Atlantic Council


REGISTER

Get Email Updates

New Atlanticist
Printer-friendly version
Subscribe via RSS

AfPak: One Theater, Two Countries

James Joyner | April 10, 2009
AfPak Ambassadors

The Obama administration has brought a new emphasis to its predecessor's policy of treating the fight against militants in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region as part of single theater.  As a joint Atlantic Council appearance of the two ambassadors makes clear, however, it would be wise to remember that they are in fact two countries.

While Said Jawad, the Afghan ambassador to the United States was quite conciliatory, repeatedly emphasizing how much his people wanted and needed American presence in his country, Husain Haqqani, his Pakistani counterpart, wanted to make sure everyone understood that his is a proud, sovereign country that expected to be treated as an equal partner.

Indeed, Haqqani was frequently quite blunt, as in this dismissal of Obama's recent commitment to redouble our efforts in the region: "The resources that are being committed may look big to some but very frankly, I think that a company on the verge of failure is quite clearly able to get a bigger bailout than a nation that is accused of failure." Similarly, in response to a question from Council president Fred Kempe about a report in that day's NYT saying the Afghan police was broken — a point Jawad readily conceded — Haqqani retorted that "Some American newspapers are broken beyond repair!" He noted that the Western media has been predicting his country's collapse for years.

While he admired America's can-do attitude and desire to fix things, Haqqani insisted that Pakistan is not something to be fixed but rather a sovereign country.   While Pakistan welcomes American aid in addressing the security situation and other issues, it is a proud nation.  While "accountability" is a perfectly reasonable condition when billions are being spent, "intrusiveness" is not.  Congressional conditions, often tied to performance on purely domestic matters, is unwelcome "micromanagement" that is unhelpful in establishing the trust necessary for the two countries to work as partners.  Further, the way to build trust is "by talking to us, not beating up on us."

Jawad was much less confrontational, realizing perhaps that he was speaking from a position of relative weakness. He repeatedly noted the sacrifices Americans and others were making in his country but, at the same time, wanted to make it clear that he thought American and European security were at stake if the mission did not succeed.

Further, on more than one occasion, Jawad cited the fact that Taliban leaders were willing to negotiate with his government as a sign that — contrary to the emerging outside consensus — the fight against them is being won. Further, while fully agreeing that "democracy can not be imposed" from the outside, pluralism is essential to achieving the core mission of opposing "tyranny and terror." He argued that this was not the pipe dream many Westerners imagine, noting that his country had democratic elections and even women in parliament as early as the 1960s.

Both men agreed on two major issues, however,  First, defeating violent extremists — al Qaeda and the ideological Taliban — was the top priority.  Second, doing this and sustaining victory will require substantial, long-term commitment of resources toward state-building.  For both Pakistan and Afghanistan, much work is needed in nation-building and ensuring that men have a means of earning a living and providing for their families other than illicit activity.   

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.acus.org/trackback/3682

Comments

Hi James,

"defeating violent extremists — al Qaeda and the ideological Taliban — was the top priority."

Spencer Ackerman, however, reports Haqqani as saying “the military in Pakistan has capabilities to deliver but perceives India as the main enemy, not extremism.”

Since the civilian government appears to have no leverage whatsoever over the Pakistani military - indeed, quite the reverse - does it really matter what the civilians think?

Regards, Steve Hynd

Big thanks for info.

Hi James, great article as always. After reading the final paragraph, it occurs to me that:

Doctrinal COIN (FM3-24) is focused on the reconstitution of a state's legitimacy (I-1), relies on the coordination of multiple bureaucratic entities -- military, economic, host-occupier, etc (I-5), and utilises military confrontation and extermination (I-4). The comments of Haqqani and Jawad seem to fall in line with US COIN (defeat the taliban/AQ, build the state).

Questions then: How is the abdication of local control to what has become an open source taliban insurgency in parts of Pakistan (not to mention the control Taliban hold in Afghanistan) play into US COIN doctrine. And, does anyone really believe our nation building efforts will last in what is becoming more and more a geography of decentralized loyalties?

All the best,
FZ

Sorry. In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
I am from Seychelles and learning to read in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "We seo expert professionals in english, japanese and bengali language.Seotoolset provides quality search engine optimization seo tools, seo training as well as seotoolset certification for professionals and consultants that promotes."

Thank you so much for your future answers :o. Ophelia.

Hello everyone. Never despair; but if you do, work on in despair.
I am from Republic and too bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Creamy CSS is an inspirational showcase of the best CSS based websites from around the world."

With love 8-), CSS Showcase.

Thank you CSS Showcase for tuning in.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results


صور

at

in case you need to translate here is a online dictionary .. عقارات مصر -

العاب بنات جديدة -

Thank you

Its really funny to what Internet Pr comments. I would like to comment that this whole is like a theater and performers are doing what ever they want. More killing will create more extremist I would say.

If There will be the world war 3, it's will be not the fight of nuclear weapon and in the battle field but the war will be from cyber. I mean the rapid growth of hacker and scammers. so mr. obama should be concern about cyber security rather than sending troops to the war field. so all we need is SEO training. which helps to build your website high ranked and you can do some work through there....

regards
thanks

That's right SEO TRAINING NEPAL. If there is world war 3 then it's definitely going to be Internet war. So, instead of making troops for war it's better to go for internet technology development.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><a> <p> <span> <div> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <img> <img /> <map> <area> <hr> <br> <br /> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <table> <tr> <td> <em> <b> <u> <i> <strong> <font> <del> <ins> <sub> <sup> <quote> <blockquote> <pre> <address> <code> <cite> <embed> <object> <strike> <caption> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Flash node macros can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
11 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

New Atlanticist Navigation

Recommended Blogs

Global Leadership Circle