National Security Online Resource Center

It is rather interesting to witness the late arrival of Yemen to the discussion of American security threats. Yemen’s instability has been long known but when the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said that he received assistance from an Al-Queda branch in Yemen, the small, poor country showed up on the map. President Obama announced a doubling of U.S. monetary assistance to Yemen. So including this new addition, the United States is now deeply involved in 5 Muslim countries. The other countries include: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. So we must ask at least the question: Where do we draw the line?

American presence is vital to these countries’ security and to ours. I am not questioning that notion and I understand the desire to increase our presence in Yemen. Yet have we fully thought about all of the options. Do we need to increase our presence in any country to solve our problem? I know it won’t make much sense to most to do nothing and to suggest doing less seems blasphemous. It maybe that we need to do more, but are we sure that the answer isn’t doing less?

Other than the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, on security matters, the administration has been largely responsive, rather than proactive. Key initiatives have failed to get anywhere (Israel-Palestine, Guantanamo). So does the United States have a long-term strategic plan for dealing with Middle East rather than being responsive to a series of crises? If so, why hasn’t the President outlined this initiative? With President Bush, at least we were certain of his foreign policy mindset. With President Obama, nothing seems clear.

New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh has an interesting take on the matter. I would take what he says with a heavy grain of salt given his sensationalist style of journalism, but he does provide an interesting perspective.

Here is a quick overview of whats been going on:

Lebanon held its elections last week and the American-aligned coalition won 71 seats whereas the Syria-Iran coalition, including Hizbullah, won only 57. The election is a positive sign for U.S. efforts for peace in the Middle East as Hizbullah’s loss reduces its influence in Israel’s northern neighbor. Hizbullah and Israel fought a war in 2006, where Israel was forced to withdraw following intense international pressure.

The tide of public opinion may be turning against the Taliban in Pakistan. Until recently, Talibani insurgents were hailed as heroes by most of Pakistani society, including columnists and media outlets. However a video released showing a young girl being flogged by members of Taliban created a sensation within the society. For the very first time, Pakistanis saw the changes Taliban wanted to make to their society and were unwilling to surrender their freedoms, albeit a limited number available, over to the fundamentalists.

Several cities in the Northwest region of Pakistan have been hit throughout Pakistan following the deadly attack in Lahore yesterday. The attacks were focused on state targets, especially the police, however, hundreds of civilians have been killed and injured.

The Taliban did take responsibility for the Lahore attacks and was likely involved in these attacks as well. Sustained attacks continue to disrupt lives in Pakistan as the government fails to get a handle on Taliban which controls much of the northwest region.

As expected, the government is blame Taliban for the attack. The attack has killed 23 and injured hundreds of others. Amongst the confirmed dead include an Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent and twelve police officers.

The most curious aspect of this attack lies in the state of the relationship between ISI and the Taliban. When the Afghan ambassador to the United Nations, Zahir Tanin, spoke at Seton Hall University, I asked whether he believed that ISI was involved in the Taliban sponsored attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. He indicated, in no uncertain terms, that he did indeed believe that ISI was involved. The Pakistani government has not been able to control ISI. The Prime Minister tried to bring the agency under the control of the government but the military would not let him.

Thus, a Taliban attack near an ISI building might lead to the speculation that there is fracture in the relationship between the two organizations. If true, this would be good news not only for the Pakistani government, but also India, the United States and NATO. It might also have been an error on the part of the individuals involved, but that does not seem as likely. Now, we must take a wait and see approach on how Pakistan and ISI responds to this attack.

A police building in the Pakistani city of Lahore has been attacked by a gunmen and a bomber with at least 23 people reported dead. Rescuers are searching for any potential survivors in the rubles from the bast. No group has yet to take responsibility though, it likely involves the Pakistani Taliban, who control a chunk of Northwest Pakistan.

India, the world’s largest democracy has begun the process of voting to select a new government. The elections are a mammoth operation lasting over a month given that there are more than 700 million eligible voters choosing between a plethora of national and regional parties.

The two major national parties, Congress and BJP, have steadily declined in power and influence over the years and have been forced to rely on regional partners to hold together a government. The current ruling power, left wing Congress Party has worked in close conjunction with Washington on terrorism issues and has stayed relatively quiet given its nuclear armed rival neighbor has seriously destablized.

However, if the hawkish BJP were to win, the United States might have to reconstitute its South Asia policy as India might ready to show its teeth to Pakistan. The two nations have fought in several wars since partition including a brief conflict during the late 1990s under the BJP government. It is unlikely that India will immediately change its stance as BJP will face pressure from its allies and Congress, but if India steers away from its current direction and flexes its muscles at its neighbor, Pakistani government will quickly shift its efforts against Taliban to focus on India. This might be huge blow to U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

NYTimes Magazine posted an excellent piece on the Pakistani President and the difficulties of governing the country. The article raised many of the points being raised by experts around the world: Pakistan may be more of threat than Iran and North Korea because it has five dozen nuclear weapons in its stockpile.

President Obama (and former President Bush) has recognized the centrality of Pakistan in the global effort to combat terrorism as well as the potential danger of the country falling into the hands of the Taliban, who currently control large swaths of land in the ungovernable Northwest Frontier Province. Thus, the administration’s new strategy included a much larger share of nonmilitary aid to Pakistan in efforts to stabilize the country.

However, the strategy does have serious drawbacks. The United States, in return for additional aid, is expecting Pakistan to do more to combat Al Queda and Taliban in the region. However, it is believed that some aspects of the Pakistani military, especially the intelligence service, are colluding with Taliban and other known terrorist groups. In addition the aid might reinforce the view in Pakistan that the embattled Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari, is an American puppet.

As the center of American military operations switch from Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan will continue to gain importance in the U.S. agenda and thus it is critical to keep an eye on the situation. Zardari defused the most recent crisis by reappointing the judges who were removed under the Musharaff regime. However, the reappointment might lead to even more serious set of problems that will test the resolve of democracy in the country.

The Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s embattled President, detailed his plan to allow a region in the troubled Northwest Frontier Province to adopt Sharia Law in order to pacify the Taliban. It is still far from clear whether the move will bring about the desired result, but it has already drawn criticism from some in the United States who argue separate judicial systems may lead to a dangerous precedent and the government should not concede to a known terrorist organization.

A BBC report has claimed that much of the northwest region of the country already operates on Sharia Law but the move by the president would make it official. Pakistani government still contends that it has not given in and rather the law will not go into affect until after peace has been achieved.

On ideological grounds, I cannot support a move to regionalize judicial systems. Not only could it lead to a permanent, legal haven for the Taliban, it will renew the brutal oppression of women and religious minorities in the region. However, considering the situation pragmatically, I do not see any other feasible options for Zardari.

Following intense pressure from the international community, the Pakistani government finally admitted that at least part of the Mumbai terror attacks of last November were planned on its soil. Additionally, Pakistan has also arrested several suspects including many named by India as the architects of the plot that killed 164 people.

Indians have called the move ‘positive’ but it is yet to determined whether this effort is the first step towards on a path to ending the sixty-year-old conflict or a momentary halt in the ongoing saber rattling. Indian officials are looking for Pakistan to dismantle its ‘network of terror’, but are prepared to take matters into their hands if they perceive collusion between the terrorists and the Pakistani government. According to the Indian army chief, surgical strikes (either by air or artillery) are a feasible option.

Given its position as an emerging economic and geopolitical power, its doubtful that India will engage Pakistan militarily unless there is another serious attack on Indian soil. However, Pakistan’s instability makes such an attack a definite possibility. If India and Pakistan enter another armed conflict, it could have devastating implications for the United States in Afghanistan.