I can’t quite believe that Obama has already completed one year in office. I’m generally having a hard time coming to grips with the way time is passing us by, as anyone who knows me can attest (5-year college reunion in May? Already?!). But I digress . .
Almost as soon as Obama’s presidency began, rigorous analysis of the results of his domestic and foreign policy started as well. His campaign promise for change, all the hype surrounding him, and the odd bestowing of the Nobel Peace Prize have only served to increase the need for quick and tangible results.
No doubt one of Obama’s greatest foreign policy challenges has been addressing the war in Afghanistan and increasing militancy in Pakistan, and it has taken him a while to figure out which path to take. I recall his initial emphasis on a regional strategy to the problem of increasing militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I was intrigued with his recognition that addressing Pakistan’s perception of its insecurity vis-a-visa India, and the resultant narrative, was essential to arriving at a solution. The appointment of Richard Holbrooke as Special Representative for only Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, demonstrated very clearly that this regional approach was not going to happen. Instead, Afpak was born. South Asia scholars are divided on the extent to which the Kashmir stalemate and other Indo-Pak issues are part of the Afpak problem (read an old but great piece here on this issue and how Indian lobbying kept India out of Holbrooke’s mandate, and stay tuned for my own jumbled thoughts on the issue). The nuances of the Afpak policy are also just starting to be worked out, and will no doubt be affected as the situation on the ground continues to change.
My top 11 most significant moments of 2009 that have, or will, affect policy towards the region are, in chronological order:
1) The January 23rd drone attack: Yes, Obama had repeatedly stated during his presidential campaign that he had no intention of ending the drone attacks and yes, he had reiterated his intention of pressurizing Pakistan in its role in tracking down militants. Nonetheless, I was surprised that the controversial policy was continuing – and that too, in such a decided and deliberate manner, only a few days after Obama officially took office. Drone attacks continue to be the main issue around which anti-Americanism in Pakistan is mobilized. Given the credible news reports that the Pakistan government has given its tacit approval to the U.S. to carry out these attacks, it’s hard to tell whether the drone attacks merely provide a tangible issue around which to rally, or whether Pakistanis truly feel that these attacks are detrimental. I remain convinced that the harm caused by these attacks far outweigh the benefits.
2) The Congress Party retains power: In general elections that spanned nearly a full month, India demonstrated its successful democratic character. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the Indian National Congress, won convincingly and Manmohan Singh began his second five-year term as Prime Minister.
3) Swat operation begins and ends: After a peace deal with a militant faction failed (which would have allowed for the implementation of Shariah in the valley, through the controversial Nizam-e-Adl regulation, in exchange for peace), the Pakistan military went into Swat to rout the region of militants. The Operation was deemed a success. I’ll remain skeptical about its ‘success’ until it is clear that all IDPs have safely returned and been reintegrated into society, and that violence in the valley has really come to an end.
4) Obama’s address to the Muslim world: What a speech! It made me feel all warm and fuzzy. Great symbolic gesture.
5) Karzai, oh Karzai: Reelected? Yes? No? Fraud? Not surprisingly, the August 2009 presidential elections in Afghanistan were marred with controversy. Allegations of widespread election fraud by a UN-led watchdog threw doubt over Karzai’s victory. A second run-off vote was announced, but cancelled after Abdullah Abdullah (Karzai’s strongest contender) withdrew arguing that a transparent election was not possible in the given circumstances.
6) Baitullah Mehsud is killed (but surprise, surprise, militant attacks in Pakistan continue): Leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban, one of the most-wanted militants operating from Waziristan, and thought to be behind Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Baitullah Mehsud was killed in August 2009. No doubt a victory in the war against terror, the days following his death have nonetheless been characterized by increased violence.
7) The Pakistan Army headquarters are attacked, a UN guesthouse in Kabul is gunned down, a car explodes outside of the Indian Embassy in Kabul – take your pick of most sensational attack in the region: Scary times.
8) Manmohan Singh visits the U.S.: A glitzy state dinner – and party-crashers – welcomed Prime Minister Singh to the United States. The countries signed 6 pacts and reaffirmed their global strategic partnership based on their shared ideals.
9) Pakistan wins the Twenty20 Cricket Championship: Okay, so this didn’t affect U.S. foreign policy, but this was significant to me and to a good 160 million Pakistanis. Something to cheer about, right?
10) South Waziristan Operation begins: On 17 October, Pakistan launched a military operation – Rah-e-Nijat or “Path to Salvation” – in South Waziristan. Based upon the previous government operation in Swat, Rah-e-Nijat has aimed to rid the FATA agency of militant networks. So far, 600 militants have been killed.
