Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Joe Klein interviewed Barack Obama recently, and the latter had some interesting thoughts about what to do about the Taliban: 
[Q] …Should we be talking to the Taliban? I don’t mean you. [BO] You know, I think that this is one useful lesson that is applicable from Iraq. The Great Awakening, the Sunni Awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. It could not have occurred unless there were some contacts and intermediaries to peel off those who are tribal leaders, regional leaders, Sunni nationalists, from a more radical Messianic brand of insurgency. Well whether there are those same opportunities in Afghanistan I think should be explored.
Now, what's interesting about this is that Jane Perlez and Jane Zubair Shah have a fascinating piece in the New York Times on Pakistani efforts to trigger this kind of tribal awakening in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier: 
The tribal militias, known as lashkars, have quickly become a crucial tool of Pakistan’s strategy in the tribal belt, where the army has been fighting the Taliban for more than two months in what army generals acknowledge is a tougher and more protracted slog than they anticipated. And, indeed, the lashkars’ early efforts have been far from promising. As the strength of the militants in the tribal areas grows, and as the war across the border in Afghanistan worsens, the Pakistanis are casting about for new tactics. The emergence of the lashkars is a sign of the tribesmen’s rising frustration with the ruthlessness of the Taliban, but also of their traditional desire to run their own affairs and keep the Pakistani Army at bay, Pakistani officers and law enforcement officials say. Some in Washington have pointed to the emergence of the lashkars as a hopeful parallel to the largely successful Sunni Awakening movement in Iraq, which drew on tribes’ frustration with militant jihadis to build an alliance with American troops that helped lessen violence in Iraq. But there are significant differences, a senior American government official acknowledged. In Anbar Province, he said, the Iraqi tribes “woke up to millions of dollars in government assistance, and the support of the Third Infantry division.” But the support by the Pakistani Army and civilian government for the tribal militias has been “episodic” and so far “unsustained,” he said. In addition, tribal structures in Pakistan have been weakened in recent years by the Taliban, unlike the situation in Iraq. The tribesmen, armed with antiquated weaponry from the 1980s Afghan war, are facing better equipped, highly motivated Taliban who have intimidated and crushed some of the militia.... Even in the best of times, there are basic unwritten rules about the tribal militia in Pakistan that limit their impact. The Pakistani military, for example, can lend moral support but not initiate a tribal militia, the generals said. The lashkars come with their own weapons, food, and ammunition. They have their own fixed area of responsibility, and are not permanent. Indeed great care is taken to make sure the lashkars do not become a threat to the military itself. “We do not want a lashkar to become an offensive force,” said one of the generals, who spoke frankly about the lashkars on condition of anonymity. For that reason, the military was willing to lend fire support artillery and helicopters but would not give the militias heavy weapons, he said.
Here's a question that should be asked of both John McCain and Barack Obama -- should the United States be providing direct support to these lashkars as a way to squeeze the Taliban? 
 

DPT

8:43 PM ET

October 23, 2008

I'm not sure of it's a matter

I'm not sure of it's a matter of supporting the lashkars so much as accepting that they will occur whether the United States wants them to or not - it's simply the most sensible option for Pakistan. Obama and Biden have been vocally critical of deals with "the Taliban" by the Pakistani government in the past, and it seems likely that at least some of the Taliban factions will have to cooperate for an "awakening" to occur... In many cases Al Qaeda and the Taliban have subverted tribal structures through killing & elevation of their allies.

The problem is that as the Pakistani government puts greatest emphasis on cooperating with the tribes, they will need to put greater emphasis on addressing tribal concerns about over-the-border missile strikes and raids. Obama will have to tone down his rhetoric on cross-border activity lest he force the Pakistani government to make a choice between picking a fight with the lashkars or picking a fight with the US.

Perhaps fortunately economic matters have become America's #1 priority, so perhaps Obama will not receive so much political heat for backing down on his "get Al Qaeda where they live" promises.

