up to 40,000 additional troops McChrystal wants, could be counterproductive.

ISI officials believe Washington should be realistic about its war objectives. If victory is defined as obliteration of the Taliban, the United States will never win. But the United States can achieve the more limited aim of rough political stability, if it is patient.

The ISI leaders, therefore, have roughly the same message as Gen. Musharraf: don’t back down in Afghanistan, because it would have disastrous consequences for Pakistan. That is at stark odds with the message of Joe Biden and others who want to downsize our commitment because they supposedly want to concentrate on the “real” problem—Pakistan. But they never explain how defeat in Afghanistan would help us win in Pakistan.

By the way, I don’t take too seriously the ISI’s warning that more troops would be counterproductive, because there is no other way to fill the security vacuum they warn of. Sending more troops would be counterproductive only if they were utilized in a conventional, firepower-intensive manner—the Pakistani army’s preferred approach to fighting guerrillas. But Gen. McChrystal has a smart counterinsurgency strategy to make the best use of the extra troops. The ISI honchos are right that the U.S. and its allies cannot obliterate the Taliban, but then we don’t have to—simply putting the Taliban back on their heels is sure to cause defections and splits within the group, as occurred in 2001.

»Back to Contentions »Back to Commentary

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Google Google
Facebook Facebook
Email This Post Print This Post Permanent Link To Article


This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 29th, 2009 at 12:15 PM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Advertisement

image of latest cover
image of latest cover

FREE SAMPLE ISSUE

  • the complete archive
  • hundreds of authors
  • thousands of articles
  • American history
    since 1945

ENTER THE ARCHIVE

ADVERTISER LINKS

Bad Car Credit
calling card
international phone cards
Nutrition Supplements

Advertisement

--->

Advertisement

Commentary is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).



Home | Subscribe | About Us | Donate | Advertise | Contact Us | Legal Notices | RSS

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved