A Challenge for Washington

Op-Ed International Herald Tribune
Summary
The next president of the United States will inherit the challenge of persuading the Pakistani leadership that it needs to continue prosecuting an unpopular, but necessary, war. Two fundamental changes need to be made by the next administration - it will have to strengthen the civilian government in Islamabad, while still maintaining a cooperative relationship with the Pakistani military.
Related Media and Tools
 

About the only thing civilian and military leaders in Pakistan agree on is that they don't want to fight the American war on terror - at least, not as Washington would have them fight it. On Sept. 6, the Pakistani legislature elected Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of the slain Benazir Bhutto, as the country's new president. Zardari promptly promised to fight terrorism more resolutely and to deal with his country's deepening maladies, which include an entrenched Taliban presence in Pakistan's tribal regions, a massive inflation of food and fuel prices, and a worsening fiscal deficit.  

Zardari will not likely be able to remedy these problems anytime soon, so the next president of the United States will inherit the challenge of persuading the Pakistani leadership that it needs to continue prosecuting an unpopular, but necessary, war. The fact remains that if the United States wants to wipe out Al Qaeda, it will need Islamabad's help, and if it wants to consolidate a stable democratic government in Afghanistan, it will need Islamabad to go after senior Afghan Taliban leaders and their Pakistani associates like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.  

If Pakistan is to undertake these tasks, the next administration will need to make fundamental changes in its approach: It will have to strengthen the civilian government in Islamabad, while still maintaining a cooperative relationship with the Pakistani military.  

These two objectives may frequently be at odds, and they embody genuine dilemmas for Washington. The war on terror necessitates continued U.S. engagement of the Pakistani military but, if not conducted appropriately, such a partnership could weaken civil authority in Islamabad and strengthen the national security state in Pakistan, which has historically been the chief cause of Pakistan's problems.  

The alternative strategy of emphasizing Pakistani civilian supremacy, on the other hand, could - if not managed carefully - undermine the Pakistani military cooperation necessary for the success of counterterrorism operations and could in fact become a double whammy if the Zardari regime fails to govern responsibly.  

Unfortunately, Washington can neither escape this dilemma nor resolve it by seizing only one of its horns. After all, the United States has as much of an interest in defeating terrorism as it does in helping Pakistanis build a lasting democratic government. The next U.S. administration, therefore, will have to juggle the twin tasks of supporting democratic consolidation in Pakistan while simultaneously remaining engaged with its military, however contradictory in principle and difficult in practice this may be.  

This will of necessity require broad and patient engagement with Pakistan. It will require working with Pakistan's civilian leaders to overcome the pressing food and energy shortages through targeted assistance, while aiding them to repair their weakened democratic institutions. It will require increased U.S. assistance for education, particularly public education, which remains the best weapon against Pakistan's atavistic feudal structures and its religious radicalization. The Biden-Lugar bill, which aims to expand civilian over military aid, is a worthwhile initiative that deserves the support of the incoming administration (even if Biden isn't part of it), but it will necessitate enlarged U.S. monitoring capacity to succeed. It will require encouraging India and Pakistan to complete the reconciliation process they began several years ago. And it requires pressing Pakistan to increase its trading links with India so that the latter's dynamic economy can help raise Pakistan's economic growth as well.  

Even as these efforts are underway, Washington must continue to assist Pakistan to fight the war on terror despite the fact that the Pakistan Army is tired, overextended and ill-equipped to fight terrorism and insurgency. The first objective here must be to get the army and its intelligence organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence, out of the terrorism business altogether. The second objective must be to assist the army with equipment and training to do something it has never done before: recognize that Pakistan's real enemies are to be found within the country and not across its eastern border in India.  

Helping the army make this conceptual leap will be a great achievement. But neither Pakistan nor the United States can afford to wait for a full transformation in the army's mind-set. Both countries are confronted by a pressing threat of terrorism now, and success requires that the Pakistan Army get back into the fight as early as possible.  

This will require responsible conduct by the military and intelligence services and the development of an appropriate civil-military relationship. Whereas most countries have an army, in Pakistan the army has a country. Pakistan's military consumes the single largest share of its gross domestic product, and defense expenditure crowds out investments in social spending and economic development, producing the popular resentment that feeds instability and terrorism.  

The United States not only has an interest in defeating these dangers, it also has the influence to shape Pakistan's choices in helpful ways. Washington should press for substantial political reform that gradually changes the incentive structures in Pakistan. By strengthening civilian rule and encouraging private sector economic growth and development that benefits the Pakistani people more directly, it can help senior military officials conclude that their own interests are better served by a prosperous state that is at peace within and with its neighbors.  

A shift of this sort will take many years to materialize, but the next American president could do much to encourage it by showing the Pakistanis that the United States will not neglect them if they are willing to do their part.

Ashley Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

This article originally appeared in the International Herald Tribune

End of document
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2008/09/12/challenge-for-washington/3frq

In Fact

 

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

58

years ago

Carnegie began an internship program. Notable alumni include Samantha Power.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

20

million people killed

in Cold War conflicts.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

82

new airports

are set to be built in China by 2015.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

16

million Russian citizens

are considered “ethnic Muslims.”

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Europe
 
Carnegie Europe Rue du Congrès, 15 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 735 56 50 Fax: +32 2736 6222
Please note...

You are leaving the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy's website and entering another Carnegie global site.

请注意...

您离开卡内基 - 清华全球政策中心网站,进入另一个卡内基全球网站。