Thursday, December 03, 2009

More on Afghanistan Speech/Plan

The issue of Pakistan vs. India. I noted it during the speech, but one thing that got lost in my initial analysis was the overwhelming pro-Pakistani position outlined by Obama. This is no different than Bush's approach of reassuring Pakistan that we are their ally in the region. Of course, we are not gaining much from this relationship (one thing the last 8 years taught us). We are essentially being blackmailed by Pakistan who takes our money and guns in exchange for the verbal commitment to hunt Al Queda and the occasional military incursion against the Taliban. Fact is, Pakistan enjoys a militant anti-Hindu Taliban in power in Afghanistan to give itself "strategic depth," in their rivalry with India. They like to be able to say, "you better keep us happy otherwise, we'll let our dogs off their leashes." Their small dog is the Taliban supported by Al Queda and their big dog is their nuclear stash.

Bill Clinton is terrified of Pakistan because the military men in Pakistan talk about nuclear war as an actual strategic possibility. Some of their most hawkish generals surmise they can actually win a nuclear fight with India because of their landscape of mountainous regions whereas India's power centers are on plains that offer no protection from a nuclear blast. To merely think in these terms is frightening.

The case-study of Pakistan provides the most obvious argument AGAINST allowing Iran to develop the bomb. With the bomb, Pakistan has the West bent over the bed. They have us terrified of the "worse" possibilities, ie the country falling into radical hands, giving the bomb to radical groups, using it themselves, and then they are able to bleed us in the meantime. Iran would do the same, if not worse, in a more strategically important area of the world.

Which all makes me wonder...why not consider letting our dog in the region off their leash? India. What not pass the buck on the Taliban to the Indians? They would probably do an equally good job as us fighting them. Maybe even better given it's their backyard and presumably they have better intelligence networks.

India is our friend in the region. Not Pakistan.

What is the endgame in all of this? Or the desired end-state? Basically, a de-nuked Pakistan who gives up support for the Taliban and Al Queda. An allience between India-America-Pakistani moderates against the hardliners-Taliban-Al Queda. A democratic Iranian regime with support from Lebanese Shiia and Iraqi Shiia so we have an alliance of Iran-Iraq-Lebanan-Israel-America against Syria-Saudi influence. This is the best-case end goal for the West and the world. It doesn't seem achievable in the current climate (ironically the Iraq piece of the puzzle is the least-worst right now).

Does Obama have a long-term Michael Corleone, keep your friends close but your enemies closer plan? Will the day come when the Barzini-Tatalia (Saudi/Pakistan) alliance goes down?

I suppose only time will tell.

No comments: