Export the Awakening

I keep forgetting to link to Spencer Ackerman's excellent column on the folly of proposals to "export" the "Anbar Awakening" model to Pakistan. You can tell Spencer knows what he's talking about because he uses so many damn acronyms just like a real defense guy:

In Pakistan, nothing like this exists. The FATA tribes show no sign of tensions with AQSL. The Times reported that many of the same tribes that would form the basis of a FATA Awakening still actively fight alongside the Taliban -- as do elements within the Interior Ministry that would be responsible for nurturing the Awakening. Within SOCOM, which has developed the proposal, analysts have no idea whether the tribes would accept or reject American support. In short, the basic strategic condition that allowed the Anbar Awakening to exist -- a split between Iraqis and al-Qaeda -- isn't in evidence here. All sorts of other potential problems arise: for one, this potential paramilitary tribal force, with its minimal control by Islamabad, wouldn't augur well for the internal stability of a nuclear-armed country. But without the basic FATA/AQSL split, it makes no sense to consider such second-order questions. And in that case, flooding the FATA with money and guns is about as wise as making a blank check out to Osama bin Laden.

I agree. Spencer further argues that the development of this deeply unsound strategy from within the military's special operations command reflects a kind of "Iraq Syndrome" effect:

Right. And here we see a potentially looming institutional problem wherein military officials looking to salvage some dignity from a debacle in Iraq that's not really their fault (it's always important to keep in mind that the objectives of the war, as initially framed, just weren't compatible with the use of sound counterinsurgency tactics on the battlefield) will start seizing on faint glimmers of success and want to apply such "lessons" as soon as possible, whether or not there's really evidence in their favor.

Comments

I have to admit, I don't know my ass from my elbow with respect to the FATA, the AQSL or this-or-that faction in Pakistan or anywhere else. I shouldn't have to know; I'm a pharmacist from Phoenix, for crying out loud.

The President is supposed to know these things. But there is precious little evidence that he does. Given America's long history of suffering the consequences of supporting this-or-that local thug dictator, I think there's precious little evidence that any other President really knew, either.

Therefore, I think American foreign policy should be guided by something like Starfleet's Prime Directive. Interfering in the internal politics of another country should, prima facie, be considered a bad idea, and whoever wants to go ahead and do that should face a hefty burden of proof.

Posted by Jalmari | November 30, 2007 12:18 PM

Jalmari is wrong in the sense that the "Prime Directive" doesn't apply when a country you don't care much about has a small militarist faction that gains dominance, and suddenly leaves your Fleet at Pearl in smoking ruins. Or as a brutal African dictator you direct your soldiers to help Palestinians with their hijacked Israeli aircraft and let them land in your country.
Or you provide safe haven to pirates.

If you do so, don't be surprised when the people that failed to stop a small minority that went out of a nation or population to fuck with or kill others - meet the people coming to counterattack and end up paying for the sins of others they failed to stop.
Either you have sovereignity or you don't. If you cannot control your own people and they go out and attack foreign nations or harbor those who do (Pakistan and it's mainly Pashtun Fundi crazies) - don't be surprised if the people that pay for the retalitatory Indian attack on Lahore or US-led blockade of all air and ship travel to or from Pakistan are not crazy Pashtuns and their AQ Arab "honored guests" - but are the ordinary Sinds and Punjabis and families like Musharaaf's that fled Northern India 60 years ago to live in a majority Muslim nation.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 30, 2007 5:46 PM

Ford as usual has it backwards.

The "Prime Directive" doesn't apply when a sovereign state attacks you - like Japan did. "Small militaristic" faction is irrelevant if they run the state. The same applies to the neocon morons here, by the way. Nuking Washington would be justifiable by a lot of countries at this point for exactly the reason Ford tries to cite - a small cabal of fanatics running the show.

It also doesn't apply to idiots like Amin who actively supported an attack on another nation. Whereas I've seen no evidence the Taliban ever actively supported Al Qaeda, except to allow them to maintain their camps. And I've not seen anything that said they even actually did that, other than not forcing the camps to go elsewhere.

Keeping in mind that neither Afghanistan OR Pakistan is Central Park, policing the tribal areas simply isn't feasible for a government of a poor Third World nation like Afghanistan - or one which has been using said tribal areas to destabilize neighboring countries as Pakistan has with regard to Afghanistan. Therefore blaming the Taliban for Al Qaeda existing in their country is not terribly useful.

And trying to enlist Pakistan to remove the Taliban from their country, when a significant percentage of the Pakistani military and intelligence services support them for their own reasons, is also not terribly useful.

"US-led blockade of all air and ship travel to or from Pakistan"

Yeah, right, dipshit - like that would have any effect on Pakistan's ability to control the FATA - let alone the Pashtun ability to enter or leave the country on the ground.

It's also amusing that Ford is ready to kill anybody who FAILED to stop militants from killing people outside their own country. That would be a pure justification for 9/11 in bin Laden's own terms.

So once again, we see that there is little difference between neocon terrorism and Muslim terrorism - except the Muslims have an actual grievance that goes back decades in history.

As for Matt's post, another good reason why an "Anbar Awakening" won't work is precisely because there are factions in the Pakistani government - the military and the intelligence services - who would not wish to see it work for their own reasons. Presumably those factions expect to be part of the leadership of the jihadist movement if and when it eventually gains control of the government. So they will sabotage any efforts along those lines.

Reports from Pakistan make it clear that the Bush Administration has no interest in Pakistan's internal makeup except to try to force it to conduct a "proxy anti-terror war" on the jihadists. And this just isn't going to happen regardless of how much money Bush throws down the drain over there. All that's going to happen is a revolving door of front men like Musharraf and Kiyani taking bribes from the US and achieving nothing, eventually being forced out and retiring with millions or billions in the bank like Bhutto and her husband.

It's a welfare program for Pakistani dictators at the US taxpayer's expense.

Meanwhile, the country as a whole will proceed down the same path as most of them do - directly to civil war and/or jihadist revolution. Slowly or quickly, the same thing will happen to every other country the US tries to prop up with bribes and military aid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 30, 2007 9:41 PM