May 5, 2009 6:30pm

‘We Face a Common Threat’: White House to Push Afghanistan and Pakistan to Fight Extremists

In trilateral meetings tomorrow, President Obama will pressure both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari to work more intensely and cooperatively to fight al Qaeda and other extremists, administration sources say.

"The core principle of this meeting is the centrality of Pakistan and Afghanistan to our own national security," a senior administration official says. "We face a common threat."

After Pakistan attempted to enter into a deal with Taliban leaders in April, ceding them the Swat Valley, the Obama administration expressed grave concerns about the stability of Pakistan, a country with nuclear arms. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistan "is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists."

"Look at why this is happening," Clinton said in April, testifying before Congress. "If you talk to people in Pakistan, especially in the ungoverned territories, which are increasing in number, they don’t believe the state has a judiciary system that works. It’s corrupt. It doesn’t extend its power into the countryside."

"Swat was a real wake-up call to a lot of people in Pakistan," a senior administration official says. "We understood that and we reflected that. … We said what we said, and they did what they did."

That deal, of course, fell through. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke testified before the Senate today that last night Zardari said his army would expand its efforts to fight the encroaching Taliban — including sending troops into the Taliban-controlled Swat area.

"He said to me last night, ‘The army is going back in as we speak,’" Holbrooke said. "We’ll see how this goes."

The U.S. is working with Afghans on building up and training their troops. In Pakistan, administration sources say, the issue is more one of Gen. Petraeus teaching the Pakistani military how to deal with a counterinsurgency.

A senior military official says Pakistan’s military is largely built up for a regional conflict with India. Until the last few months, their frontier corps was underequipped and undermanned. The U.S. will provide Pakistan with $400 million for counterinsurgency training and support, and equipment for counterinsurgency measures such as night vision goggles, helicopter support and maintenance.

The leader of Pakistan says that’s not enough.

"I need drones to be part of my arsenal," Zardari told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Tuesday. "I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement. I need to own those."

Speaking at the Brookings Institution, Karzai spoke of a "higher moral platform" as the surest way to defeat terrorism. "This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality. Money can’t buy you love, as you say it in America, no matter how much it is. And force won’t buy you obedience, no matter how much it is … We must prove that we are better than the guys that are fighting us and that we have a higher moral standard."

Other issues will be addressed in these two-day trilateral talks as well, including corruption, border posts, water management, food security, job creation, trade ties, building police forces, preparing relief efforts for the future refugees that may soon be displaced as the U.S. intensifies military operations, and addressing their problems with a "whole of government" approach so matters aren’t just handled militarily.

Tomorrow and Thursday’s meetings won’t just bring just the three presidents working together. The intelligence chiefs from both countries will meet with CIA director Leon Panetta at Langley; the ministers of interior will meet with Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller; the finance ministers will meet with deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew (Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner being a bit busy with the bank stress tests, among other crises); the agriculture ministers will meet with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak.

In many cases these officials — say, the Afghan and Pakistani agriculture ministers — have never met one another, so these trilateral talks are all new.

"Success in one country leads to success in another," says a senior administration official.

The meetings are unprecedented for the U.S. dealing with this region, the official says, adding that President Bush hosted a dinner for Karzai and former Pakistan President Musharraf, but it was "famously a dinner that led to nothing."

Some Democrats have been expressing concerns about the renewed commitment, including 21,000 new troops, to Afghanistan. At the House Foreign Affairs Committee today, Holbrooke pushed back on any notion that the war there is another Vietnam.

"While there are obvious structural similarities between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Vietnam … the core difference is, is that the Vietnam and the north Vietnamese army never posed a direct threat to the American homeland," Holbrooke said. "And the people who are in this area who we are fighting either pose a direct threat, having committed 9/11  having done Mumbai, having killed (Benazir) Bhutto, and they have publicly said they are going to do more of the same. That is: al Qaeda of course and their allies the Taliban."
   
Wednesday’s meetings will start at the State Department, where Secretary Clinton will meet with Karzai, then with Zardari. They will all then meet with their full delegations and all three leaders will speak.

After meeting with Zardari and Karzai on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton will propose benchmarks for the countries to measure success before they meet with President Obama. Acting State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood told reporters that they’re "a set of principles that’s going to guide our joint cooperation as we go forward in dealing with these tremendous challenges that both Pakistan and Afghanistan face."

President Obama will in the afternoon hold separate meetings with both Karzai and Zardari, and then the three will all meet. In the evening, Vice President Biden will host a dinner with the leaders, their delegations, and congressional leaders.