 

SLEEPYIRV

11:22 PM ET

October 23, 2008

Obama's rhetoric on Al Qaeda

Obama's rhetoric on Al Qaeda is rather meaningless. It might be the major problem in US-Pakistani relations, but it automatically goes away after the election since we're already doing it so there will be no need to talk about it. We'll never hear about it again unless we get Osama.

 

DPT

1:24 AM ET

October 24, 2008

Sleepyirv - a fair point, but

Sleepyirv - a fair point, but what happens when "winning" Afghanistan doesn't come as easily as planned? Americans first became aware of the cross-border issue when the war began going poorly, my guess is that as it continues to do so, unless Obama can find a big distraction (the economy), he will be pressed to "do something" about the Taliban, neo-Taliban, al Qaeda, and local Pashtun tribes in Pakistan.

Also, we ceased cross-border raids after the Pakistani military began shooting at us. We have been doing the missile strikes for years but they are not very effective. If Obama authorizes sending troops across the border again, we would certainly hear about it, results or not.

 

NS

1:54 AM ET

October 24, 2008

"should the United States be

"should the United States be providing direct support to these lashkars as a way to squeeze the Taliban? "
Hmm.. what makes any one think that the lashkars would like to get direct support from the US Govt when their relationship with the Pakistani Govt itself is bound by so many parameters?

There are more fundamental problems here - principally the effective support for terrorism from the average Pakistani. This is the exact reason why the Govt goes ahead and keeps signing those "peace" deals. Pakistanis want "peace". with terrorists. The only time they ever got agitated was when that American "puppet" Musharaff sacked a few Supreme Court justices.!

Also, what Dan has badly overlooked is the role of the Pakistani military and the ISI in this game. Just ask the Bangladeshi's and the Baluchi's what they had to go through at the hands of Paki army - if this army wants to get ruthless, it goes all the way right up to genocide. and it can get ruthless if it wants to.

The blatant and plain to see fact is that the ISI/Army would like to get the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan and is betting that the US does not have the capacity to endure a long and protracted war.

They would have taken one long look at the US reaction here to the setbacks in the Iraq war and thought to themselves " well, most Americans are soft when it comes to fighting the WOT".Unfortunately, such a description would indeed be true.

And after hearing Obama's false bravado on cross border strikes, they would have been positively gleeful. More cross border strikes = more paranoia and hatred from people in Pakistan. And we are not talking about terrorist sympathizers - just average Paki citizens.

They must be laughing their "A**" off after listening to Biden's comments on how Obama will be tested with in the first 6 months - he is going to be tested every damned day.

Let's all hope that Obama indeed has "a spine of steel" and Biden was not in typical gasbaggery mode as usual. But it's kind of hard to take a man seriously when he says that he has "forgotten" more foreign policy than what other people even know about it !

Biden did forget how the US and France "drove out" Hezbollah ( LOL!!) and how he and Obama (even Bigger LOL!!) called for NATO presence in Lebanon.

We are in for some "testing" times. Pray for the Obama Biden combo - they NEED LOTS OF IT.

 

ARIF

2:00 AM ET

October 24, 2008

Well, why not offer

Well, why not offer significant relief aid to the 150,000+ Pakistanis internally displaced by the violence?

They have been lingering in squalid camps for months. The provisions and accommodations provided right now are sparing. Winter is coming. Conditions will worsen. The first to come to their aid was an an aid agency affiliated with a conservative Islamist party.

Washington is pressing Islamabad to go into other tribal areas (southward from Bajaur). If this occurs, the number of IDPs will likely increase radically, perhaps by three times or more.

Islamabad, heading toward default, could certainly use some help in bringing relief to its growing number of IDPs.

If Washington comes through, it will help earn the support of the locals, which is 90% of the battle.

