He Forgot About Pakistan

I don't blame politicians for not having off-the-shelf brilliant solutions to the question of what our policy toward Pakistan should be, but Ilan Goldenberg's surely right that something's amiss when Rudy Giuliani spends 6,000 words on foreign policy and doesn't mention Pakistan at all.

This, though, is the neocon two-step we've been living with for years. Despite the talk of "The Terrorists' War on Us" the folks Giuliani has associated himself with don't care about al-Qaeda terrorism. Before 9/11 they mostly wanted a war with China, and then secondarily wars with Iraq, Iran, and Syria. These days, it's more like they primarily want a war with Iran and Syria (they already got Iraq) with China and maybe Russia as second-tier priorities. Fighting al-Qaeda isn't even a close second -- it's just not on the map.

Comments

apparently we go to war with the terrorists we want, not the terrorists we have.

Posted by marc | August 16, 2007 11:09 AM

The word "terrorism" has degenerated into a content-free term of abuse, the same way that the terms "anti-Semitism" and "racism" have.

Posted by Harshbarger | August 16, 2007 11:17 AM

Going after al-Qaeda is pre 9/11 thinking. Playing defense. Engaging in a grand struggle to kill, conquer or convert everyone who disagrees with us it post 9/11 thinking. It's offense. Rudy is all about offense.

Posted by Merle | August 16, 2007 11:18 AM

The center of radical Islam is in 7 countries - Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Londonistan, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. Countries to the periphery, like Indonesia, Muslim areas of the Philippines, Morocco, Turkey, and Pakistan basically draw on the cancer of the Islamist thinking from the center countries,

Terorist groups are just outgrowths of radical Islam. YOung men rising and going forth on religiously and culturally accepted Jihad, using terror as a tactic.

No different really than some Braves from a native merican tribe going on the warpath. Young warriors in any barbarian culture discovering nothing is more exciting than combat.

To argue that the "real threat" of radical Islam is 4-5 guys still hiding out in the Boonies of Pakistan is insipid - showing an utter lack of understanding of Islam, Jihad, and the Shiite extremist and Salafist schools now contending with "old Islam". To then argue that we must risk a major war just so we can try and find those 4-5 guys with military forces in an area as big as the US Rockies (and Rockies full of tens of millions of the Pashtun version of Apaches - like Obama and various Lefties have - goes beyond insipid.

It will be satifying to whack the 4-5 remnants of AQ leadership involved in one big attack, just as long as we kill them on sight and do not attempt to capture them for any civilian trial..

But that will come, if it ever does, only with CIA and ISI working together to find them, and Binnie&Co whacked by a consent of a Pak officer.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 16, 2007 11:55 AM

The problem for the neocons with making Al-Qaeda the target of a war is that there isn't enough money and action in it. They need a nation as a target so that they can deploy the US military. A fight against Al-Qaeda would mostly involve spooks and missiles, which wouldn't be exciting enough for the public and wouldn't provide near enough opportunities for moving public funds into corporate pockets.
And of course there's also the problem that if you allow people to focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda, they'll notice that the enemy is small and usually fairly ineffectual, and doesn't really justify the effort and sacrificed liberties we've put into the war on terror.

Posted by bbartlog | August 16, 2007 11:56 AM

You may be guilty of confusing what Rudy is saying in order to get elected with what he will do if elected. They're not necessarily the same.

In addition, since there is no solution to the problem of Pakistan -- other than time, as in decades at the very least -- there is no political traction to be gained by proposing a solution. Whatever solution you propound will be wrong.

Posted by ostap | August 16, 2007 11:59 AM

With these conmen it's democracy at the end of a gun, with an emphasis on the end of a gun. It's a good living in all its facets, resources to be carted away, logistic dollars to be allocated and siphoned, talking point honorariums to be pocketed. Give Rudy a break, he's too busy and can't be expected to remember everything.

Posted by The Other Alan | August 16, 2007 12:24 PM

What is Matthew talking about? Giuliani clearly mentions Pakistan:

The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated.
Much of that fight will take place in the shadows. It will be the work of intelligence operatives, paramilitary groups, and Special Operations forces. It will also require close relationships with other governments and local forces. The next U.S. president should direct our armed forces to emphasize such work, in part because local forces are best able to operate in their home countries and in part in order to reduce the strain on our own troops.

