SPONSORED BY:
PAKISTAN

The Price of Peace Deals

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

As Pakistan's new government pursues peace deals with Islamic militant leaders in tribal regions along the Afghanistan border, some U.S. counterterrorism officials fear their "worst nightmare" is unfolding: a scenario in which Al Qaeda leaders in the area will have more freedom than ever to recruit and train new members. But the Bush administration is internally divided about how best to approach the situation. U.S. officials say they are particularly alarmed by the new coalition government's negotiations with Baitullah Mehsud, a fierce tribal boss and Qaeda sympathizer based in South Waziristan province whom Pakistan's own government has accused of orchestrating the December 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. (Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, now heads her political party and is one of Pakistan's senior leaders.)

According to several U.S. officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing internal debates, many intelligence officials believe the United States must press Pakistan to resist going too far with its accommodations. "We continuously say that this is where bad things happen," said one of the officials. But other administration officials, including State Department diplomats, believe Pakistan's new leadership needs to be given some room to sort out its own problems. "The new government wants to distance itself from the policies of [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf," one senior U.S. official said. "They want to fight terrorism in their own way." The official said that the Bush administration is willing, for a time, to go along with Islamabad's efforts—provided that the government and tribal leaders "enforce" whatever peace deals they strike.

"Silence is probably the best American posture in public," said Bruce Riedel, formerly one of the CIA's top experts on the region, because "it's very clear the new Pakistani government is not going to listen to [Washington] on this issue." On the other hand, he noted, the recent resurgence of terror in the border regions began when Musharraf announced his own peace overtures in 2005. "This is a formula," Riedel said, "whose track record has been discredited."

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: glangelier @ 05/06/2008 10:06:17 AM

    Won't less involvement with the Pakistani federal gov't actually serve to open up the Tribal areas to coalition special ops who will be able to take action and not have to worry about the presense of the Pakistani military, who now cannot be blamed for not protecting the border? I think it may be a blessing in disguise for those who are hunting Al-Qaeda leadership.

  • Posted By: Yella Dog @ 05/05/2008 4:12:49 PM

    Obama's claim that he was unaware of Wright's opinions is simply not credible. Wright's congregation was not surprised by his controversial sermons and when put in context at his speeches to NAACP and the Press Club, he was loudly applauded by his African American audience. Now add to that evidence the fact that Oprah Winfrey left Wright's church after just 2 years because she didn't want to be associated w/ Wright's paranoid views about whites and the govt.

    So, assuming that Sen. Obama cannot claim ignorance of Wright's belief that the US govt has persecuted African Americans and continues to do so, there is no interpretation of Sen. Obama's lengthy and close association with Wright that can exonerate him. If he agrees w/ Rev Wright then he is the ultimate politician, fabricating a campaign strategy based on "uniting the country" and "bridging the partisan divide." There is nothing unifying about blaming all of your problems--including disease and drug addiction--on white people and the US govt. In that case, Rev. Wright is quite correct to call Sen Obama a politician.

    If on the other hand, Sen Obama doesn't agree w/ Rev Wright, the conclusion is much the same. He joins the largest church in his community in order to benefit from the connections w/ those whom he wishes to represent and he benefits from the conferral of religious "credentials" that are presently required of American politicians. He sits in Wright's pews for 20 years, but doesn???t like what he hears there. In that case, he???s the go-along-to-get-along guy for whom the truth varies according to his audience. In other words, he is a politician.

    Nobody should be surprised by the fact that Obama is a politician. Anyone who attains the position of a viable presidential candidate should be presumed to be one. Those who believed Obama???s claim to be "above politics" on a "higher moral plane" were either too young to experience the reality of governing the ungovernable or have too little at stake in this presidential campaign--that is the wealthy and the highlyeducated who will be fine no matter the outcome. So, I can tolerate the fact that he is a politician, but I CAN'T tolerate the fact that he is a hypocrite.

  • Posted By: Zaheer Ahmad @ 05/05/2008 9:42:11 AM

    If America want to clean triabal areas from extremists he should focus on development of those areas instead of thinking to use force. America should give substantial aid to newly elected democratic government for economic uplift of these areas and should also monitor the aid to make sure it reach at the right place.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now