First, Do What We Must in Pakistan

President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan, unveiled last week, finally focuses the government's attention and resources where they are most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, the president recognizes that the key to our national security is defeating al Qaeda, and that to do so we must address both Pakistan and Afghanistan. But while the president clearly understands that the greatest threat to our nation resides in Pakistan, his new strategy has the potential to escalate, rather than diminish this threat.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. made the right choice to invade Afghanistan because it was from there that our nation was attacked. Our brave troops successfully toppled the Taliban, but the Bush administration soon turned its attention elsewhere. Distracted by Iraq, that administration allowed efforts in Afghanistan to languish while al Qaeda and Taliban leaders found safe haven in the western part of Pakistan. As a result, al Qaeda has reconstituted and strengthened itself while the Taliban, operating relatively freely in Pakistan, launches cross border attacks into Afghanistan, including lethal attacks on Americans.

The Obama administration's plan and rhetoric recognize the vital need to confront this threat. However, the decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan -- and possibly an additional 10,000 troops next year -- before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well prove ineffective, or worse, counterproductive. So long as the Taliban can flee into Pakistan and operate from there with relative ease, any gains against them in Afghanistan may well be temporary at best. Meanwhile, our troops would be threatened by forces who are largely beyond their reach, in Pakistan, while our increased military presence in Afghanistan could stoke resentment among the Afghan people.

In addition, and perhaps even more troubling, increased military engagement against the Taliban in Afghanistan could push it further into Pakistan while worsening the militant extremism that has spread to more and more parts of Pakistan. New Taliban safe havens could emerge from which attacks in Afghanistan or Pakistan, like recent bombings in the Khyber Pass and Lahore, could be planned. More Pakistanis could fall under the control of those who would violate basic human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls. Already weak government institutions could deteriorate further, undermining the legitimacy of the Pakistani state. And a country with nuclear weapons could be dangerously destabilized.

President Obama has stated clearly that we cannot prevail in Afghanistan without addressing Pakistan -- but that recognition alone is not enough. Before deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should be ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistani leaders to curb militant extremism. The Pakistani government must not sit idly by as the Taliban and other militants operate freely, in some cases with the support of individuals in the government. Increasing U.S. assistance to Pakistan is an important step, as is the insistence that it be conditioned on a commitment to confronting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but we must be explicit about the serious consequences if this commitment is not met. We can't walk away from Pakistan altogether or abandon those fighting alongside us against this threat. At the same time, we must not turn a blind eye to those in the government who tolerate and support militant extremism and whose actions threaten Americans and Pakistanis alike.

We also need to push Pakistan to make democratic reforms because, until it does so, it is unlikely to be a true partner in fighting extremism -- no matter how much assistance we provide. An effective, responsive and representative government will help Pakistan achieve the political and economic stability that are sorely needed there. Moreover, if Pakistan is going to undertake a sustained effort against militant extremism, it will likely need a civilian government that derives popular legitimacy through a respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Stability and elections are no guarantee of an aggressive counterterrorism policy, of course, but they may be a necessary requirement.

Finally, we must work with both Pakistan and India to reconcile the historic tensions between their countries. As we saw in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, those tensions continue to fester. India's security concerns must be addressed -- and they can be, once Pakistan finally turns its attention to the al Qaeda, Taliban and militant threats within its own borders.

None of these needed initiatives will come easily, but they may be even more difficult if we first escalate militarily in Afghanistan. If, as the president said, another terrorist attack against the U.S. would likely come from Pakistan, then that is where we must start.

Follow Sen. Russ Feingold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/U.S. Senator fr

Comments

[Usama]

Senators like Feingold mean well for Americans. But I suspect they are in a 'bubble' of intel regarding foreign affairs. They see the rest of the world through the myopic lense of that 'bubble' and wind up parroting intel, recommendations, and ideas fed to them in that 'bubble'.
Listening to generals like Petraeus explain all kinds of military actions within Asia to "fight terrorism" may seem so comprehensive. But Petraeus, like other in the generals corp, is a Neo Con. Non-NeoCons were purged from the corps by Rumsfeld, leaving Neo Con ideologues. And Feingold has been counseled and lobbied by Neo Cons, including Israelis and Jews. Petraeus' plans coincide with, if not propagate, the Neo Con vision of the region: building Afghanistan and Pakistan as a corridor for American access to the Caspian Sea basin. Its notable that ENRON, before it went under, had the same corridor mapped out : "If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war in Afghanistan, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipelines to the Indian Ocean," says Uri Avnery

[1murillo]

Sen. Feingold presents weak arguments.

His suppositions are correct, but he doesn't convincingly present evidence that the negative consequences he lists will occur.

Examples:

"... could very well prove ineffective..." (This also means that troops could very well prove effective.)

"... gains against them ... may well be temporary at best." (Or, they might not.)

"... our increased military presence in Afghanistan could stoke resentment..." (Or, not.)

" ... increased military engagement ... could push it further into Pakistan..."
"New Taliban safe havens could emerge..."
"More Pakistanis could fall ..."
"... government institutions could deteriorate further..."
" And a country with nuclear weapons could be dangerously destabilized." (Could.)

"We also need to push Pakistan to make democratic reforms because, until it does so, it is unlikely to be a true partner in fighting extremism..." (Incorrect, this is the same silly idea that GWB had going into Iraq; trying to create democracies that we - US like - has never worked.)

"... Pakistan ... will likely need a civilian government that derives popular legitimacy through a respect for democracy..." (Pakistan has an elected government; again just like GWB, it's apparently not democratic enough for US.)

"Finally, we must work with both Pakistan and India..." (To think that we must work step-by-step is close minded.)

Sen. Feingold poorly presents the Obama administration's multi-pronged actions. In this opinion piece he is off the mark and behind the times.

[zell]

Thank you, Senator Feingold, for reminding us that Pakistan is our greatest threat. All we hear is Iran, Iran, while Pakistan can continue to support the terrorists that cross their border. We all know that A. Q. Khan supported folks with nuclear technology and nothing was done about it.

[Kerryisass]

Pakistan is the epicenter of terr0rism.

Too many people are in denial.

[holeybuybull]

No, that would be Saudi Arabia.

[PSM42]

2003 US de. aths from terrorism 23. Deaths from bee stings 60.

De. aths from heart attack and stroke 1 million.

Dollars spent on w. ar to leave no w. ar-profiteer behind - $3T (T as in Trillion).

Average amount spent per life lost to 'te. rro. rism' - $18.6 million dollars.

1raqi 'excess' de. aths 1.4 million. Plus 1 million by sanctions. Plus 400k by GW1. Total 2.8 million s0uls sla. ugh. tered.

Where is the epicenter of te. rr. or again? Wome. As in Wome on the Potomac - home of Biggus D1ckus Ch. en. ey? Sounds about right -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5k9wPOegbs

[PSM42]

Correction

Average amount spent per life lost to 'leave no war profiteer behind' - $18.63 B (B as in Billion). 23 lives x 7 years x $18.6B = $3T.

Holey moley. That's a lot of moulah. I'll sell you Bu. sh and Ch. ene. y together for one thousandth of one life - that is, for a mere $18.6 million. Cheap at five hundred times the price.

[PJay1]

Senator Feingold,

Once again I ask that you PLEASE take the lead as you've successfully done in the past against this war expansion. You are a rare breed in the Senate, and I mean that in a good way.

The ONLY one to vote against that unconstitutional 'patriot act'!
Standing ovation to you for that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/first-do-what-we-must-in_b_182867.html?show_comment_id=22709004#comment_22709004

[freeheeler]

What we must first do in Pakistan is to stop bombing them. Then we must leave Afghanistan.

If countries want our help and if they are willing to act in accordance with basic human rights then we should give them aid. But democratization by force does not work.

Time to bring our troops home. All of them. As our economy collapses, so too will our overseas empire. We cannot afford empire, we've overreached. When unemployement in the US hits 15%, at the current rates that'll happen around September, the wars will end because we will demand that they end.

[PJay1]

Amen!

[freeheeler]

It isn't enough that we are losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Barak wants to go to war with Pakistan as well?

It is past time to bring our troops home, lest we start calling the AfPac war "ObamaNam."

[Robt]

I fully agreee with the Senator that Pakistan is our most pressing insecurities of nations that can cause instability in a region and the world.

Yes their Nukes have much toi do with it.

Yet this was and continues to be the real unstable, Al Qaida breeding fround and worry some Government than Iraq or even Iran in my calculations.

I have read reports that insurgent type radicals have been attacking and testing the military bases perimeter and protection(s) for defending their bases.

