No Man-Istan

Unless you live in a cave somewhere (although certain cave-dwellers, no doubt, have also taken a keen interest) then you know that Obama won the presidential election. So what does that mean for Pakistan?

In the broader Muslim world, this son of a Kenyan Muslim and white Christan American may represent some much needed changes. According to the “We” campaign (closely related to the “One” campaign, Avaaz, and many others) he has agreed to double federal aid to the world’s poorest, set a time-table for U.S. troops in Iraq, and work closely with the Iraqi government and U.S. military for a feasible exist strategy, do more for the environment, do more for Darfur, and engage Iran constructively over issues like Iraq and the nuclear threat. Again, what about Pakistan?

With a few exceptions, I’ve noticed that the reactions of Pakistanis to the U.S. election has been lukewarm at best. The media often ridiculed both candidates, saying that McCain wanted to permanently occupy Iraq, and that Obama wanted to permanently occupy Afghanistan. Both are of course wild exaggerations. McCain was not exactly popular, as he was considered an extension of Bush, who is hated even more than Musharraf. But Obama angered Pakistanis a great deal with his comments about vowing to come into Pakistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Taliban/Al Qaeda if Pakistan is unable or unwilling.  I’ve read countless articles stating that the U.S. “occupies” Pakistan, even though no troops are stationed here. And while predator drones do violate boundaries, the U.S. has honored Pakistan’s demand that they not build or use military bases on Pakistan’s soil. The few government workers and military personnel in Pakistan are not on-duty soldiers. Many claim that the U.S. is violating international law with the increasing incursions, but that’s hard to argue considering that continuing attacks from Pakistan constitute a casus belli (and other countries have already been shouting at the top of their lungs to America that Pakistan is not to be trusted).

But even I admit some very sobering realities that the next administration must face, whatever their party of ideology: (i) the U.S. military cannot keep bombing Pakistan if innocent civilians, including women and children, continue to die, (ii) Most Pakistanis have their own agenda and have never fully trusted the U.S., or any outsiders, which limits our ability to “export” any particular version of democracy, (iii) despite Pakistan’s links to a particular history/culture in a certain region, it is still dominated by a larger Islamic narrative at odds with how many Westerners, and non-Muslims, think, (iv) the best hope we have in plugging up the hole in the flood of jihadis – ones planning missions all over the place – is stability in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, no matter how unpalatible we might find the current set-up of their governments. Forcing a top-down bureaucracy in Afghanistan has never worked, so we must respect tribal sovereignty and local ways of knowing. The same applies in the NWFP and FATA regions of north-west Pakistan. If America is inexperieced and ill-suited to this type of combat, then Pakistan’s military, which was basically constructed to fight India, is even less so.

If Obama really is going to step-up military action here, I hope he doesn’t repeat past mistakes. Escalating the war in Afghanistan, or starting a new one with Pakistan, won’t help. One thing he could do with a large influx of troops is to set-up a lot more patrols and stations along the parts of the Afghan-Pak border (i.e. north and south Waziristan). It is difficult for either government to monitor and police this porous, mountainous area, where militants dress just like civilians, and local tribal mafias control much of the trade between the two countries. Will more border troops make much of a difference? Probably not, but if we do that, at least we can at least dismiss Pakistan’s excuse that they can’t do anything about the militants on their own soil.

What else can be done? Perhaps build a road-map to peace involving the Afghan and Pakistan governments, along with the relevant tribal leaders, and emphasize the common stake all parties involved have in maintaining stability and warding off international jihad. If Saudi Arabia is the only authority that the Taliban will listen to, sadly, we can’t then ignore them as a resource to make deals (although we can strive for more energy independence and not flush them with as many petro-dollars).

But what can we do about sympathizers and defectors in the ISI and Pakistani military? I have no idea. As it is, there is still mass denial in this country about Khalid Sheikh Muhammad’s role in planning 9/11, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed’s transfer of $100,000 to lead hijacker Muhammad Atta, via Omar Sheikh, and Brigadier Ejaz Shah’s friendship with the Taliban and, allegedly, Bin Laden himself (and may have also been behind the Bhutto assassination). While guilt-by-association alone does not hold up in court, there are so many associations, and so little prosecution, that one wonders how Pakistan feels it has the right to complain about the riping of seeds it has sown! 

If there is any single solution, it is probaly through education. And not just more education, but better education. That is, an education with a broad curriculum free of the bias of intolerant ideologies, one that values the arts and sciences, imparts practical life-skills to students, and does not blind them with shrill, simplistic dogma.

If Obama can play any part in making that come true, that would be truly amazing. Whether he can ever capture Osama bin Laden and drag him to the international court at the Hague for crimes against humanity is uncertain. What he is is more important – an inspiring leader who represents the polar opposite of the Al Qaeda vision, and an America that transcends their propaganda.