11) The unveiling of Obama’s Afghan policy: In December 2009, after much speculation, Obama finally announced his plan for the war in Afghanistan. A 30,000 strong troop surge, an exit date and “a civilian surge that reinforces positive action.”
We need more of the “glitzy state dinner”, championships with “something to cheer about” and “warm and fuzzy” speeches.
i would have to add the march 3rd attack on the sri lankan cricket team in lahore as also being a major event for pakistan. it was perhaps the first domestic terrorist attack in pakistan since benazir bhutto’s assassination that affected all pakistanis — not only was it an attack on the national sport and against a sri lankan team that was doing the country a favor by playing in pakistan but it also sadly spelled the end to all international matches in pakistan for the foreseeable future. a tragic day for all pakistanis…
Nice job. I’m going to start making top-11 lists too. Why stop at 10?
I agree with John, mostly because it ties into this whole [south] “Punjabi Taliban” threat that people always talk about and I remain skeptical about.
How about the NRO being overturned? Do you think that’s going to have any real effect?
I think a good addition to #1 would be all of the Blackwater-related scandals, and what that means for bilateral relations.
Aside from Afpakihindustan, there was the return of democracy in Bangladesh, the apparent end of the war in Sri Lanka, a lot of stuff in Nepal on which I am poorly informed, and the Maldives desperately trying to find a new country. However, this falls out of the scope of your quite comprehensive post…
John, you’re right. That warrants a place in the list, for the reasons you suggest. Also, I think that what the cricket attack did was convince many Pakistanis, for the first time, that Pakistan WAS the kind of place from which cricket teams should hesitate touring. Until then, I think most people saw double-standards and unfair accusations, but this was a bit of a reality check. Good piece on this by my fav. cricket journalist here.
JS, yeah, Top 10 lists are so last year. Agreed about Blackwater and what it means about bilateral relations. I’d be interested to see what long-term effect this sort of thing – coupled with visa delays, etc – has. And yes, I think enough has happened in the rest of the region that they deserve their own top 11 list. Are you game?
“9) Pakistan wins the Twenty20 Cricket Championship.”
Haha…of course
I was just thinking about the drone attacks, and I think I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on that one. I don’t see how Obama can reasonably trust the Pakistani government to take action against Al Qaeda or the Taliban in any prolonged, meaningful way. Sure, the occassional army operation looks good on the New York Times, but the recent piece about the journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban shows the extent to which the Pakistani government allows the Taliban room to operate. I have yet to be convinced that Pakistan’s recent operations against the Taliban have fundamentally changed the overall picture either.
As far as Al Qaeda, I think the costs of the drone attacks on the Pakistani government clearly outweigh the benefits to the Pakistani government of killing Al Qaeda operatives. I think that’s why they don’t particularly like them. But I think the cost/benefit is different for the U.S., and I don’t believe the U.S. should put the security of its citizens at the whim of the Musharrafs, Zardaris, and Bhuttos of the world. And as far as anti-U.S. sentiment in these areas is concerned, I don’t think there is all that much the U.S. can do to change that given at least two prominent, international organizations (the Taliban and Al Qaeda) are waging full-scale warfare against the U.S. in their midst – doesn’t seem appear to me that a predator drone strike will make the situation all that much worse than it already is.
That being said, I do believe there is a difference between an effective drone strike and an ineffective, or even counter-productive one, and to that extent of course I would argue that they should be carefully targetted so as to reduce as many casualties and as much hostility as possible. But I don’t think they should be eliminated. If there is an opportunity to stop someone who may carry out or help to carry out attacks against the U.S., I think Obama has to take that chance, at least under most plausible circumstances that I can think of.
I’d like to hear your feedback on this though.
P.S. I think it’s about time I got on the top-11 bandwagon as well
Drone attacks have benefited Pakistan. The Death of Baitullah Mehsud is tesitmony to that. However the benefits of the drone acts should be coupled with actual action by the US military on the other side of the border. One problem the Pakistan military had with the operation in South Waziristan is that the Taliban and Uzbeks just ran to North Waziristan or Afghanistan. Even now the head of the Swati Taliban sits in Afghanistan according to the Dawn and other media outlets.
It should be noted that US requests regarding different groups of militants in Afghanistan do not serve Pakistan’s interest – political, economic or security. Rather the requests go contrary to the security of the people of Pakistan and in many cases against the will of the government and its people.
The Pakistani government has taken action against the TTP but not against the Haqqani group. Which makes sense considering our fundemental long term interest in Afghanistan and the policy of strategic depth vis a vis India. The TTP are a threat to Pakistan. The Haqqani group or the Quetta Shura are not. And it is not in the national interest of Pakistan to open up battles with other groups that do not threaten it.