Commentary on US President Nobel Prize 's speech

The president described the complicated nature of international security initiatives and the contemporary paradox of wars within — rather than between — states, in the form of insurgencies and secessionist movements. He highlighted these issues to argue that a ‘just war’ can also ‘[extend] beyond self-defence or the defence of one nation against an aggressor’ as long as the restoration of peace is the real goal.

Coupled with Obama’s West Point speech concerning troop escalation in Afghanistan, the prize acceptance contextualises recent developments regarding action by the US security infrastructure against Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. Interestingly, this is not a call for Pakistan to ‘do more’, nor is it a call for more joint action against terrorism. The speech seems to justify the US decision to start taking matters into its own hands in dealing with the threat it believes emanates from Pakistan. In other words, it’s an argument in favour of more ‘just’ unilateral action.

In writing this, I am not trying to fuel another conspiracy theory regarding America’s motives in the region —US plans to tackle Al Qaeda here have been laid bare in newspaper headlines. I am simply pointing out that whatever ‘war’ the US is fighting here may be justified by Obama’s definition, but it certainly doesn’t feel that way to most Pakistanis.

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, President Asif Zardari argued that ‘public mistrust of the United States [in Pakistan] … stems from regional issues, specifically policies concerning India’, and the ‘perceived rhetorical one-sidedness of American policy’. These days, however, Pakistani suspicions about the US have more to do with intelligence networks and ground presence than diplomatic relations with India.

Speaking at West Point, Obama called for better intelligence to ‘stay one step ahead of shadowy networks’. Since then, Pakistani government officials have been fielding questions about the reported expansion of covert CIA resources in this country. Clearly, the enhancement of US intelligence networks in Pakistan is a development our establishment was not consulted on, as the best Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has been able to say about the matter is that Pakistan is ‘looking into’ this new American policy.

The news of a greater CIA presence comes on the heels of an announcement earlier this month that the White House has authorised an expansion of the CIA’s controversial drone programme in Pakistan’s tribal areas, with a heightened possibility of strikes in Balochistan.

America’s plans to eliminate the leadership of the Afghan Taliban, which US intelligence believes is in Balochistan, certainly fit Obama’s neat construct of a ‘just war’ — it’s unilateral action in self-defence, after all. But recent reports in American papers suggest US actions are preventing us Pakistanis from waging our own ‘just war’, on our soil, on our terms. The Washington Times, for example, reported that CIA officials have been hoarding intelligence on Al Qaeda in Balochistan since 2007, according to Pakistani defence officials.

Whatever the US’s justifications for threatening more unilateral action in Balochistan — both in the form of increased intelligence surveillance and drone strikes — they have made our security establishment jumpy. On Friday, Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar acknowledged the existence of the Quetta shura, announced that Pakistani security forces had take action against it, and assured that it no longer posed a threat. In the blogosphere, this announcement is being seen as an effort to circumvent direct US action in Balochistan.

On a separate note, Obama’s Nobel speech emphasised that ‘just wars’ are fought in adherence with strict standards. At the same time, The New York Times has reported that Blackwater operatives worked with CIA officials during sensitive ‘snatch and grab’ operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report aimed to highlight that there is a far ‘deeper relationship’ between the agency and the private security firm than the US government likes to admit.

Blackwater’s transgressions have no place in Obama’s description of ‘just’ warfare. If the CIA is to have an expanded role in this region, the US government has to prioritise decoupling the agency and the firm. The CIA’s decision, announced Saturday, to cancel a contract for Blackwater operatives to load bombs onto drone aircraft is a small step in the right direction (the loading will now be done by CIA officials, and drone attacks will continue). But an even more transparent understanding of the role of private security firms in US warfare is necessary at this time.

Unfortunately, unilateral and covert measures to tackle Al Qaeda are bound to raise questions about more useful, joint initiatives against terrorism. On Friday, the US House of Representatives cleared $700m for the Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Capability Fund, with which the US is providing counterterrorism training to Frontier Corps personnel.

There are currently 80 to 100 US Special Operations forces, including 35 trainers, working with the FC in the Frontier province. About 1,000 FC men have received training, though the goal is to train over 9,000 paramilitary troops and expand the initiative into the tribal areas. It is unclear whether more trainers will be needed to achieve these goals. But if CIA involvement here is ramped up, Pakistanis are bound to reject the official presence of US Special Ops forces on this side of the border.

