NYC Bomber, Faisal Shahzad: Lone Wolves Are Also Bad Omens

By Ashesh Prasann
The failed Times Square car bomb attempt which came to light this weekend is tough to analyze because the investigation is not yet complete and there is still uncertainty about the facts. Gen. Petraeus has recently ruled out Pakistani Taliban’s involvement, describing Faisal Shahzad, the individual arrested for attempting the attack, as a “lone wolf”. 

China should play a greater role in “Af-Pak”

Earlier this week, I described two approaches to solving America's foreign policy challenge in Afghanistan. One of those solutions involves, among other things, significantly more troops -- but not necessarily American troops.

On February 12, a newspaper in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post published my op-ed on this issue. You can see it as it appears in the paper here. Conveniently, the article is sandwiched right between Tom Friedman and David Ignatius (lower-left corner). Let's hope that draws a few eyes to my argument!

Editors at the Morning Post have a tendency to tweak opinion pieces without permission (or without thought to what they are cutting out). So below, you will find the full essay as I originally wrote it. (Importantly, it includes a more complete defense of my proposal.)

Original essay:

Next week, Secretary of State Clinton makes her first trip to Beijing. She must make a case for China – a regional stakeholder – to play a greater role in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Currently, the Obama Administration is undertaking a major review of the war in Afghanistan. The president has already indicated that the US will probably scale back its objective there from installing a democracy to stabilizing the country and ridding it of terrorist elements.

There are two major impediments to achieving stability in Afghanistan. The first is resources. Despite plans to send 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan, the total allied forces will not be able to cover the vast expanses of the country. Further manpower seems unlikely to materialize: Iraq is not going to simply go away and NATO is resisting deeper involvement.

The second challenge is Pakistan. The tribal regions of the country’s northwest has given space for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to plan attacks on allied forces in Afghanistan. These militants are hard to reach due to a lack of central rule from Islamabad as well as adamant Pashtun resistance against any foreign presence. For eight months, the US has tried to fight inaccessible militants with drone attacks, but this tactic has only served to exacerbate tensions with Pakistani politicians and anger local tribes.

China could assist in both “Af-Pak” challenges.

The People’s Republic has strategic energy and economic interests in maintaining stability in both nations. Pakistan and China share a free trade agreement and did over $6 billion in bilateral trade last year. The “All Weather” allies are aiming for $15 billion in the coming years.

Beijing also considers Pakistan critical to energy security. The Gwadar port – 400km from the Straight of Hormuz – along with a network of rail and roads through Pakistan assures the convenient transport of Middle Eastern oil and gas to China through Xinjiang Province.

In Afghanistan, China has deep interests in acquiring natural resources. In 2007, after President Karzai opened up his country to foreign investment of natural resources, China Metallurgical Group won the rights to develop the world’s largest undeveloped copper field in Anyak for $3.5 billion. China’s state-owned companies are also likely to pursue Afghanistan’s untapped oil, gas, and iron resources.

Beyond these motivations, the circumstance in Af-Pak is an opportunity for China to take another next step toward its stated goal of becoming a responsible regional power and major world player. Beijing can allay concerns in the international community over its growing influence if it shows – through action – that it is ready to contribute to stability in trouble areas in its own neighborhood.

China can help in two primary ways: aid and troops. In Pakistan, China has been providing military aid for decades. This funding should increase to support Pakistani forces in rooting out violent militants in FATA. (Of course, the funding will not do any good without a successful effort by Special Representative Richard Holbrooke to convince Pakistani troops to fight.) Developmental aid will also be needed to encourage tribes to reject Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

China can help tackle the most urgent problem in Afghanistan – a lack of manpower – by lending some of its 1.7 million ground forces to the mission. Not only will this bring the stability necessary for economic development, but Pakistan would be much more comfortable with a large build-up of Chinese troops in Afghanistan rather than US forces.

Here too, China must commit aid – not just business investment. Without sufficient infrastructure, Afghanistan will continue to see its resources extracted with minimal gain to its people, therefore remaining vulnerable to militants who might offer an alternative.

Some would doubt the ability of Chinese and US or NATO forces to work together, citing underdeveloped military relations. But this is a chance to boost military cooperation. There is no more convenient time for building trust than when both sides want the same outcome: a stable Afghanistan.

Another complaint might be that China, as a one-party state, does not share the values of NATO, which was founded around democracy, and the mission to leave a viable democracy in Afghanistan. Yet this is irrelevant for two reasons. First, as mentioned earlier, the Obama administration has become more focused on the objective of stability than democracy. Second, given that security is the paramount objective, the pragmatic choice would be to leave ideology at home and obtain the manpower necessary to achieve stability.