 

BRETT

3:59 AM ET

October 24, 2008

It would probably be in the

It would probably be in the United States' best interest to train, fund, and arm the lashkar groups that are willing to fight against the Taliban, but maybe not Pakistan's (in the long run).

Remember that the FATA has always been an ethnically and culturally distinct region that generally shares a common Pashtun culture with the southern Afghanis. Arming the lashkars has a flip side as well; assuming they manage to neutralize much of Taliban*, the Pakistani government will suddenly have to deal with a bunch of armed and trained lashkars independent of the Pakistani government who will probably not be that willing to submit to Pakistani authority. They could trade a potentially state-destroying threat for a secession movement.

*I'm slightly wary as to whether you could train the lashkars properly without having at least some US troops there to help. The highly successful Phillipines counter-insurgency effort that the US has been engaged in does stuff like this, but it also has several hundred US troops in the area for support and trainig. Do you think we could get that many US troops in the FATA without pissing off Pakistan?

 

ROB

4:27 AM ET

October 24, 2008

No, because the Sunni

No, because the Sunni Awakening was only a success because of the large numbers of US troops that were there to support it. The lesson of Anbar is that to flip the locals you need to provide them with initial security so they and their families aren't slaughtered. Since there's almost no way we're going to get a good number of US troops there, most of the weapons and equipment would likely end up in the hands of the Taliban.

 

MITCHELL YOUNG

8:15 PM ET

October 24, 2008

Let's just leave them alone.

Let's just leave them alone. 9/11 was at least partially 'blowback' from our efforts to proxy war the Soviets in Afghanistan. Horrible to say it, but that was probably worth the price.

There is simply no good reason to be in Afghanistan. Who now really wants to 'get Bin Laden'? Revenge might be best savored cold, but this dish has gone way past its sell-by date. And 9/11 planning took place as much if not more in Hamburg and San Diego and Florida as it did in the mountain vastness of Afghanistan.

Just leave the Afghans and Pakistani's alone! Leave them alone!

 

NS

12:45 AM ET

October 25, 2008

Mitchell Young,

Mitchell Young,
I hope for your sake that AQ does not read Prof Drezner's blog. Blowback huh? i wonder why Moscow has not suffered the kind of blowback that the US has - after all Russians occupied Afghanistan and bought on enormous pain and suffering to the average Afghani.

Watch out for those Japanese, Mitchell - the blowback from Hiroshima/Nagasaki might be just around the corner. Watch out for the blowback from the Koreans, Vietnamese too.

Watch out for the blowback from India, China, Russia, Venezuela, Africa, Iraq, Iran.... just watch out, ok ?

 

BRETT

2:45 PM ET

October 25, 2008

Keep in mind that we're not

Keep in mind that we're not trying to build a successful government in the FATA, like what we were trying to do in Iraq - we just want to make the Lashkars, who already oppose the Taliban, that much more dangerous. That can be done by offering them guns, intelligence, and training. The guns and intelligence are easy enough to provide, but the training is a bit of a trick; you'd either have to sneak US troops into Pakistan, or (better yet) create training camps in the bordering region of Afghanistan.

 

MITCHELL YOUNG

7:37 PM ET

October 25, 2008

NS your rant indicates you

NS your rant indicates you have no clue what I meant by blowback.

 

NS

3:47 PM ET

October 26, 2008

Mitchell, Au

Mitchell,
Au contraire you could not explain why this "blowback" never hit the Russians who occupied Afghanistan.

Of course i was trying to mock this whole notion of blowback and why it is being selectively applied only to the US. After all the Soviets were the ones who invaded Afghanistan and the Afghans were actually helped by the US in throwing the Soviets out.

So the US is now suffering a "blowback" for helping the Afghans? And the Russians who actually occupied the country didnt get you know the "blowback"?

When you are in the Blame America first and Blame America only crowd it is easy to come up with such rubbish that could be so easily refuted.

Genius, Go pick up a dictionary and understand what the word blwoback means. And then come back and yap with me all you want

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More