If these radicals were to take over a base with nukes. It could be catostrophic. Pakistan's reasoning for nukes was to keep up with their rival neighbors, India. India who will not and still refuses to sign any treaty regarding their nuke weaponry. With tensions between India and Pakistan escalating. Sometimes in small degrees with other times in larger more visable degrees. No matter, the tensions continue to escalate. Their own regionable nuke arms race.
You think either India or Pakistan teach their children to take cover under their school desk in the case of a nuke strike?

[RobHunt]

"We also need to push Pakistan to make democratic reforms because, until it does so, it is unlikely to be a true partner in fighting extremism -- no matter how much assistance we provide."

Do my Neocon ears deceive me? A Democrat is suggesting the US under Obama should "push" peoples and sovereign governments into adopting democratic traditions that run counter to their OWN cultural traditions?

It just goes to show that criticisms of those "neocon" ideas was merely political opportunism. Sure, you hated that Bush thought he could "bring democracy to the world." How presumptious!

"Now, BARACK bringing democracy to the world - THAT has a sorta nice ring to it, don't you all think?"

We get it.

[S1m0n]

"... the U.S. made the right choice to invade Afghanistan because it was from there that our nation was attacked.."

Huh? You don't go to war against PLACES, you go to war against PEOPLE.

If the people you're fighting in the place you opt to invade aren't the people you have to defeat, all you're doing is getting revenge against innocent bystanders.

Which, let's note, is what al Qaeda did when it attacked the US to punish Saudi Arabia.

[PSM42]

GET OUT AND STAY OUT?

Do what we must do in Pakistan?

Get out and stay out. Well that's a relief. For a minute there I thought you were going to give us some tired old mumbo-jumbo about ev1ldoers -- the one's that didn't cause the deaths of 1.4 million 1raqis that is, plus 1 million by sanctions. Plus 400,000 in Gulf War One.

Because no one is buying that old malarkey. Not after Ahmed Rashid, Nafeez Ahmed, Pepe Escobar and Peter Dale Scott with Tariq Ali together gave us a good picture of what's going on.

Bear in mind that Ahmed Rashid has just been hired by Holbrooke and it is no coincidence that listening to him is like listening to Tony Blair with an educated Pakistani accent -- Neocon views to the core.

Ahmed Rashid - http://www.ahmedrashid.com/

Nafeez Ahmed fills in the bits that Ahmed Rashid (deliberately?) leaves out - http://nafeez.blogspot.com/

Pepe Escobar tells it like it is -- at Asia Times -- text - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html

PE at Real News - video - http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=74&jumival=pepe&search=search

Peter Dale Scott with Tariq Ali - the Chinese will not accept permanent US bases on their borders -

See @9.20 Google GTV Empire 5 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ1TX-QwtGo

And Pt 6. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4SCPlYe1IPs

[cotterpin]

As much as I like Feingold, I am disappointed that he propagates the myth that it was correct to go into Afghanistan. The reality is Afghanistan, after 9/11, offered to turn over Osama. Their one requirement was that he be turned over to a 3rd party country for an international trial. The US refused. One more "Bring it on " moment.
Now, nearly 8 yrs. later and another administration, we're sending and spending even more. And not a Bin Laden in sight.

[sunman666666]

There are no good terrorists­----------­This is the first lesson the Pakistanis should be learning. They created the Taliban, in hope of using them against India in the end, BUT The fundamentalist chickens have come home to roost. As you reap , so -----------We can only hope that there isn't another few billions for the latent jihadis and for once aid dollars are accounted for.

[eirrac]

Senator Feingold: Well done. I really appreciate your insight on this issue. By the way, I'm a Wisconsinite who voted for you.

[WilliamGossett]

If we stay, we are "screwed" and if we leave, we are "screwed"

If the far Right were running this country they would nuke the whole area including Iran. Not a good solution but it would work in a demonic way. I think that (the Israeli) Lieberman understands and buys this. Maybe there is just no way of two diametrically opposed forces to deal with each other other than one annihilating the other and since we are smarter than they are and much more advanced, there is no doubt who would win... I never thought I would say that and I do support the President but I am a pessimist and I think it will come to this end in a very short (under ten years) time frame.

[Profyz]

Everyone of the 9/11 terrorist was an Arab and came from Saudi Arabia and you want to nuke Afghanista­n/Pakistan­/Iran all non-Arabs. The Arabs in Afghanistan were CIA recruits to fight Soviets including Osama another Saudi.

[Dailykook]

Why you questioning Senator Lieberman's patriotism. hat have you done for this country. Yes you are a pessimist.