What Fareed Zakaria gets right -- and wrong -- on Obama's Pakistan policy

Posted By Peter Feaver Monday, March 15, 2010 - 11:45 AM Share

I find Fareed Zakaria always intriguing even, or perhaps especially, when I am not fully persuaded by his argument. Today, he writes:

President Obama gets much credit for changing America's image in the world -- he was probably awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. But even devoted fans would probably say it is too soon to cite a specific foreign policy achievement. In fact, there is a place -- crucial to U.S. national security -- where Obama's foreign policy is working: Pakistan.

I agree more or less with all four claims in that opening paragraph: Obama deserves credit for improving America's image; image is the only plausible justification for giving Obama the Nobel prize; Obama's foreign policy achievements have been sparse thus far; and the results and prospects in Pakistan are less gloomy than one might have predicted a year ago. However, the Pakistan claim is the dodgiest of those claims and I am only partially persuaded by Zakaria's reasoning.

Zakaria argues that success (so far) in Pakistan is due to four factors, three of which he credits to the Obama team:

1) Obama properly recognized that prospects in Afghanistan are linked to Pakistan and dramatized this fact by referring to the problem as the Af-Pak problem.
2) Obama used sticks and carrots to pressure Pakistan: sticks in the form of outreach to Pakistan's rival, India; carrots in the form of massive aid.
3) Obama has put in time and effort, specifically a "whole of government" approach to Pakistan.
4) Obama got lucky because the militants over-reached in Pakistan with their brutality.

My problem with this argument is that all of these factors, except perhaps the "AfPak" label and luck (!), pre-date the Obama administration by some margin. 

  • The Bush team saw Afghanistan and Pakistan as linked, indeed the very first move after 9/11 was sending Deputy Secretary Armitage to Pakistan to threaten Musharraf to get on-side; ever since, the Afghanistan and Pakistan policy lines have been intertwined.  The problem was that sometimes this meant that progress on one line led to progress on the other but just as often it meant that a set-back on one line led to a set-back on the other.
  • The Bush team used sticks and carrots with Pakistan, indeed the very same sticks and carrots of outreach to India and generous aid to Pakistan. 
  • The Bush team likewise devoted considerable time and effort to Pakistan and tried the same whole of government approach.
  • The militants certainly over-reached in Pakistan and have been over-reaching for quite a long time.  The one difference is that Bush was unlucky, in the form of a mostly unrelated over-reach by Musharraf when he challenged his Supreme Court Justice Chaudhry back in 2007.

It is possible that Obama has tweaked the mix of these policies just right and this has produced better results.  It is more possible that simply the steady accumulation of continuing basically the same things has produced more progress.  And it is perhaps most possible that the critical ingredients distinguishing between progress and reversals is the adoption of the McChrystal surge strategy in Afghanistan, good luck, and circumstance.

Consider this: if the situation in Pakistan was worsening, there would be plenty of explanatory factors available to blame.  First, just as Bush was stuck with the compromised Musharraf regime as partner, Obama is stuck the equally but differently compromised Zardari regime as partner.  Second, numerous bureaucratic snafus have largely hobbled the "whole of government" effort.  Third, the way the Pakistani aid package was, well, packaged produced a sharp backlash in Pakistan -- it is hard to know whether to code this a carrot or a stick or a poisoned carrot. Fourth, the tortuous Afghan Strategy Review 2.0 and the botched roll-out provided as much confusion as clarification in the region, at least initially.

In short, it seems it would be no harder to explain a lack of progress as it is to explain progress. Under the circumstances, a modified version of the old Scot verdict, "not yet proven," seems warranted.

To be fair, Zakaria duly caveats the Pakistan argument.  One cannot accuse him of naïve boosterism on this issue.  Indeed, he closes with a warning against naïve optimism on Pakistan and warns the Obama administration that relations with Pakistan are like running on a treadmill: "If you stop, you move backward -- and most likely fall down." He may be more right than he realized: it could be like running on a treadmill in that you can be doing the right things for a very long time and at great effort and still not appear to be any closer to your final objective.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:SOUTH ASIA, MEDIA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN
 

_YOURSTRULY_

1:06 AM ET

March 16, 2010

Ask the Arab Sheikhs if they'd give you one Rupee per person..

Mr. Mufti:

Beggars and choosers...great!
They way Pakistanis are even $100,000 per person of 'bakhshish' won't make you happy...

