» This Story:Read +| Comments
Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   On Facebook   |   Opinions Home

How partnering with the U.S. could strengthen Pakistan's sovereignty

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Thursday, December 17, 2009

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN The United States and Pakistan, always prone to bickering, need a big idea to unite and sustain them through the testing battle in Afghanistan. So here's a strategic concept I've been trying out with officials in both countries: By partnering with America, Pakistan can gain sovereignty over all its tribal territory for the first time in its history -- and thereby finally complete the task of building its own nation.

This Story

This is a classic example of what strategists call a "positive sum" game, where, by working together, Washington and Islamabad could gain benefits that they would not achieve alone. But instead of cooperating, they have been trading resentful messages over the past month in which the United States requested Pakistan's help in closing Taliban havens and Pakistan responded, in effect, "Don't tell us what to do."

Here's the cold, hard truth: U.S. success in Afghanistan depends on Pakistan gaining sovereignty over the tribal belt. If the insurgents can continue to maintain their havens in North Waziristan and other tribal areas, then President Obama's surge of troops in Afghanistan will fail. It's that simple.

The Obama administration wants Pakistan to take decisive action. That's why national security adviser Jim Jones visited here last month. And it's why Centcom Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen visited this week. But they've encountered Pakistani skepticism and suspicion. "The narrative is about mistrust and betrayal," says a U.S. Embassy official here.

The Americans should be knocking on an open door. For a second cold, hard fact is that Pakistan will not be a confident and fully successful modern state until it has extended its writ to the lawless tribal regions. Lacking that control, the Pakistanis fear that their national fabric could rip along its seams.

America's war in Afghanistan paradoxically provides Pakistan with a golden moment to achieve what it has lacked since independence in 1947, which is political and military control over the Pashtun tribal belt. Even the mighty British Raj ducked this challenge, preferring a loose system of tribal governance that made the border areas a haven for bandits. That ungoverned status is no longer tolerable in an age of potential nuclear terrorism.

By bringing a mighty army into Afghanistan, the United States is offering Pakistan a rare opportunity. If the two nations can coordinate their military forces across this border every hour and every day, a war that sometimes looks hopeless from Washington and Islamabad will prove much more manageable.

This war against the Pashtun insurgency can be a decisive final chapter in the making of the modern Pakistani and Afghan states. For a comparison, think of how the Mexican-American War helped make the United States a continental nation, or how the European wars of the 19th century helped unify Germany and Italy. The alternative, a de facto "Pashtunistan" that straddles the two countries, is a recipe for permanent discord.

This vision of a sovereign Pakistan that controls all its territory has two important corollaries: first, a future common market between Pakistan and Afghanistan that can power economic development in both countries; and second, the relaxation of tensions between India and a Pakistan that no longer worries about dismemberment and discord.

It has been clear over the past several months that the American and Pakistani publics are skeptical about war and are looking for some animating vision to justify the sacrifices. What's needed now is a process such as the strategic conversations that took place in 1944, as the World War II allies were escalating their campaign against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan:

Wise American and European statesmen began planning the consequences of the peace. They imagined the network of institutions that would secure the postwar world -- the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. The United States and Pakistan need to show that same vision and maturity now.

The Af-Pak wars may seem like a mad gamble, but if given the right strategic framework, they represent a common effort to create a stable structure for Central and South Asia in the 21st century. The payoff is immense, especially for Pakistan. To understand why this conflict makes sense, people need to see the big idea that lies behind it -- the stabilization of a lawless tribal region that has been causing trouble for 150 years.


» This Story:Read +| Comments

More Washington Post Opinions


Post Partisan

Quick takes from The Post's opinion writers.

Washington Sketch

Washington Sketch

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the capital.

Tom Toles

Tom Toles

See his latest editorial cartoon.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company