Afghan, Pakistan leaders get wary reception

NY Times:

Pakistan’s leaders began an arduous campaign here on Tuesday to convince the United States that they will repel recent incursions by Taliban militant groups, secure their own nuclear arsenal and make good use of American military and economic assistance.

The first audience for the pitch was Congress, as President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan met privately for 90 minutes with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Several of its members are wary of the Obama administration’s request for additional military and economic aid to Pakistan, at a time when its confidence in the government is ebbing.

Mr. Zardari’s presentation, however, left some members confused and disappointed, according to a person who attended the meeting. He said little about how the Pakistani government planned to regain momentum in the fight against the militants. And when he asked for financial assistance, he likened it to the government’s bailout of the troubled insurance giant, American International Group.

On Wednesday, Mr. Zardari is to meet with President Obama, who is expected to press him to redouble Pakistan’s campaign against militants who took over a key district 60 miles from Islamabad. Mr. Zardari will also take part in three-way talks that will include President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and he will hold talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A senior administration official said the fate of the campaign against extremists would hinge to a great extent on the Pakistani Army, particularly given the country’s refusal, thus far, to allow American troops on the ground.

“The pace will depend on their seriousness about the existential nature of this threat,” said the official, who appeared in the White House briefing room but could not be identified by name under ground rules set by the White House.

The White House hopes that the intensive face time over the next two days with Pakistan’s leaders will yield something more than just promises, particularly as administration officials press Pakistan to follow through on promises to move additional troops to the western part of the country, where Taliban militants are concentrated, and away from Pakistan’s border with India.

...

The Washington Post looks at the Obama-Karzai dynamic:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai began talking as soon as his luncheon guests had taken their seats in his wood-paneled dining room at the presidential palace in Kabul, across a long table covered with platters of lamb and rice, baskets of flatbread, and glasses of pomegranate juice.

Security was improving, he declared, according to two people in the room. The cultivation of opium-producing poppies had been eliminated in many areas. The economy was on the upswing. He looked across the table at the most important of his visitors and pledged to work closely with a new U.S. administration.

"I'm at your disposal, Senator Obama."

The Democratic presidential candidate listened intently but revealed few of his own views about Afghanistan over the two-hour lunch last July. It was not until later that day, as a U.S. government jet flew him to Kuwait, that Barack Obama confided in his two traveling companions, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and then- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

Obama voiced concern that the situation was worse than Karzai had acknowledged, Hagel recalled. He "was not taken in," Hagel said, "by all of the happy talk."

Today, as the two leaders meet in the White House, that skepticism drives the administration's evolving policy toward Afghanistan and the battle against Taliban insurgents, a conflict whose outcome will in part define Obama's presidency.

In assessing the nearly eight-year struggle from Washington, senior members of Obama's national security team say Karzai has not done enough to address the grave challenges facing his nation. They deem him to be a mercurial and vacillating chieftain who has tolerated corruption and failed to project his authority beyond the gates of Kabul.

"On all fronts," said a senior U.S. official, "Hamid Karzai has plateaued as a leader."

...

If these two countries had strong leaders they would not need so much help to begin with and for and administration that claims to be focused on realistic foreign policy goals, the complaints don't really move the ball toward a winning strategy.

I think Obama is already having to deal with the anti war puke left in the Democrat party that has been defeated by the Taliban resistance to US objectives. They are looking for an exit graceful or otherwise and they are giving Obama limited time to make it look good. That is liable to fracture his presidency.

It also should give him some leverage with the imperfect leaders of both countries. They have limited time to use the resources he can give them to make a positive outcome in the battle with the Taliban religious bigots. I fear that neither really gets it. Pakistan needs our military assistance more than it needs our money, but it want allow what it needs most so that it can get more money. Afghanistan needs to deal with the corruption that is sapping its strength and wasting our money, but Karzai does not have the will to deal with it.

This is still a very winnable war. The increase in US troops in the area will make a difference in Afghanistan and could make a difference in Pakistan if they were permitted to train the Pakistan army in counterinsurgency warfare. Pakistan needs to understand that India is not the primary threat to its government, but will become one if they allow the Taliban and the religious bigots to succeed. In that case Pakistan might be looking at troops from a lot of countries including the US and India in their country. They would be much better off having our troops help them defeat the Taliban now.