I mean, what "other government and local forces" does Matthew think Giuliani is talking about in the context of destroying the al Qaeda network and killing or capturing its leaders "from Osama bin Laden on down"?

Matthew shouldn't need everything spelled out for him like a two-year-old, should he?

Posted by Al | August 16, 2007 12:28 PM

Chris Ford,

You are right that radical Islam is centered in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. However, it is a mistake to conflate all of radical Islam, or even all terrorist groups inspired by radical Islam, with threats to national security requiring the use of our military forces. That because radical Islam is not some monolthic force in the Muslim world; the various parts of the radical Islamist movement have differing goals. As a result, not all terrorist groups inspired by radical Islam are at war with the West. Many of them are focused primarily on combating either Israel, combating secular progressives within the Muslim world, or combating Muslim heretics (as shown by the Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq). Therefore, we need to focus our MILITARY efforts against the radical Islamist groups that are actually at war with the West, and so far the only groups that are engage in jihad with the West are the groups belonging to the Al-Qaeda network. It is not insipid then to focus on Al-Qaeda; what is insipid is for us to pick a fight with the whole of radical Islam. That's a formula for us to remain perpetually involved in the sectarian disputes of the Muslim world, even most of those disputes don't really concern us in the West, any more than the sectarian disputes of the Christian world in the wake of the Protestant Reformation concerned the Ottomon Empire. It would have been a strategic disaster for the Ottomon Empire to get militarily involved in the Hundred Years War between Catholic and Protestant Europeans. It will be an even worse strategic disaster for the West to get involved in the Islamic version of the Hundred Years War in the Middle East.

Since the leadership of Al-Qaeda is currently based in the border areas of Pakistan & Afghanistan, that means we must focus our military efforts there. They may be only 4-5 guys (which is a dubious assumption) but those 4-5 guys were the ones who plotted and directed the attacks of 9/11, and they will continue to plot and direct those kinds of attacks until they are captured or killed, either by Pakistani and/or American military force. We cannot afford to let Pakistan dither about taking out AQ. If they don't take action against AQ, then we are forced to take action ourselves. Action, though, doesn't necesarily require us to invade Pakistan, since our fight isn't with Pakistan. Our fight is with AQ and its Pashtun warlord patrons. Our options are not limited to our current strategy (impotently begging Musharraf to go after AQ whenever he can find the time) or to invading Pakistan.

Posted by eltoro | August 16, 2007 12:53 PM

I like the way that when you quoted Giuliani, you elided the 's' to make it look like he wasn't talking about governments, plural. I don't think refering to governments of some not-well-defined set of nations we'll be cooperating with really counts as mentioning Pakistan. If you want to set the bar that low then any mention of 'our allies in the war on terror' could be construed that way.

Posted by bbartlog | August 16, 2007 12:59 PM

Al,

Looks you need everything spelled out for you like a one-year old. The very problem with Pakistan is that the local forces we are working with aren't doing anything to take out the AQ elements in the border regions of their country.
So Giuliani's general prescription does nothing to specifically address the Pakistan issue at all. We have to go beyond the "work with them" prescription; we actually have to pressure the leader of the local forces to take concrete & effective action.

So as usual, Matt is humbly right,while Al is arrogantly & obnoxiously dead wrong.

Posted by eltoro | August 16, 2007 1:05 PM

Eltoro,

Matthew didn't say that the policy Giuliani espouses as regards Pakistan hasn't worked so far and therefore we should try something different. Matthew said Giuliani "doesn't mention Pakistan at all." Which is just plain false - Giuliani clearly does discuss Pakistan in the passage I quoted, even if not by name.

Posted by Al | August 16, 2007 1:28 PM

Al, is Giuliani really serious about a policy if he can't even bring himself to say the name of the relevant country? The Republican Party is having a hard enough time admitting bin Laden is even in Pakistan. Musharraff's official line is that bin Laden isn't in Pakistan and our government has been sort of playing that game. In fact, it's probably better that he doesn't actually mean it, but that means then his foreign policy pronouncements aren't meant to be taken seriously. So tell me, is Giuliani crazy, ignorant or a liar?

"The center of radical Islam is in 7 countries - Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Londonistan, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. Countries to the periphery, like Indonesia, Muslim areas of the Philippines, Morocco, Turkey, and Pakistan basically draw on the cancer of the Islamist thinking from the center countries,"

As someone who has family in London, I can safely say you're an idiot. "Londonistan" is a sign someone isn't to be taken seriously. Palestine hasn't exactly exported Islamic terrorism, much like Chechnya and Xinjiang. The PLO ended up escaping to the likes of Lebanon and Libya in the past, but they are/were Marxist nationalists. The radical Islam in Iran and the radical Islam in Egypt are diametrically opposed over sectarian issues. Iran has exported terrorism via Hezbollah into Lebanon and Israel and the Palestinian Territories. However, AQ recruiting video games have levels in which your mission is to kill the head of Hezbollah because AQ hates Hezbollah. Sudan used to be an AQ base to project power outward, but terrorism issues related to Sudan tend to be about Sudanese politics with Sudan more of a potential importer (bin Laden's threats against anyone going into Darfur) than an exporter of Islamic terrorism. The only relevant countries in your list are Egypt (home of the late Qutb and many in the AQ leadership, who are given preferential treatment in the organization) and Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism, most of the 9/11 attackers, bin Laden, some sympathetic members of the House of Saud). Guess where bin Laden founded AQ? Pakistan. Where was the Afghan jihad, the predecessor to AQ as a movement, run out of? Pakistan. Where is AQ's leadership currently located? Pakistan. You're just being silly, trying to inject various Republican obsessions (evil Palestinians and crazy Iranian mullahs) into the AQ mold without any rhyme or reason.

Posted by Reality Man | August 16, 2007 1:31 PM

Initial comment from marc wins the thread.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 16, 2007 1:43 PM

The center of radical Islam is in 7 countries - Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Londonistan, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. Countries to the periphery, like Indonesia, Muslim areas of the Philippines, Morocco, Turkey, and Pakistan basically draw on the cancer of the Islamist thinking from the center countries. - Chris Ford

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have to disagree with this statement. More terrorists have received funding and training in Pakistan to a degree that is far greater than in Egypt, Yemen, or Sudan. (I don't even know what to make of Londonistan) The Taliban and Kashmiri religious militant groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba have all developed from both official and nonofficial support from Pakistan. The Taliban were born from refugee camps near Peshawar. As far as the roots of militant Islam, I think the Deoband movement and their successors that moved to Pakistan after partition, Al-Huq and his strategy of adding a regligious dimension to the ISI and Pakistani Army all suggest that the connection between Pakistan and militant Islam go far beyong a cave in Waziristan.

This is not to endorse military action against Pakistan, but to say Pakistan is peripheral either betrays an uninformed of the history of Islamic militant groups, or some sort of willful ignorance to suit neoconservative policy.

Posted by Harry | August 16, 2007 1:44 PM

Not to mention Daniel Pearl, radical madrassahs, and the role of AQ Khan in the Iranian centrifuge program which may not have occurred due to the Pakistani government, but are still part of the narrative about Pakistan and its role in the GWOT

Posted by Harry | August 16, 2007 1:51 PM

Which is just plain false - Giuliani clearly does discuss Pakistan in the passage I quoted, even if not by name.

When you join the Republican Party do they give you the Republican Party Implication Decoder Ring? Of course, I can probably make my own.

1) If someone said he didn't say something he should, he implied it.
2) If someone says he said something he shouldn't have, he didn't the someone(s) who said he said it are missing The Context.
3) If someone says he implied something he shouldn't have, he didn't imply it(except he did, wink wink).

Posted by Rambuncle | August 16, 2007 2:56 PM

AQ is not the Hydra monster. It is just one of many fanged heads spring off the trunk of the beast - the beast is Radical Islam....a recurrent Islamic phenomenon that supplants "moderate" Islam through much of Islams 1400 year long history.

Arguments have been made, especially with the exterminations of N India, that radical Islam has killed more people than communism, fascism, and certainly, Christianity or Judaism ever did.

Arguing that Pakistan is the "real problem" the world faces from Islamists because 4-5 AQ biggies are hiding out there is insipid. Arguing that all other combat elements of radical Islam are not a problem because "they never attacked us" is like people arguing the same about Soviet toralitarianism and the Nazis in 1940.