 

ZAINB

4:28 AM ET

March 16, 2010

This isn't about 'beggars and

This isn't about 'beggars and choosers' - its about pointing out the fact that there isn't anything 'massive' about the US aid package for Pakistan.

American commentators may want to spin it to appear 'massive', but it just isn't, and no amount of 'media spin' can change that, snide comments about Arab Sheikhs and Chicoms notwithstanding.

On the subject of US aid, as the reaction in Pakistan indicated when the KLL 'poisoned carrot' was passed, Pakistani citizens would rather see the US keep the civvy aid and instead allow greater market access to Pakistan - then whether we sink or swim will be upto the ingenuity and hard work of Pakistanis in competition with other nations.

Unfortunately the US prefers to keep nations addicted to its 'aid drug' - allowing nations to kick the US aid habit significantly reduces the amount of leverage the US can exercise on those nations by threatening to cut off supplies of crack, I mean 'aid'.

 

_YOURSTRULY_

7:12 PM ET

March 16, 2010

What about the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars

the IMF has poured into Pakistan over the last 25-30 years to keep a failing state afloat?
Even after receiving those hundreds of BILLIONS, from the IMF and in other aid from the US Pakistanis cannot produce enough food or electricity for themselves.

Stop for a second and think how much one BILLION dollars is.

And this is all western tax payer's money. Tax payers of the western world who are 95% Christian.
So there is no problem with being the beggar begging for this money?
And running your big mouth that the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars of 'bakhshish' is not enough.

And by the way who is IMF which is keeping Pakistan afloat?
IMF's real name is CCF (Christian Charity Foundation). It is the charity outlet of the Western countries, population of which is majority Christian.
If not for the BILLIONS in handouts from these Christians, Pakistanis would not even have the four hours of electricity each day which they have now and would be living with lanterns.
But the reality is that these Christians are getting fed up of feeding an ungrateful and thankless lazy failed state, whose corrupt citizens all they want to do is practice religious and provincial bigotry, kill each other and run their big mouths blaming everyone else for their 'misfortunes'.

Guess what Pakistanis will be doing once these BILLIONS stop?
They don't have the Somalian sea front to hijack ships.
They'll be kidnapping each other for ransom to stay alive...

 

FULLOV8

6:41 AM ET

March 19, 2010

Bakshish

I do not mean to get personal but did someone just relocate from a part of Alaska where one can see Russia from their house?

Pakistanis are the descendants of people who made Alexander turn back and head to Persia via Baluchistan. SO they have played this game many times before buddy. US is just the newest sucker ...er superpower. What you may think is bakshish, is the midEastern/Central Asian version of vig/tithe Or if you like..honorarium to allow US to use Pakistani ports, airbases, camps, highways and Airspace to invade their neighbors. So let's call it lease/rent money. Estimated 80% of US war-materiale passes through Pakistan. Every superhornet flying from a US carrier in Arabian sea must access Pakistan airspace to go bomb Kandahar/Marjah. So much for begging.
I mean if US were to withdraw today..it would not have to pay a cent to Karzai OR them bad ass Paks. Perhaps Kucinich knows something.
Pakistan is gift of the Indus in asmuch as Egypt is of Nile Or, Iraq of Euprates/Tigris. So their agricultural economy is ancient and durable. It is 26th/27th largest economy even with a large undocumented sector. If Pakistan was to actually fail, IMF or anybody else would not be able to save it. If you knew anything about IMF-Pakistan, you would know that IMF considers it a very good risk and has historically made money on its bets. Considering the increasing voting power of China, Japan, India and Malaysia within IMF, I would not rant about Christianity any longer.
They (Paks) are energy deficient but then you have not heard about the gas-pipeline deal they made with Iran last Tuesday.
That is going to make a lot of pro-US 'Shiekhs' nervous. You should be too!
Finally, Somalia has a large coastline, true. But have you bothered to look at Pakistan's makran coast and it Gwadar Port. Once the BILLIONS stop; they can use this 1000 mile coast to ship Afghan Hashish to you, uneducated battle scarred Afghans could become the new boat people ( a La Vietnam), they could do some privateering on the steady stream of mega oil tankers leaving straits of Hormuz. To yourstruly a pak would say:"You may see Russia from your house but I can see your lifeline from my hut"

POSTCOMMENT: What Zakaria (the brown baboo) does not get is that Admiral Mullen and Petraeus are getting Pakistanis to cooperate precisely by going "native" and showing appreciation for their perspectives. It s not the BILLIONS but the Balm of hubris-free empathy that IS working in pakistan. That indian-born dude who dons jodhpurs and plays polo does NOT quite get Pakistan.

