President Barack Obama's idiosyncratic "AfPak strategy" has suffered an embarrassing setback. A midnight raid Nov. 25 by NATO forces along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border resulted in U.S. helicopters mistakenly killing 25 Pakistani soldiers at an outpost on the Pakistan side of the border.
Claims were initially made that the NATO forces were provoked by gunfire originating near the outpost and only then retaliated. After apparently receiving confirmation that there were no Pakistani personnel or assets at that location, the Apache attack helicopters and AC-130 gunship were highly effective in destroying their target.
However, senior Pakistani military personnel have denied this account and have called the attack a blatant act of aggression. One theory is that Taliban fighters may have tricked the NATO forces into attacking by opening fire on them with mortars and small arms from positions close to the Pakistani outpost. Taliban militants are known to operate camps and safe havens from within Pakistan, crossing the border into Afghanistan to launch their attacks.
An immense embarrassment to the Obama administration, this case of mistaken identity is also a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and international law that has set a new low in Washington's rapidly deteriorating diplomatic relationship with Islamabad.
Despite perfunctory apologies from the American commander on the ground in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, and the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, for this "tragic unintended incident," anti-American sentiment has continued to rise in Pakistan, a key U.S. ally and a nuclear power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promptly offered her condolences to the Pakistani people, but popular demands for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan are mounting.
As retribution for this "friendly fire" incident, Pakistani police have begun to interrupt and delay strategically important fuel supply deliveries, potentially leaving NATO and U.S. soldiers exposed. In addition, access to a key Pakistani airbase, which has been vital to the U.S.'s ongoing campaign of drone bombings, has been revoked. Senior Pakistani political figures, such as Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and opposition politician and former international cricketing legend Imran Khan, have condemned the attacks in uncompromising terms. Some opposition parties are even demanding that all ties with the U.S. be cut.
Although the 1,600-mile border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is often poorly defined and hotly disputed, the ramifications arising from these unnecessary deaths will be significant for the U.S. It is unclear what immediate and practical steps the Obama administration can take to address the fear and lack of trust that is poisoning the Pakistan relationship. Memories of the May assassination of Osama bin Laden by Navy SEALs deep inside Pakistan is fresh in the minds of many disgruntled Pakistani.
Is the president's "AfPak strategy" about leveraging our relationships with our ally Pakistan to obtain peace and stability in Afghanistan? Or is it about conducting our own separate war in Pakistani territory, regardless of whether there is local approval for it?
Strangely, anti-war protests in the U.S. have been largely absent during Obama's first term, despite a significant expansion of U.S. engagements and commitments in numerous new countries around the globe. For example, the president's significant use of, and reliance on, attacks by unmanned drones has received little criticism from those protest groups that so vocally and ceaselessly criticized the prior administration's activities in Iraq.
Of course, there are alternative to indiscriminate bombing raids and drone attacks. For example, NATO is currently offering Taliban fighters $150 per month to stop shooting at them and go back home. As a bonus, the retired militants are allowed to keep their guns, and they also receive an amnesty for all of their past activities, even if they include atrocities against women and children.
Nice work if you can get it!
Ideally, the policy's goal is to encourage Taliban fighters to walk away from the fighting and resume their prior lives with a measure of dignity and honor. Over $150 million has been allocated to the scheme, and about 3,000 Taliban are believed to have participated in the program, which is below initial NATO expectations.
When U.S. and NATO forces eventually leave, Pakistan will be the dominant international factor in shaping Afghanistan's future. To attempt to construct a lasting peace that will contribute to stability in the region, without involving Pakistan and recognizing the key role it will play going forward, is naive and self-defeating.
Unfortunately the Obama administration is currently scrambling to limit the damage that the weekend deaths will have on U.S.-sponsored negotiations scheduled for next week in Germany, for which Pakistan is an essential participant. Islamabad has indicated it will boycott the conference, in protest of the attack. Whether the senior State Department and Defense Department officials who have been mobilized to engage their Pakistani counterparts will be successful remains unclear.
Obama desperately needs a working relationship, political and military, with the Pakistani leadership, if he is ever going to accomplish his often-repeated aims in the region. Without such a relationship, it is difficult to see how a realistic exit strategy for U.S. troops can be developed and executed. Without such an exit strategy, it seems as if U.S. blood and treasure will continue to be expended along this border for some time to come.