Londonistan is on the list because it is now the epicenter of the worst Muslim extremist groups and preachers of the Ummah outside Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
And the epicenter of dissemination of Jihadist videos, websites, and Internet recruitment.

Pakistan has taken it's religious lead from the intolerant Saudi Wahhabi faith since 1980, when KSA sent massive aid in in the form of madrassahs, new Wahhabi Mosques, promoted radicalism in Waziristan, and transformed the Kashmir nationalist terrorists into a religious terrorist movement.

Pakistan is not a "center country" in the global struggle with intolerant ideology of radical Islam. No more than Cuba was any more than a satellite of Soviet Communist ideology seeking to advance in the Western hemisphere in the early 60s.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 16, 2007 10:53 PM

Ford gets his whole argument trashed in a couple posts and all he can do is reiterate.

He's correct that Pakistan is not a "center" country in the sense that it didn't originate the THEORY behind much of Islamic jihadism. That came from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps a bit from Iran.

But Pakistan certainly is a US foreign policy problem which Giuliani should have mentioned by name, if he's going to mention any of the other countries. (I didn't notice, did Giuliani mention any other countries by name?)

And the reason is that Pakistan does house a "franchise" organization which is drawing on both the theory and the social conditions of the "center Islamic" nations for its energy.

The problem for both sides is that Pakistan is in no position to do much of anything about Waziristan or the Taliban or Al Qaeda, any more than Afghanistan's government is able to deal with Afghanistan's warlords and heroin crop.

Certainly not if those countries keep the government officials they have in place.

So any political argument in the US that doesn't go beyond "bomb Al Qaeda" or "pressure Musharaf" isn't going to get anywhere in the real world.

There IS NO solution to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, or anyplace else without some form of "drain the swamp". And that cannot be done by anybody in the US in any way.

The only "draining" the US can do is to limit its involvement and support for any side in the Middle East, so that we don't get in the middle and become a target. We can "drain our own swamp", but we will never be able to influence the overall cultural and social and political movements of the Islamic countries. Nor should we try.

The only exception is the Israeli-Palestinian issue. And even there, our intent should be to reduce or eliminate the international perception that we are propping up Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians. Which means cutting off foreign aid to Israel, and no more vetos in the UN against resolutions that condemn Israeli actions.

Again, none of this is going to happen. The US is going to continue to meddle in these matters until somebody nukes New York or Washington to make the point.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 17, 2007 1:20 AM

No Chris Ford, it is insipid to ignore that AQ is safely stationed in Pakistan, and to be content with impotently begging Musharraf to do something about it whenever he has the time. If we allow them to live free to plot another 9/11 (maybe this time with nuclear weapons), we are endangering ourselves. You know this, Chris, since people like you never fail to bash Bill Clinton for failing to take action against AQ in Afghanistan when he was President. (Of course, people like you do neglect to mention that Dubya also failed to perform this sort of action in the months that he was President before 9/11.)

BTW, it is also insipid to think that there are only 4-5 Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan at any time. Since it is a safe haven for AQ, there's going to be a lot more than 4-5 AQ leaders staying there on a permanent basis, and there's going to be lots of AQ leaders directing efforts in other countries that will travel through there from time to time.

Moreover, it also insipid to use your 1940 analogy. Remember, we are already in the middle of a war, so metaphorically speaking we are long past 1940. We are at least in 1943, and we need to concentrate on defeating the enemies we are currently at war with, and not on defeating the enemies we may be at war with in the future. In other hands, Germany & Japan first, the Soviet Union later. So for the time being, we must concentrate our MILITARY efforts on the part of radical Islam that is actually at war with the West, and right now that part is Al Qaeda.

As I have mentioned before, the various parts of radical Islam have differing and even competing agendas, which requires differing responses. As the sectarian civil war in Iraq has shown, even in the wake of 9/11, Sunni and Shia radical Islamists kill each other at least as eagerly as they kill the soldiers & citizens of the Great Satan. (One could argue that they are actually more eager to kill each other.) Therefore, what is appropriate for dealing with one part is not appropriate for dealing another. Conflating all of radical Islam then with AQ, and making the whole of radical Islam an enemy that must be dealt with militarily is not only insipid, but downright plain stupid.

Posted by eltoro | August 17, 2007 10:53 AM