The fact is, if the US aims to wage ‘just wars’ using unjust means, it will find little support for its legitimate efforts to bolster global security

The president described the complicated nature of international security initiatives and the contemporary paradox of wars within — rather than between — states, in the form of insurgencies and secessionist movements. He highlighted these issues to argue that a ‘just war’ can also ‘[extend] beyond self-defence or the defence of one nation against an aggressor’ as long as the restoration of peace is the real goal.

Coupled with Obama’s West Point speech concerning troop escalation in Afghanistan, the prize acceptance contextualises recent developments regarding action by the US security infrastructure against Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. Interestingly, this is not a call for Pakistan to ‘do more’, nor is it a call for more joint action against terrorism. The speech seems to justify the US decision to start taking matters into its own hands in dealing with the threat it believes emanates from Pakistan. In other words, it’s an argument in favour of more ‘just’ unilateral action.

In writing this, I am not trying to fuel another conspiracy theory regarding America’s motives in the region —US plans to tackle Al Qaeda here have been laid bare in newspaper headlines. I am simply pointing out that whatever ‘war’ the US is fighting here may be justified by Obama’s definition, but it certainly doesn’t feel that way to most Pakistanis.

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, President Asif Zardari argued that ‘public mistrust of the United States [in Pakistan] … stems from regional issues, specifically policies concerning India’, and the ‘perceived rhetorical one-sidedness of American policy’. These days, however, Pakistani suspicions about the US have more to do with intelligence networks and ground presence than diplomatic relations with India.

Speaking at West Point, Obama called for better intelligence to ‘stay one step ahead of shadowy networks’. Since then, Pakistani government officials have been fielding questions about the reported expansion of covert CIA resources in this country. Clearly, the enhancement of US intelligence networks in Pakistan is a development our establishment was not consulted on, as the best Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has been able to say about the matter is that Pakistan is ‘looking into’ this new American policy.

The news of a greater CIA presence comes on the heels of an announcement earlier this month that the White House has authorised an expansion of the CIA’s controversial drone programme in Pakistan’s tribal areas, with a heightened possibility of strikes in Balochistan.

America’s plans to eliminate the leadership of the Afghan Taliban, which US intelligence believes is in Balochistan, certainly fit Obama’s neat construct of a ‘just war’ — it’s unilateral action in self-defence, after all. But recent reports in American papers suggest US actions are preventing us Pakistanis from waging our own ‘just war’, on our soil, on our terms. The Washington Times, for example, reported that CIA officials have been hoarding intelligence on Al Qaeda in Balochistan since 2007, according to Pakistani defence officials.

Whatever the US’s justifications for threatening more unilateral action in Balochistan — both in the form of increased intelligence surveillance and drone strikes — they have made our security establishment jumpy. On Friday, Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar acknowledged the existence of the Quetta shura, announced that Pakistani security forces had take action against it, and assured that it no longer posed a threat. In the blogosphere, this announcement is being seen as an effort to circumvent direct US action in Balochistan.

On a separate note, Obama’s Nobel speech emphasised that ‘just wars’ are fought in adherence with strict standards. At the same time, The New York Times has reported that Blackwater operatives worked with CIA officials during sensitive ‘snatch and grab’ operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report aimed to highlight that there is a far ‘deeper relationship’ between the agency and the private security firm than the US government likes to admit.

Blackwater’s transgressions have no place in Obama’s description of ‘just’ warfare. If the CIA is to have an expanded role in this region, the US government has to prioritise decoupling the agency and the firm. The CIA’s decision, announced Saturday, to cancel a contract for Blackwater operatives to load bombs onto drone aircraft is a small step in the right direction (the loading will now be done by CIA officials, and drone attacks will continue). But an even more transparent understanding of the role of private security firms in US warfare is necessary at this time.

Unfortunately, unilateral and covert measures to tackle Al Qaeda are bound to raise questions about more useful, joint initiatives against terrorism. On Friday, the US House of Representatives cleared $700m for the Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Capability Fund, with which the US is providing counterterrorism training to Frontier Corps personnel.

There are currently 80 to 100 US Special Operations forces, including 35 trainers, working with the FC in the Frontier province. About 1,000 FC men have received training, though the goal is to train over 9,000 paramilitary troops and expand the initiative into the tribal areas. It is unclear whether more trainers will be needed to achieve these goals. But if CIA involvement here is ramped up, Pakistanis are bound to reject the official presence of US Special Ops forces on this side of the border.

The fact is, if the US aims to wage ‘just wars’ using unjust means, it will find little support for its legitimate efforts to bolster global security

Read more >>