Esquire's Politics Blog: 5 Ways to Make the Pakistan Mess Less Stupid Than Vietnam
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 9:28AM 
In the wake of Admiral Mike Mullen offering such electrifying testimony last week, various commentators — and respectable ones, like Christopher Hitchens and Dexter Filkins — are circling the "long war" question of the moment: What to do about Pakistan? And it's clear to anybody with a brain at this point that Pakistan has abused our trust and military assistance as much as — or worse than — we have long abused that fake state in our pursuit of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So now, as the West's fiscal crisis kicks into high gear, progressively denuding us of NATO allies while Congress finally gets serious about reining in the Pentagon's vast budget, we've come to a clear tipping point in the whole Af-Pak intervention as its tenth year of operations draws to a close.
Read the entire post at Esquire's The Politics Blog.
Reader Comments (4)
Well, that, as the man says "sums it up."
Washington is now under the evil spell that accompanies a presidential election race. Every four years it gets worse. Now resembling a combination of mud wrestling, wet T-shirt contest, and "Survivor" meets "Jackass" all sense and responsible behavior are lost. The administration must march on lest it face accusations of "quitting" or "losing."
"Courage" and "Washington" are two words that no longer can be used in the same sentence.
I agree mostly with your article. However, have you considered that chasing Al Qaeda wherever it goes may not be a good strategy and might be playing into the hands of Al Qaeda?
I don't think you really appreciate how much the US is hated in the Arab / Muslim World, you haven't yet come to terms with that. Rumsfeld's question - "are we capturing and killing more terrorists than we are creating?" is very relevant.
You also stand the risk of majoring on the minors. Al Qaeda is a criminal enterprise, not an existential threat to the United States / Western Civilisation. While everyone is in awe of your technological prowess and your 11 super carriers, we cannot quite understand why you don't put in at least 0.0001% of the required effort to win the propaganda war.
I come from Nigeria, a nation of 75 million Muslims. You are not overly interested in either understanding the unique local challenges that led to the presence of Al Qaeda sympathisers here or even explaining to them that you are on their side. All you are interested in is your shiny sexy new combatant command AFRICOM, and how great it is in furthering American interests.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I know we in the US are just starting to see the effects of security only approaches versus human security approaches through security, housing, health, and education. This is a political generation change where the baby boomers will simply retire out of politics for the more connected and investment efficient generation to really wield the idea of just and humane development using knowledge of a nation's population instead of only US national interest through simply government contacts without business development.
I do see Nigeria beyond $3000gdp/capita by 2025 and $10000gdp/capita by 2040 rendering many security worries moot anyway. The key is a diversified economy with continued urbanization and education. You are going to see that through the budget choices faced by the US throughout the 2010's. As for Africom, I am disappointed to hear about the drones only approach in Somalia. Would Nigeria be able to invest and contribute to security in Somalia or DRC to obviate the drones only approach?
Maduka does make a point; the number of places where AQ could potentially make a home are limited, so it wouldn't be that hard to get ahead of them and start making those places less hospitable for them (and more hospitable for their own inhabitants . . .).
The point about the Afghan Shah's does remind me; I've yet to come across the reason why we didn't back him. Was it his work with the Soviets? General "hereditary < elected" bias (odd, given the number of European monarchies we ally with)? Or something more specific? If Karzai falls, are the Shah's heirs a viable fall-back option?