On Thursday the trilateral meetings will continue in breakout sessions.

Holbrooke and Gen. Petraeus are also taking a leadership role in many of these meetings. Holbrooke just returned from a donor conference where he secured $5.5 billion in pledged aid for Pakistan — including $1 billion from Japan, and $330 million from Iran.

This process began when President Obama ordered a full-scale review of the policy in the region before his inauguration. As part of that new policy, released at the end of March, President Obama pledged frequent trilateral talks. The next one will be after the Afghan elections in August.

The administration says the problems between Afghanistan and Pakistan pre-date the Taliban, pre-date even the USSR invading Afghanistan, going back to the partition of the two countries.

– Jake Tapper, with Luis Martinez and Kirit Radia

User Comments

Good luck!

Posted by: MayBee | May 5, 2009, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm

That oughta do it.
Has anyone asked how the president would defend himself if a Spanish judge were to charge him with murder for assassinating people with drone strikes in Pakistan?
I’ve heard no defense at all from the goofball left, whose stance at this juncture seems to be torture bad, drone assassinations good.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm

He’s gonna push Karzai to fight returning military personnel and wealthy Americans? I mean that’s who obama see’s as extremists!! :))

Posted by: chris | May 5, 2009, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm

For Mr. Obama, if it’s not a political problem, it’s not a problem. I think we will hear another fake outrage speech from Mr. Obama regarding AIG changing of the bonus amounts soon.

Posted by: young_voter | May 5, 2009, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm

“Has anyone asked how the president would defend himself if a Spanish judge were to charge him with murder for assassinating people with drone strikes in Pakistan”
Has anyone asked Obama how many angels can dance on a pin?
“I’ve heard no defense at all from the goofball left, whose stance at this juncture seems to be torture bad, drone assassinations good.”
Because the field of battle and the having someone under your custody are different circumstances with different rules of conduct.
That innocent civilians can be killed on the field of battle is a reason not to enter into war on a whim or based on false pretenses like Iraq.
That right wingers are upset we can no longer torture people is a reason to ignore them.

Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 7:09 pm 7:09 pm

Zardari wants to own the drones!!??
Sorry AZ, you can’t have the toy planes or the billions of technology that support it.
If you do what you need to do to save YOUR country, we will patch you in on the feed so you know what we’re doing to blast the big dudes.
Good one Afghans!! in getting a oldie but goodie Talibanister chief all on your lonesome this week.

Posted by: robertb | May 5, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm

I think Obama, Zardari and Karzai need to look at the ground realities and look for comprehensive solutions rather than quick fixes. The three have to recognize that the Taliban are not going anywhere in a hurry and so they need to be included in any equation. Obviously it would be best that Pakistan and Afghanistan make their own air tight arrangements to contain and disarm the Taliban and enforce strict control of movement. The current arrangements are wimpy and do not have teeth to prevent the Taliban from capturing more land. Any aid to Pakistan should be contingent upon the handing over of nuclear weapon to the US for safe keeping so that there is no question of them getting into wrong hands. The US should develop businesses in the two countries instead of giving blank checks to the governments of the two countries. In the case of Pakistan the US aid has ended up in Taliban hands or for weapons against India. It is time for decisive action to end terrorism and to get the most for the dollars spent. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are incapable without the NATO forces to contain the Taliban and to disarm Al Qaeda. So the US can continue to play a proper role of maintaining peace and economic growth. Which could be the most important cash crop for Afghanistan bsides opium? Pomegranates. Encourage the expansion of pomegranate crop which is a treasure chest of nutraceuticals and most importantly broad spectrum antivirals which can inactivate enveloped viruses which include all the flu strains and any new ones that could emerge, HIV, herpes viruses, hepatitis viruses etc. If a biopharmaceutical industry and other industries are developed in the region the possibilities of job growth will move the youth currently recruited by the Taliban to be engaging in peaceful occupations. Any military centric solution is going to be disastrous to all parties and just make the current quagmire worse then it is. All safe havens should be ring fenced with security control. I don’t think the Zardari government can claim sovereignty over all its territories and the nuclear storage when it is hardly in control of its entire country.

Posted by: gjkotw01 | May 5, 2009, 7:55 pm 7:55 pm

I guess Joe Biden was right, POTUS is being tested.. and Hillary better keep the 3am phone by the bedside..

