Obama Incentivizes Success in Pakistan, Not Failure

Was President Barack Obama's pledge Thursday to triple economic aid to Pakistan a case of rewarding failure in what many experts have called "the most dangerous place on earth"? It could come across that way, as Washington and the general public continue to stew over bonuses to Wall Streeters.

The Bush and Obama teams have both expressed irritation at Islamabad's failure to rein in jihadists, despite the $10 billion in largely military aid from Washington after 9/11 compelled the two capitals into yet another awkward embrace.

Let's keep a few things in perspective, though. That sum of military aid is a mere half of what just one former Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, has received to piece a much smaller nation of Iraq back together.

The $10 billion provided to Pakistan was meant in part to control jihadist movements over a porous Pak-Afghan border. But that border is infinitely more difficult to police than a certain southern border of the world's mightiest nation, which we have yet to control. You would have to imagine that many Pakistani military officials would prefer to swap places with KBR executives.

There is, though, a thorny matter involving Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence apparent success in undercutting Islamabad -- by secretly assisting some jihadist groups that the country has banned. (Google "Pakistan" and "double game" and marvel at the results.)

Daniel Markey of the Council for Foreign Relations has argued persuasively that this seeming treachery is a result of a legitimate Pakistani suspicion of a historic Washington tendency -- to turn from friend to quasi-foe whenever Pakistan stops serving an immediately useful purpose. The ISI and some leaders would thus prefer secretly to keep a few "children of the American-Afghan mujahideen" around to torment neighbors who threaten its security.

It's in this sense that Obama's move to offer Pakistan $1.5 billion in economic aid over the next five years represents a major step forward in public diplomacy, soft power and inner resolve.

Resentments won't heal immediately. My most recent visits to Pakistan were peppered with angry declarations from citizens about how America continues to see how Pakistan has been drained by the influx of millions of refugees from Afghanistan after the U.S.-funded war against the Soviets there. They rage about a sense of powerlessness.

"If America disappeared tomorrow, no one here would complain," one pro-Western businessman told me last September. Another one observed that Pakistanis are grateful for China's many investment projects in Pakistan, which benefit ordinary citizens in a way that American military aid does not.

My last trip to Pakistan was punctuated by almost ending up at the Islamabad Marriott at the moment it was bombed by Talibanic forces. The incident accented the Pakistani gripe that, for all the hectoring from Washingtonians who wring their hands behind gated communities, ordinary Pakistanis pay an unappreciated price, day to day, in the war on terror. Some 6,000 civilians and 2,000 security forces are reported to have been killed during this effort.

Predictably, many Pakistanis blamed India for instigating that bombing, in much the same way that India would finger Pakistan following the Mumbai bombings a few months later. The scorned Pakistani nation watches America lovingly embrace an Indian rival that once happily bedded down with the Soviet Union - all while Pakistan believed that it stood firm as an American Cold War ally. This jilted lover will not come around easily, but she should be wooed with persistence.

So we may have new beginning. Of course, given the corruption in that atrophied nation, Washington would be prudent to provide aid and services directly to Pakistan's marginalized areas, lest the money go to waste.

Still, Obama deserves considerable credit for his balance of carrot and stick in that supremely chaotic part of the world. Following his tough talk about Pakistan in his presidential campaign, his latest moves show less of a sudden willingness to reward failure, and more of a determination to pull Pakistan back up on its own two feet.

It could be a historic act of enlightened self-interest for Americans.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

I wonder what price ISI would ask for to deliver Osama and Omar?

[MagisterLudi]

Islamist terrorsim in the world no longer exists. It was made to disappear single- handedly by the Homeland Security czar Neopolitano. According to her all terrorist acts will be now called "man made disasters." Problem solved.
London, Bali, Madrid, Mumbai--all "man caused disasters."

This the pinnacle, the Everest of PC speech. One must bow in reverence.

German magazine interview.:

"SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

[Bonez]

Insightful. Pakistanis feel that the US is not a reliable friend, by any means. infidelity notwithstanding, US aid is seen as attached to unreasonable demands and provisos. Aid needs to be focused on projects that help the common man and business, not the military.

[Rob Asghar - Huffpost Blogger]

Bonez -- I agree. One issue I'm wrestling with is how quickly anti-American feeling would subside if we make the right moves here in the U.S. What else needs to happen...?

[MagisterLudi]

"US aid is seen as attached to unreasonable demands and provisos."
You consider it unreasonable to ask Pakistanis to spend the money on combating terrorism as opposed to laundering the money to Swiss bank accounts and terrorist attacks in Kashmir?

I don't.

"Aid needs to be focused on projects that help the common man and business, not the military."
U.S and Britain already shouldering a considerable burden of accepting many P- stani economic immigrants.

Pakistanis better ask oil-rich Arab brethren for help. They're flush with cash from the recent price boom.

[Sikander]

People who understand this region of Afghanistan Pakistan know very well how closely linked these two countries are. There is no practice border between to the two countries as same ethnic group lives on both sides of the border and does not recognise the international border. Also for ages, as Afghanistan is a land locked country, all its trade is conducted through Pakistan. Resolving Pakistan will resolve Afghanistan and vice versa so for the purposes of eliminating Al-Qaida, this region should be considered one continuous territory and Afpak is an apt name for it.

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

By Sikander Hayat

[Rob Asghar - Huffpost Blogger]

Great point, Sikander. The Pak-Afghan border was described by an old CIA operative as 'some arbitrary line drawn in the sand by some white guy' -- in context, he was really justifying Islamabad's right to get involved in Kabul's affairs. But in the post-9/11 sense, this imaginary and arbitrary line has not been one that could be controlled by either Pak troops on one side or American and Afghan forces on the other.

[Tim Chambers]

I'm still reading and digesting the details of the new plan...and this article really helps...especially relating to the backstory on the Pakistani aid elements... why they are needed and how they might be viewed from inside the country... thanks for the insight...

Once Barack and team announce more specifics on the "benchmarks for progress" to Pakistan and Afghanistan would love to know how you views on them also...

[Rob Asghar - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, Tim. We could also look back on times when Washington "punished" Islamabad with the sorts of sanctions that heightened the conditions that breed extremism.

[MagisterLudi]

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

John Maynard Keynes