Is it too little, too late for Pakistan?

“Woody Allen once said that 80% of success is just showing up,” says Brandon Friedman on the Huffington Post. Shame George W. Bush never understood this about Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he began ignoring only months after September 11th. “President Obama hasn’t been nearly so blind to the deteriorating situation there”, announcing a comprehensive regional plan within 60 days of his inauguration and hosting leaders of both countries in Washington.

Yet Pakistan’s position is fast becoming perilous. As anti-US Taliban militants have advanced within 60 miles of its capital, Islamabad, the Pakistani military has launched air strikes against suspected Taliban hideouts. That pleased Washington – Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell praised the assaults as “exactly the appropriate response to the offensive operations by the Taliban”.

But the truth is “the Pakistani government’s inability to stem Taliban advances has forced the Obama administration to recalibrate its Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy a month after unveiling it”, says Karen de Young in The Washington Post. “What was planned as a step-by-step process of greater military and economic engagement with Pakistan has been rapidly overtaken by the worsening situation on the ground”, culminating in a full National Security Council session on Tuesday.

And the next issue is hard cash. Anxious Capitol Hill law-makers have mooted sending $400m to fund immediate counter-insurgency and economic assistance for Pakistan. “We could pass it in just a matter of days,” says Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. Waiting for full debate “could be too little, too late”.

So, what of Britain’s response? “Few will argue with Gordon Brown’s description of the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan as being a ‘crucible of terrorism’,” says The Daily Telegraph, “as this is where at least two-thirds of the terror plots planned against the West originate.” What is in dispute, though, is how committed Brown is to dealing with this threat to our national security. The nation’s finances might be suffering, but “the defence of the realm should always take priority over Brown’s long-standing tendency to deny the Armed Forces the investment they require”.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *