Pakistan sees the dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as an opportunity to push the United States to adopt its approach to Afghanistan, namely to cut a deal with al-Qaeda elements and bring them into a “final settlement,” the New York Times reported this morning.
“Pakistan is exploiting the troubled United States military effort in Afghanistan to drive home a political settlement with Afghanistan that would give Pakistan important influence there but is likely to undermine United States interests,” the Times quoted Pakistani and American officials. “The dismissal of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal will almost certainly embolden the Pakistanis in their plan as they detect increasing American uncertainty, Pakistani officials said. The Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, preferred General McChrystal to his successor, Gen. David H. Petraeus, whom he considers more of a politician than a military strategist, said people who had spoken recently with General Kayani.”
Pakistani intelligence helped create the Taliban and has supported it throughout, as an instrument against India. Now Pakistan is proposing to “deliver” an al-Qaeda ally, the network of Sirajuddin Haqqani, which Pakistan has sheltered throughout.
The TImes reports adds that the proposed deal with Haqqani “provides another indication of how Pakistan, ostensibly an American ally, has worked many opposing sides in the war to safeguard its ultimate interest in having an Afghanistan that is pliable and free of the influence of its main strategic obsession, its more powerful neighbor, India. The Haqqani network has long been Pakistan’s crucial anti-India asset and has remained virtually untouched by Pakistani forces in their redoubt inside Pakistan, in the tribal areas on the Afghan border, even as the Americans have pressed Pakistan for an offensive against it.”
My prediction: Gen. Petraeus will take the Pakistani deal, and provide “surge” payoffs to al-Qaeda and Taliban elements. In Iraq, the “surge” consisted mainly of putting 100,000 Sunni fighters on the payroll of the American-funded “Sunni awakening.” Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will keep the American money, sit tight for a year, let the Americans go home, and take over the country.
The alternative, as I proposed in an On the Square essay June 24, is to persuade India to help us in Aghanistan and read Pakistan the riot act for supporting terrorists who are killing Americans.




June 25th, 2010 | 10:51 am
Your “alternative” would require our administration to use their [OK, I was just being kind; We all know it's only a one man show] intelligence, imagination and courage. Since those accounts are sadly overdrawn we will not see this come to pass. More’s the shame.
It will be illuminating to see how the impending defeat in Afghanistan will be spun during 2012. Will it still be that other president’s fault?
June 25th, 2010 | 10:20 pm
Dear Mr. Goldman: I am a long time subscriber to First Things and a reader of your Spengler columns. I must tell you that I disagree with your opinion expressed above(not the first time) of the “surge” in Iraq. You seem to think that it was all about US payoffs to Iraqi groups. I beg to differ. US armed forces fought and died to make the surge work. Their efforts made it possible to bring the tribes in(by bribes and otherwise)to defeat the enemy. I hope that, in the future, you can bring yourself to recognize the valor of American forces in Iraq and the absolutely essential nature of their contribution to the war. Thank you.
Tom Rasmussen
June 27th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
There will have to be a negoitated settlement in Afgan. Our objective there shoud not be nation building but making the area inhospital to the enemies that attack us. Afgan was never and is not a state in the current sense of the term but a geographis area inhabitated by tribes that fight eachother at times and have an uneasy coexistance at others. Any central government they ever had only controlled the capital and surrounding areas.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact