Pakistan, the perpetual irritant

Michael Smerconish: Pakistan, the perpetual irritant
9.24.09
By Michael Smerconish - Daily News
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Opinion Columnist

EIGHT years after 9/11, it's still all about the P-word.

Pakistan. For years, I've questioned the Pakistani government's willingness to eradicate the extremists within its borders and bring Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to justice. So yesterday's New York Times headline "Obama is Considering Strategy Shift in Afghan War" was welcome.

In the wake of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's dire assessment of the U.S. effort there and an Afghan election marred by allegations of fraud, the Times indicated the president was weighing two competing strategies: Deploy tens of thousands of additional troops to undertake a traditional counterinsurgency effort, or pare back the number of troops and focus on more "surgical tactics" on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

I've long advocated the second approach, decrying the absence of burqa-clad U.S. ops gathering string, cutting deals and hunting down the bad guys in the tribal regions of Pakistan. I also know that approach won't be easy. On Tuesday, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf confirmed just how hard it would be.

Given Afghanistan's shared border with Pakistan, as well as the countries' similar task of eradicating violent radicals, I
asked Musharraf about his reaction to McChrystal's call for a larger U.S. footprint in Afghanistan.

"I would not be that pessimistic about it ending in failure. But certainly it will not end in success because I believe - in military terminology there is a term called 'dilution in space,' where the space is large and the force coming to it is small. In the case of Afghanistan . . . the force there - the coalition forces, U.S. forces and Afghan national army - is diluted in space . . . more force is certainly required to win."

Winning in Afghanistan, Musharraf agreed, should involve a larger U.S. footprint. But what about sending additional U.S. forces to operate within Pakistan?

"No, I wouldn't be in favor of that at all . . . ," he said. "It will carry very negative reactions, responses in the public. Other than that, I know that United States forces' getting involved on the Pakistan side will further dilute the effort in Afghanistan, and I don't think at all that they'll be able to achieve on the Pakistan side anything more than what the Pakistan forces are already achieving."

His answer seemed contradictory. Musharraf had just stated that there is a legitimate need for further U.S. deployments to Afghanistan in order to eradicate the Taliban there.

I suggested that there is a similar justification for taking a U.S. position in Pakistan to assist in eliminating al Qaeda. Not to mention bringing bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to justice.

Afghanistan and Pakistan, Musharraf said, aren't comparable. The former has "to travel a long distance" before achieving a government capable of managing the country. Afghan-armed forces, meanwhile, pale in comparison to the 500,000-strong Pakistani army, he said.

"Pakistan army is capable of dealing with any situation. Therefore, any foreign assistance is not required at all. It compromises maybe the sovereignty of the country, and Pakistan's sovereignty must not be violated . . ."

But that belief in a "capable" Pakistani army that doesn't require foreign assistance is belied by the facts. Not only are bin Laden and al-Zawahiri still presumed to be hiding in Pakistan's tribal regions, but as Musharraf himself noted during our talk, nobody has even come close to grabbing them.

"About four years back, we had information . . . about his broad location." he said. ". . . All intelligence was focused into that area of Pakistan, and U.S. intelligence. But then we lost that. So therefore, we missed him. After that, I don't remember at all. No, we never got close to him."

When I asked if there were any circumstances under which it would be appropriate for U.S. forces to enter Pakistan, he refused to budge: "I don't think it would be appropriate at all." More coordination between Pakistani and U.S. forces operating on opposite sides of the border, he said, would be better.

But tactical tweaks have yet to avenge the deaths of 3,000 Americans. Just as the U.S. and its allies have a security interest in eradicating the Taliban in Afghanistan, they also have an obligation to root out al Qaeda on the other side of the border.

To separate victory in Afghanistan from justice in Pakistan is to add an arbitrary complication to a war that everyone, from McChrystal to Musharraf, agrees we must win. The 9/11 victims and their families deserve it.

Listen to Michael Smerconish weekdays 5-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Read him Sundays in the Inquirer. Contact him via the Web at www.smerconish.com.