Pakistan and the Bush Doctrine

"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice.

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

President George W. Bush, 9/11/01

This morning, NYT reportedthat although we will notify Pakistan about any future border crossing by our troops, we will not ask for permission. Pakistan is, quite predictably, pissed off about that. I don't think they have much room to talk though. It's not exactly a secret that the Taliban is running a government in exile from the border regions. And Pakistan isn't exerting much control in those areas, leaving them semi autonomous. If they want to claim sovereignty, shouldn't they be exercising it? If all they are going to do is refuse us access, what's the difference between what they are doing now and that the Taliban/Afghanistan did with respect to Al Queda in 2001?

Unfortunately, I don't think the question is this simple, because there is more going on here than the routing of the Taliban insurgency. Pakistan itself is on a major precipice right now. And in transitioning from being run by a dictator to a true democracy, they have an opportunity to do for themselves through the political process what we did for Iraq with our military. The next year could decide whether Pakistan becomes a modern, moderate Muslim democracy, or goes the way of Iran--except that they already have nuclear weapons. The future of Pakistan is far more important than capturing Bin Laden or finishing off the Taliban. For this reason, I don't think incensing the Pakistani populace against us is a good move right now.

It's lose-lose either way. If we sit back and rely on negotiations--which we have been doing--not much is going to change. The Taliban insurgency will continue, and it isn't at all clear that an Afghan "surge" would be successful, because "The Surge" was simply providing Iraq with the troops necessary to carry out the Petraeus strategy. I doubt that this strategy--including such operations as clearing and holding insurgent safe havens--can be successful in an battlefield where the biggest safe haven of all is politically off-limits. So, maintaining cooperation with Pakistan, short of a diplomatic miracle, means a longer war in Afghanistan, complete with the military and civilian casualties, expenditures, and wear-and-tear on our equipment that comes with that.

But for the time being, I think a longer war in Afghanistan is worth a good chance at a bloodless "victory" in Pakistan, and is favorable to dealing with than two Iran's.