Pakistani Problems Threatening Afghanistan

Extremists In Pakistan Putting US Afghan Strategy In Jeopardy
By Robert Burns, Associated Press
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)

WASHINGTON — A central pillar of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan — enlisting Pakistan to eliminate extremist havens on its side of the border — is being tested so severely it calls into question the viability of the entire plan.

When President Obama announced on March 27 his approach to turning around the war in Afghanistan, he said stronger action by neighboring Pakistan against Taliban sanctuaries on its soil was "indispensable." He called the insurgent-infested border area "the most dangerous place in the world."

Since then, extremists have not only held their own on the border but have made inroads toward Pakistan's capital.

The extremists, including Pakistani elements of the Taliban, are not a homogenous force; some elements are focused more on infiltrating Afghanistan to contest control of that country, while others are oriented toward destabilizing Pakistan. But in either case the trends are growing more worrisome for an Obama administration that has decided the Afghan problem cannot be fixed without progress in Pakistan.

Reports of a pullback Friday from the militants' latest advances toward Islamabad were greeted with measured relief in Washington, but there remains a worry that the Pakistani government is failing to deal forcefully with Islamist fighters slowly advancing toward the heart of the nuclear-armed country.

Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said developments in Pakistan have caused "deep anxiety" among administration officials — "and a worry about the viability, frankly, of any Afghan strategy, not just this one."

There seem to be few other options for the U.S. in Pakistan. It has used periodic missile attacks from Predator drone aircraft to strike extremist leadership targets, but more direct military action would seem unlikely. Obama has pledged to provide more financial and other non-military support, while warning Islamabad that U.S. patience is limited.

Obama made the calculation that Pakistan's sovereignty must be respected and therefore U.S. ground forces would not be used inside Pakistan against the extremists, including elements of the al-Qaida network whose leaders are believed to be operating on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

He said Pakistan, with U.S. help, must show its commitment to making progress against the extremists.

Since Obama laid out that strategy, Pakistan arguably has regressed, endangering one pillar of the U.S. plan. The other pillars are a U.S. military and civilian buildup in Afghanistan and a redoubling of U.S. and allied efforts to train an Afghan security force capable of handling the insurgency on its own.

David W. Barno, a former top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, says extremists threaten to upend the very existence of Pakistan.

"Events in Pakistan are spiraling out of control," Barno told Congress on Thursday, "and our options in reversing the downward acceleration are limited at best."

U.S. officials have sought, with limited success, to nudge the Pakistani government toward confronting the extremists. The frustration was evident in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's assertion to Congress on Wednesday that the Pakistanis are "basically abdicating" to the extremists.

At least as cutting were comments Friday in Afghanistan by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I'm increasingly both concerned and frustrated at the progression of the danger," he said in an NBC News interview one day after meeting with Pakistani officials.

Some thoughts from former CMC Gen Krulak:

General Chuck Krulak addresses several current issues --

..."A dear friend of mine sent me a series of e-mails [posts on USNA-At-Large] asking where Senator McCain and General Krulak are...with regard to a couple of issues currently in the media. Obviously I cannot speak for Senator McCain but I thought it might be worthwhile to shed some light on what has led my thinking on the issues raised...:"

1. Gays in the Military:
As the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), I, along with the Counsel to the Commandant (Mr. Peter Murphy) and the then-Commandant, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr. helped "fight" the Gays in the Military movement and helped craft the current policy(now referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) The actual language presente by the Marine Corps during this debate was initially drafted by personnelat MCCDC. (Obviously, Gen. Mundy put the argument in his own words...and did a superb job.) Hopefully this lays out where I stand on this issue. My position has not changed since my time at MCCDC.

2. Extraordinary Interrogation Techniques and Rendition.
After reading comments made by members of this forum, I am sure that what I will write will have little or no impact but I do want people to understand my thought
process. I have spent over 3 years looking and studying this issue.

I have been joined in this effort by over 30 Flag and General Officers and a
like number of Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels and Captains and Colonels...not to mention a significant number of former FBI and CIA agents who helped form my opinion. I have also been able to gain significant information from both classified and unclassified sources. I mention this, NOT to "beat my own drum" but, rather, to indicate that my view is not a cursory one. To the contrary, it is a view developed over time and with academic and "first hand" rigor.

a. Torture brings little to no "actionable intelligence" to the table. Simply put, the individual will say almost anything to stop the torture. If the answer being sought is about WMD, then the individual being tortured will give that up in a heart beat...accuracy is not an issue. Gen. Colin Powell can give you chapter and verse on that. He went in front of the UN and gave a talk on WMD in Iraq based on information
(Intelligence??) gained from an individual who was water-boarded. The "intelligence" turned out to be inaccurate and Gen. Powell was made to look foolish. The professionals from the CIA and FBI that I have talked to have emphasized that they have yet to see "actionable intelligence" come from toruture.

b. There is a negative impact, obviously, on the person being tortured but there is also a negative impact on the person doing the torturing. This has been repeatedly documented by the medical community. All but the sadistic find the act of participating in torture an extremely stressful and disturbing act.

c. Whether we like it or not, we are signators to the Geneva Conventions. "Picking and choosing" what conventions to follow is not something we, as a Nation, should be doing.

d. We should never do anything that deprives our fighting men and women the moral authority to undertake what we all know as the "just war." This concept is critical to our concept of war fighting. Moral authority forms the basis of how we train our warriors (Code of Conduct) and how we expect them to act on the battlefield. Condoning torture erodes moral authority.

e. Along the same theme as noted in paragraph d., the mothers and fathers of America did not send their sons and daughters into government service to learn how to torture. This may seem to be an obvious statement but our actions run counter to this fact when we do, in fact, engage in torture.

f. The so-called "ticking time bomb scenario" is a red herring and needs to be fully understood. First off, there is not a single interrogator that we have spoken with that would give any veracity to statements made by a prisoner under interrogation (torture) in this scenario. Secondly, we need to remember that an IED is a "ticking time bomb" to a young Marine PFC who thinks he has found a insurgent who may know where the IED has been planted. If we condone torture at the highest levels of our government, then what is to stop the Marine PFC from torturing "his" prisoner? It is a very slippery slope.

g. Since our enemy is already torturing their prisoners...beheading, etc. the argument that our torturing will somehow endanger our troops is a specious one and one that I do not buy into at all. What I do buy into is the fact that America does not do torture! It is not who we are...it is not how we act...it is not what the world expects of us. If we have any sense ofresponsibility, we need to understand that there are many people from many Nations...all looking at whether we truly stand for the values we espouse. Torture runs counter to our value system.

h. Finally, for those who do not think water-boarding is torture, try it. I have and I confess I was scared to death. I would have said anything to have it stop. It is drowning at its worst. As for rendition, it is simply playing Pontius Pilate...letting another country do the torturing for us.

I realize I have probably not changed anyone's mind with my comments but I felt it might be helpful to understand why I feel the way I do.

Semper Fidelis, CCK