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 5, 2009, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm

zardari is and looks like a slime ball. he was a corrupt politician who does not have the pakistani people’s loyalty and he’s the type of guy that precisely makes you lose confidence in government. not the best person to have at this time — that sympathy vote in response to bhutto’s assassination was a bad idea.
i appreciate how multifaceted these talks are going to be and how so many department heads and groups are going to interact and crisscross.
I wish them all much progress and useful cooperation that turns into positive concerted action.

Posted by: x | May 5, 2009, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm

Napolitano is on the case:
“The Department of Homeland Security is reining in a “maverick” division of the agency following criticism of a report it issued that details domestic “extremists” ranging from anti-tax movements to pro-environment groups, a DHS official told FOX News on Tuesday.
“The report, released in March and recalled within hours, was on top of a controversial document the same office produced last month that said U.S. veterans were ripe for recruitment by terrorist groups.”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm

“Because the field of battle and the having someone under your custody are different circumstances with different rules of conduct.”
Eh? Can you give us a citation to these differing sets of rules?
“That innocent civilians can be killed on the field of battle is a reason not to enter into war on a whim or based on false pretenses like Iraq.”
But this is a war that Mr. Obama supported, and has escalated. It used to be in Afghanistan; now it is largely in Pakistan. Has the U.N. approved this action? Does that matter?
And what would be his defense to a charge of murder? No one seems willing or able to respond…

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 8:21 pm 8:21 pm

Increasing troops to Afghanistan is a great idea if Obama wants to pass Bush in stupidity. Every sane person needs to register as independents to send a message that idiots should not have power.

Posted by: Greg | May 5, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm

That right wingers are upset we can no longer torture people…
==============================
This administration will do whatever it takes when the time comes.

Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm

The non-partisan CBO tells us what would happen without Obama’s stimulus:
“The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) publication, The Budget and Economic Outlook states that the current recession will end as soon as late 2009, even without the stimulus:
“‘CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started
in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II.’
“This recession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment
rate. That rate, in CBO’s forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the
end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 1981–1982 recession.
“In preparing its economic forecast, CBO assumes that current laws and policies governing federal spending and
taxes do not change. This forecast, therefore, does not include the effects of a possible fiscal stimulus package.
On that basis, CBO anticipates that real GDP will drop by 2.2 percent in calendar year 2009, a steep decline.
CBO expects the economy to begin a slow recovery in the second half of 2009 and to grow by a modest 1.5 percent
in 2010.”
All of this staggering debt for nothing.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm

It’s ok,Obama will let them move here so they can fight on our soil.
After all,were the extremist to Obama.

Posted by: chuck | May 5, 2009, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm

What is going to happen if the Taliban get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? Hmmm, King Barry???

Posted by: tin can | May 5, 2009, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm

Why give pakistan any money? Pakistan’s security forces are corrupt and most support the militants. We are going to end of giving money to the Taliban and Al Qaeda through the government of Pakistan. A real friend would let our troops in so we could catch Bin Laden. I don’t trust Pakistan!

Posted by: Dave T | May 5, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm

The Presidenr said he will ‘disrupt, dismantle and destroy’ AQ.
How can he possibly achieve that goal without US troops going into Pakistan?
We had air supremacy from the first day of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan conflict.
No way drones are going to ‘destroy’ AQ in Pakistan.
It is going to take US ground forces to do it.

Posted by: J House | May 6, 2009, 1:49 am 1:49 am

I question the sanity of anyone who voted to put an untested narcissist in charge of U.S. foreign policy. I really do. The sheer lunacy of what you all have done is unfathomable.
We tried to warn you that an inexperienced anti-American monster like Obama would wreak havoc in the world.
Read “Why would some at the CIA want to sabotage President Obama?” (this site doesn’t want URLs posted, so you can find it through searching online for the title.
Excerpt:
Other Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt and rising concern, an officer of the DGSE, France’s military intelligence agency, told my friend Jack Wheeler (the real life Indiana
Jones) last week.
“All of us in our little community are worried – us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv,” the DGSE officer told Jack. “It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is every barbarian horde in the world being told there are no gates.”

Posted by: tanarg | May 6, 2009, 3:48 am 3:48 am

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Barack Obama
On US troops in Afghanistan
August 14, 2007
—————
US air strikes in Afghanistan on Tuesday killed dozens of civilians including women and children, officials from the Red Cross have said.
Afghan officials in the western province of Farah told the BBC as many as 100 civilians might have died.
(BBC News May 6, 2009)
—————
Change you can believe in.

Posted by: tjp612 | May 6, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.