China could be a critical part to success in Af-Pak. And given so many common challenges, this could be the first of numerous problems that China and the US tackle together.

Kevin Slaten is a Junior Fellow in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Solving Afghanistan

The new Obama team in the White House has refocused on Afghanistan. Largely neglected -- especially in manpower -- for years under the previous administration, Afghanistan has witnessed a resurgence of the Taliban. And their funding derives from the a poppy trade that accounts for a bigger illicit GDP than Afghanistan's official GDP ($3 billion versus $2 billion), which continues to reveal the country's lack of development.

The goal of a more prosperous, peaceful Afghanistan first requires a stable security environment. There are two competing views on how to achieve this. One solution is to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. Saturate the country with enough boots on the ground to suck the oxygen out of the room for militant flames. If security can be imposed for long enough in this way, then perhaps time can be bought for true and meaningful infrastructure and economic development. The troop numbers, though, cannot be found among US or NATO forces -- the political will or available manpower is hard to come by. So the solution here would be appealing to regional neighbors -- especially India and China -- for assistance. I will write more on this option in the coming week or two.

The alternative view is to give up the idea of a troop build-up and use small, covert operations to strike important strategic blows to militants. George Friedman, the head at an intelligence firm called Stratfor, espouses this view. Basically, Friedman says that -- given the trouble of hindered supply lines and obtaining troops for Afghanistan -- the US should use a combination of intelligence-gathering, special operations, and airstrikes to achieve the most pressing objective: security. Not only is this option politically easier to sell (because it is cheaper and no one has to read about a published list of CIA casualties), but this also allows the US to avoid the difficult task of convincing other countries to commit their people to the struggle.

It is debatable whether or not such a minimalist approach as Friedman's could achieve stability in a country about the size of Texas. Moreover, it seems that the Obama Administration is leaning toward increasing the troop commitment rather than reducing it. Nevertheless, an in-depth policy review is currently being conducted; now is the time to debate the options.

Matching Deed to Commitment

In his first major interview last night, President Obama made an appeal to the Muslim world writ large to give his administration an opportunity to rebuild trust with America. He spoke -- eloquently as usually -- of the common "hopes and dreams" shared by people of all faiths. Obama hopes to use this thread to begin weaving a better relationship with the Islamic world through "respect and partnership". Here's a transcript of the interview.

The following excerpt was the key part of his comments: 

"But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say... but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity."

Unfortunately, Obama may be eating his commitment early on. Last Friday, US military drones made another incursion into Pakistan near the Afghan border. Missiles were purportedly fired from the unmanned aircraft in two strikes at Al-Qaeda and militant targets in Waziristan, which is currently controlled by the Taliban. Together, the two strikes killed between 17-22 people, about half of which were civilians -- and three were children. These strikes are a continuation of a secret authorization by President Bush in July 2007 to fight militants in the loosely-controlled tribal regions of Pakistan.

This policy must be halted now. For the moment, put aside the fact that almost every one of the 30 strikes in the past 7 months has killed innocent people and children. From a pragmatic perspective, these air raids are undermining the US's goals. Although local civilians usually abhor the Taliban's rule and the violence of militants, every time a civilian is killed -- especially a child -- the Pakistani public is outraged. This tears down support for current and future US policies amongst the Pakistani and Islamic world, and it loses support for the already-struggling government of Pakistan. When these American incursions continue unabated by current politicians in Pakistan, then those politicians -- the people who are willing to cooperate with the US -- lose support. 

In situations like this, people tend to look for security. Don't be surprised to see a more hardline, anti-US government take the reigns in Pakistan if the civilian deaths continue.  And if this happens, the US mission to bring stability to Afghanistan becomes immeasurably more difficult (as if it wasn't already in bad shape). Moreover, a less stable Pakistan threatens to bring the entire South Asian region into conflict (recall the terror in Mumbai); the US can hardly manage to put that vase back together after it's broken.

These attacks into Pakistan erode Obama's (and America's) moral authority. Granted, the new president has done much in his first week to repeal the damage to American principles -- begun closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, halting wire-tapping, conforming CIA interrogation with law. Indeed, his interview yesterday was meant to began mending deep wounds to American soft power. 

Obama wisely pointed out that he will be judged on his actions, not his words. He made an explicit commitment to listen and show respect to Muslims around the world. Yet as Pakistanis plead for innocent deaths to abate, Obama remains silent. Less he wants to discredit himself in the first 14 days of his presidency, Obama should halt the drone attacks in Pakistan immediately.