An Open Letter to President Obama

[carl]

Robert C. Jones:

I am repeating my earlier query, because you still have not responded.

You say "it's not our call to pick who governs Afghanistan." Does the same go for the Pak Army/ISI? Do they get to pick?

As far as ideology goes, I disagree for the most part, but especially as it relates to AQ receiving sanctuary from the Taliban and the Pak Army/ISI, which was what my comment was primarily about. AQ is essentially a supplicant. They go to the people who control the ground and say "hide me." Why should they hide AQ? The world doesn't like it much. American airplanes and armies come and shoot the place up, MO has to live far from home etc. So why do they do it? It seems to me they do it because AQ shares an ideological vision with them, an Islamist vision. If AQ said, "we want to strengthen the Chambers of Commerce of the Muslim world and we are willing to die in the effort", I doubt they would have received the sanctuary, given at considerable cost, that they have received. And there is no other place in the world where AQ can go to get that because there is no other place in the world so ideologically favorable.

What does AQ bring to the Taliban and Pak Army/ISI? I think the first is the cachet of hosting an organization that has demonstrated it can hurt and, maybe more importantly, frighten the west. They get to hang with the guys who have really stuck it to the man.

Second they can help bring in some money from Gulf donors. Why do those donors donate? They like the ideology espoused by AQ. Some rich whiskey drinking Saudi princelet can feel pious by sending money off to help restore the caliphate. That is what AQ is selling to those guys, an ideological vision.

JJackson:

A couple of observations. Pakistan is indeed falling apart but I think, and this has been covered often in other places on SWJ, that is because of what the powerful in Pakistan have done, not because of what they have pretended to help us do. A lot of those powerful are individually much better off financially because of what is going on. I believe that is what they are primarily interested in, not their country.

I think you might be underestimating the importance of the Taliban & company's "hard core". That group can be very powerful, especially since it will be aided, as much or more than before I think, by the Pak Army/ISI who will most likely view anything other than Taliban & company as an "Indian proxy."

My statement may well be full of holes but consider this. The Saudi gov nor those of any of the Gulf states allow AQ to openly operate on their territory. If they are there they have to hide well. That is not the case in Talibania or Pakistan. AQ has sanctuary there. They aren't hunted by the police. That is an important difference. Is the funding probelm? Yep, it is and will be. I don't know how to solve it. The Saudi's are a bit of a conundrum for us.

The big losers in a negotiated settlement would also be the Uzbeck, Tajiks, Hazaras and Pashtuns who like neither Taliban & company nor the Pak Army/ISI. They would probably object which gets us back to what Steve the Planner and Dayuhan say.

[davidbfpo]

Carl asks within his post why AQ find sanctuary, with the Taliban and in the FATA (parts of). Plus with the ISI / Pakistani Army.

From my reading, not extensive, there are a host of reasons for the Taliban and FATA tribal decisions.

Culture, Pashtunwali (with its own thread) and contemporary history are the bedrock. A militant and new edition of Islam gaining ground, helped by murder etc (notably in the FATA). Lack of any development - yes, Bob's governance viewpoint, a point conceded after 9/11 by the Pakistani Army, at a London briefing by a retired senior officer.

We have discussed why the Pakistani Army / ISI assist too. Add to the previous cocktail a strategic viewpoint - Indian encirclement notably and a dangerous error of judgement that the 'militants' could be controlled.

Not all is gloomy. Do not forget the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, after 9/11 did consider expelling AQ / putting them before an Islamic court etc.

[davidbfpo]

There are a couple of threads this could drop into, but this seems the best.

Ranj Alaaldin argues that only the drastic curtailment of Nato ambitions in Afghanistan, and some unpalatable choices, will secure any semblance of stability in the country.

Which ends with:

In short, any strategy in Afghanistan must revolve around what is viable and sustainable. Propping up Karzai is not the ideal choice to take but it is perhaps the only realistic option amidst what is a complex political, security and geopolitical environment.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensec...utm_campaign=0

[S-2]

Negotiation is a non-starter. There is no incentive for the taliban to do so. Worse, there is no unified element with which to negotiate. It seems apparent that the core leadership elements for HQN, Quetta Shura and Hizb-i-Gulbuddin only loosely control their combatant commanders and have tenuous ties with one another. Dog chases tail in a no-win scenario.

The vital nat'l interest for each NATO entity remains the nearly accomplished by 2002 task of dismembering Al Qaeda. Nothing more nor less. Everything else falls into the sub-heading of nat'l interests...but certainly not vital.

Our issue remains how best to quarantine Afghanistan yet continue our central mission of destroying Al Qaeda and their affiliates wherever found while permitting Pakistan its notional victory (which will almost certainly implode in their faces).

There will be no complete taliban takeover nor Pakistani "victory" in any case. Even should we depart posthaste, there are numerous countries in the region who've vital nat'l interests include not seeing a taliban-dominated Afghanistan. Iran, Russia, CAR, and India all have roles to play here that supercede America and NATO. They should be given free hand to do so as they see fit.

That will more than offset any Pakistani sponsoring of an afghan taliban takeover while permitting NATO (particularly America) to retain the ways and means to pursue our strategic ends-Al Qaeda.

Thanks.