 

RAAT420

4:49 AM ET

March 16, 2010

Massive suffering of Pakistan and the deaf Western media.

Pakistan has suffered $ 35 billion damages to its economy according to the Ministry of Finance because of the US war on terror and lost 5,000 of its innocent civilians in supporting USA since 2001. Does the US $ 1.5 billion annual payments compensate adequately for these costs one may ask this question? The social costs that Pakistan are immeasurable in money terms.Pakistan has lost more citizens then any other country fighting terrorists and nearly double that were lost in 9/11 incident

Well one would just take a peak and understand why USA is to blamed for the present state which Pakistan finds itself:

"USA"s CIA created the Al-Qaida but USA has never taken responsibility for this short term benefit for defeating USSR.From 1989 to 2001 USA went away from Afghanistan that helped the growth of Al-Qaida and Taliban. Again USA in 2003 USA took their main forces from Afghan theater to Iraq because of lies that tilted the balance in the Taliban favor. This indicated unreliability of USA and helped the AL-Qaida and Taliban regroup and run to Pakistan."

So why should not USA compensate Pakistan for the damages that its wrong policies caused Pakistan not only in material terms but also in 3,5 million Afghan refugees that it has accommodated since 1979 caused by the occupation of Afghanistan by USSR. If you lived in Pakistan during the period you would realize the damage these refugees have caused Pakistan!!! Pakistan was the one forward countries that stood up against USSR occupation and many of its army men fought USSR in Afghanistan against this occupation. The sacrifices that Pakistan has made for the independence of Afghanistan have still not been recognized by the prejudiced Western press.

 

ZAINB

1:18 PM ET

March 16, 2010

Shhh

Don't interrupt the West's obsession with themselves and pop that self-righteous bubble they have encased themselves in, through which the hundreds of thousands dead as a result of US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which served as a catalyst for Al Qaeda and Taliban related violence) are all justified in the pursuit of 'democracy' and the rights of little girls - except for those hundreds of thousands dead and suffering from the effects of the terrorism caused by the US invasions.

The invasion of Afghanistan was never necessary - the Taliban had sent out feelers to either conduct a trial of OBL in Afghanistan or a mutually acceptable third country - the US in its arrogance chose war over negotiations, and Pakistan has paid a huge price for it so far, only to have to bear with smear campaigns and insults from the West because Pakistan's national security concerns were ignored by the West and Pakistan had to take steps to safeguard them on its own.

US double standards in advocating and obtaining a NSG waiver for India, while (so far) refusing to do the same for Pakistan is an example of that.

 

ZATHRAS

4:56 PM ET

March 16, 2010

Back on Message, I See

The last SG post seemed to stray from message discipline, in that it strayed into explicit defense of one of the Bush administration's worst decisions, the invasion of Iraq. With today's post, SG is back on message.

The surge of troops into Afghanistan is a possible source of progress, according to this, but the reason such a surge was never tried in the seven years of George Bush's watch is never mentioned. Of course, the reason was Bush's preoccupation with the war of choice in Iraq. Bush's credulous posture toward and overreliance on his personal relationship with Pervez Musharraf goes unremarked upon as well. And that bin Laden fellow? Never heard of him.

No, the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan was something that just happened, and the Bush administration was just unlucky. Indeed, it did everything the Obama administration is doing now, so any progress we might be seeing is a response to the accumulation of good deeds over many years. As I say, safely back on message.

 

ADR1NY

2:34 AM ET

March 17, 2010

So what would you like KHALID MUFTI?

You seem to suggest that $1.5 Billion isn't enough. So please tell us what is it that you would like? How about the US jsut hands over all of it's GDP to Pakistan or perhaps to you personally?

Face facts if Pakistan were to get a little tougher on the Taliban and Al Queda cells in Wazeristan and Swat perhaps more aid would be poured in....hence sticks and carrots. You want and want but what do you offer in return?

Aid is NOT a god given right. You can not say "I deserve more and I offer nothing in return." Well actually in the US you do have the right to say it but that doesn't mean it will happen.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More