In December 2009, President Obama announced his strategy for the US war in Afghanistan: a surge of 30,000 troops, similar to the successful Iraqi surge, with a goal of withdrawing combat personnel by July 2010.
The decision took almost a year from the date Obama took office, and for good reason. The analysis is complicated and the President's close advisers seemed torn on how to proceed. According to Newsweek, chief among the critics of an Afghan "surge" was none other than Vice-President Biden:
During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.
I read the Newsweek story when it was published, and Biden's analysis rang true to me. If public estimates at the time were reliable, most members of the Taliban and al Qaeda had fled Afghanistan to Pakistan by December 2009. What, then, would be the purpose of a surge in Afghanistan? Certainly not to drive the Taliban and al Qaeda from the country- that had already occurred. It also seemed unlikely the purpose would be to rebuild the nation, particularly with the US struggling with its own financial crisis and American interest for a prolonged engagement in Afghanistan waning. Could it be that at least one of the surge's major purposes is preventing the Taliban and al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan from Pakistan?
In recent months, Pakistan has announced several high-profile captures within its borders. In February 2010 alone, Pakistan announced that half of the Taliban's leadership had been captured, including Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (the Taliban's head of military operations), two Afghan Taliban shadow governors, members of the Afghan Taliban leadership council, and others. In early March, Pakistan announced it had seized a vast network of 150 caves, described as the nerve center of militant activity on the Afghan border. Just last week, an American who has joined forces with al Qaeda was captured in Pakistan. The increase in Pakistan's success, at a time when the US is increasing its military involvement in neighboring Afghanistan, makes one wonder about the extent of US operations directly within Pakistan.
The US has denied operating militarily within Pakistan (the Pakistani government has historically been quite sensitive about permitting the US military to operate there), but some recent stories suggest Pakistan's resistance, at least in private, may be diminishing. First, Defense Secretary Gates slipped in a response about Blackwater in January whenhe appeared to state that the company (now called "Xe International") was conducting operations within Pakistan. The Pentagon quickly "clarified"that Secretary Gates "did not mean to suggest that Blackwater is now operating on Pakistani soil...." American government officials did, however, admit that the US was involved (in a joint operation with Pakistan) in the capture of Mullah Baradar. Recently, the US has also reportedly used Predator Drone attacks within Pakistan, killing several Taliban militants. In February, 3 American servicemen were killedin a Taliban suicide attack within Pakistan.
US military involvement directly within Pakistan appears to be increasing, which may in part explain increased success in hunting the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda within Pakistan, but that still leaves one to ask why Pakistan would cooperate with the US militarily, let alone permit the US to operate in its borders.
Financial aid to Pakistan almost certainly plays a part. Last month, the President gave Congress a plan for $1.45 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan (nearly 3 times the amount of non-military aid given in 2009). Underscoring the challenge Pakistan's government faces with high anti-American sentiment internally,Pakistan initially rejected the non-military aid, suggesting that tying the aid to increased Pakistani support in fighting extremist elements threatened Pakistan's sovereignty (unsurprisingly, they later accepted the aid). The US has also recently committed to provide $1 billion in military assistance to Pakistan.
Another explanation is that Pakistan is convinced that the Afghan Taliban is joining forces with the Pakistani Taliban, threatening to destabilize the nation's security. Finally, others have posited that Pakistan sensed the US was on the verge of concluding peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan sensed it was losing too much influence in the process, so they captured Baradar- the most likely Taliban negotiator- to ensure Pakistan remained relevant.
Whatever the reason, at the moment, Pakistani operations are yielding significant results. As mentioned above, when President Obama made his announcement of a surge in Afghanistan, it was hard to view Biden as anything but the loser of the administration's internal debate. It may be, however, that Biden carried the day. Biden's primary focus was Pakistan. It is hard to brush off Pakistan's increased cooperation and Biden's demand for Pakistani involvement as merely coincidental. While a surge of 30,000 US troops to a nation not believed to contain many enemy fighters is hard to explain, it is a lot easier to understand if the troops are cutting off a path of retreat in Afghanistan and if they are staging operations within neighboring Pakistan. Furthermore, it was the Biden-Lugar bill which proposed increasing non-military aid to Pakistan and tying it to military cooperation within Pakistan (which Obama just signed into law).
It seems clear we aren't getting the full story in Pakistan, but it also seems clear something is working there... and that Biden is playing a central role.
Check us out at http://www.thefourthbranch.com