Earlier today, British foreign secretary David Milliband renewed Britain's pledge to help Pakistan in the latter's counter terrorism efforts, and also voiced support for reconciliation with those militants who are willing to renounce terrorism.
Both these steps are a part of a state's counter terrorism strategy as suggested by Paul Pillar and Heyman respectively, namely, countries should aid other countries in their fight against terrorism. However, evaluating Pakistan's situation, it is difficult to say whether this will help the country or not.
By helping America in its War on Terror,Pakistan faced a near definite possibility of a break-up after a relentless civil war between the Kemalist sections of the Pakistani army led by General-President Parvez Mussaraf against the Jihadist factions led by more fundamentalist groups. There is a lot of support for the fundamentalists from rogue armies like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Pakistan continues to faces a dilemma: if it continues supporting the War on Terror, it will face a civil war in the near future, and if refuses to help America, there is a possibility that America will attack Pakistan in order to hunt down the Jihadists, or destroy Pakistan's nuclear plants before the Jihadists get to it.
Sometimes it is difficult to see what a country should do, I think that they should continue supporting the war on terror and "big brother" should come to their aid in case a civil war breaks out over this particular issue. What does everyone else think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Pakistan's future is indeed unknown, and I'm glad that I'm not in Pakistani leadership right now. As I see it, Islamabad must work with the West, even if it means alienating powerful fundamentalist movements within the country. A civil war might be won by either side, but there's no question who would win in a conflict with the USA. That doesn't make the decisions facing Pakistani leadership any easier, though.
See, I'm not as confident as Root is concerning the efficacy of American military might. Yes, no one can stop us when it comes to actually battling it out (read: conventional warfare) but when it comes to occupation and regime change, I think the US has a terrible record, e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Therefore, I think the best option available to the US is to work with the current government in their fight against fundamentalist/terrorist threats, clan fractionalization and inter-tribal warfare. I believe, however, that America should implement these denial and dissuasion strategies in a way that is not very visible. America cannot afford to alienate the people of Pakistan and it definitely cannot afford another civil war (look at the mess in Iraq). Again, the best way to rid Pakistan of its current islamo-terrorist threats is to: one, step up coordination and intelligence sharing with the governemtn; two, step up our training of their police and military; and three, continue joint paramilitary operations in the country. These strategies will allow us to keep a low profile. Combine these denial strategies with prevention strategies, like increased public diplomacy, exchanges and aid and I think we can turn the tide in Pakistan.
I agree with Sean. I think that the US can not expect to go in militarily to every country that has terrorists. It's just not feasible. So, the US will have to use development strategies like Sean outlined such as helping train their police forces, economic aid, etc. to address the root causes of terrorism. I think the US depends too much on the military as a counter-terrorism tool and while it is helpful, it is just one tool in the toolbox. The US should incorporate a more diverse range of counter-terrorists strategies into is policies.
It seems as though training of police forces are affective but that terrorists are finding ways to disable their usefulness. In the early days of the Iraqi war there would be an intelligence leak and all of the American-trained policemen would be dead. I do agree however that the US has a horrible record with regime change. The worst thing that the U.S. can do at this point is try to muscle their way into another state - i think that the people would view this as a further alienation of their rights and it would increase the likeihood of civil war.
Post a Comment