Pakistan Thunders

By Shaan Sachdev

The attack on the World Food Program office in Islamabad on Monday, for which the Taliban has already claimed responsibility, added more questions to a transitory period in Afghanistan’s future. As the American government decides on the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan, it is becoming impossible to ignore Pakistan any longer.

Pakistan has remained almost too difficult to think about in the last decade of America's "War on Terror". Afghanistan seemed to be an obvious attacking point, as the blatant host of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, after 9/11. Iraq seemed almost completely idiotic to most, even before the invasion’s inception. Yet Pakistan has never provoked a particularly opinionated consensus, despite the high concentration of Islamic militants swarming the Swat Valley.

Perhaps this is because Pakistan is more powerful than either Iraq or Afghanistan, presided over by a government less dispensable than those of Saddam’s or the Taliban’s. Yet could the existence of instability, manifested in both consistent insurgent attacks throughout Pakistan and a firmly entrenched terrorist presence, alongside an allegedly functioning government present a greater threat than governments functioning with no pretense? Legitimacy, after all, provides much greater access to the international arena.

The first question regards legitimacy itself. While President Zardari of Pakistan has committed to cracking down on militants inhabiting the north, most Pakistanis are unwilling to trust a man who has been sent to jail several times on corruption charges. More importantly, Zardari’s sporadic crackdowns in the Swat have not accomplished enough to deter the Obama administration from considering a greater presence in Pakistan.

The next question consequently addresses the extent of American presence in Pakistan. While the number of troops operating in Afghanistan is as accessible as Obama’s approval rating, the American public’s knowledge of investment in Pakistan remains shadier.

Congress consented to an aid package of $7.5 billion over the next five years, intended to assist Zardari’s government in driving out terrorist groups and “to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics,” according to Jane Perlez of The New York Times.

In addition, the Obama administration is planning for the construction of a massive American embassy in Islamabad. The embassy will naturally be accompanied by various high-security trinkets, some of which have already been flown in to the capital.

Armored vehicles and private military contracting companies are among the changes Pakistanis are witnessing as American diplomats prepare for a greater presence. Among such companies is DynCorp, which has already been the subject of accusations of civilian abuse.

Such activities have served as early warning signs for many Pakistanis, who have been quick to predict Pakistan’s subjugation to an Iraqi-style invasion. The presence of Blackwater hasn’t deterred such parallels.

Similar attitudes of independence exist in more remote areas. Jamal Nasir, mayor of Swat, has assembled a private militia of thousands of villagers who intend to protect the valley after the Pakistani army leaves. The villagers inhabiting such regions have been exposed to more civilian casualties than anyone and are tired of Taliban dominance.

Such approaches have occasionally demonstrated successful results—the corpses of Taliban associates strewn about the Swat countryside have been more frequent finds in the last few months.

Should a certain amount of autonomy be left up to these more or less independent villages, capitalizing on their interests to achieve a similar goal?

Should the Pakistani peoples’ voices be heard, and authority be left to the country’s incompetent government and military?

Or should the United States add another battle to its plate, perhaps the most complex yet, given its history of an inability to fight wars without mass civilian atrocities and very little progress? The steps taken in the next few weeks might answer such crucial questions.

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.