Obama, Taliban, Pakistan

[Annie]

What the hell is going on? Pakistan makes a treaty with the Taliban. Note: treaties are made between states.

Now this?

The Volokh Conspiracy - New war, new legal issues...

[Eric Posner, February 21, 2009 at 4:54pm] Trackbacks
New war, new legal issues...
In the words of the Times:
The missile strikes on training camps run by Baitullah Mehsud represent a broadening of the American campaign inside Pakistan, which has been largely carried out by drone aircraft. Under President Bush, the United States frequently attacked militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban involved in cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, but had stopped short of raids aimed at Mr. Mehsud and his followers, who have played less of a direct role in attacks on American troops.

The strikes are another sign that President Obama is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy in using American spy agencies against terrorism suspects in Pakistan, as he had promised to do during his presidential campaign. At the same time, Mr. Obama has begun to scale back some of the Bush policies on the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, which he has criticized as counterproductive.

Mr. Mehsud was identified early last year by both American and Pakistani officials as the man who had orchestrated the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and the wife of Pakistan’s current president, Asif Ali Zardari. Mr. Bush included Mr. Mehsud’s name in a classified list of militant leaders whom the C.I.A. and American commandos were authorized to capture or kill.

The war against al Qaeda and the Taliban then-government-now-insurgency in Afghanistan has become a war against Taliban insurgents in Pakistan. These insurgents have a loose alliance with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but different aims and priorities—namely, to overthrow the Pakistani government rather than to overthrow the Afghan government. There is a nice legal question whether President Obama has initiated or accelerated a “new” war against the Taliban-in-Pakistan or is merely carrying on an “old” war against Al Qaida and the original Taliban albeit in a neighboring country. This nice legal question poses some challenges to Obama’s new legal team:

1. Is this new war in Pakistan undertaken pursuant to statutory authority or on the basis of the president’s commander-in-chief power (or both)? The only relevant statute on the horizon is the much-criticized-as-excessively-broad AUMF of 2001, which authorized hostilities against al Qaeda and related organizations in Afghanistan (“those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”). Does the Obama administration read this statute as authorizing intervention in a civil war in Pakistan?

2. If not, is the new war in Pakistan undertaken pursuant to the president’s commander-in-chief power? And, then, what of the War Powers Resolution, which applies to the “introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations”? Under this law, the president must inform Congress and seek its consent. When can we expect this to happen?

Fortunately, Obama’s nominee for head of OLC, Dawn Johnsen, has announced a new era of openness, and so the OLC’s legal judgments on these important issues will arrive soon. How she will reconcile disclosure of an OLC memo that provides the legal justification for the military intervention in Pakistan with the Obama administration’s refusal to officially acknowledge this “covert” action remains to be seen.

 

[Munin]

Pakistan is already a partly failed state (a failed state in the areas that the taliban control), the taliban have an unofficial country in pakistan and Afghanistan. These are not guys that care about international borders, they have only the borders that they see in reality.

The Pakistani army is too weak to fight the taliban, they have done this before : made a peace treaty between them in which the taliban promise not to attack the government, but what is not mentioned is that they still are able to wage war against other entities (like the US in Afghanistan for example).

It also seems that the Pakistanis are trying to avoid a civil war and are trying to let the US become like the honey for a bunch of bees (the taliban fighters). This way they take the pressure more away from Pakistan itself.

I d say that Pakistan has betrayed the US and it is not the first time that this happens. For foreigners they will put up a facade each time so they can keep getting money from us, but this doesn't change the reality on the ground. Our leaders must be the dumbest fucks in the world if they fall for this facade, I hope we ll take half of their money away and put it to better use (it is not like we can afford to throw our money away)

 

[garyd]

The Pakistani Government has damn little choice. They can't hang on to the limited power they have in the country and vigorously prosecute a war against the militants in the North and they still have to placate the US as best they can to keep US support comming in hence the peculiar policy of condemning US attacks on militant targets in the North while simultaneously furnishing bases for the drones that carry out said attacks. It is, in short, real politik at its closest to the ground.

On the other hand the US is a bit short on rational choices as well. The current Pakistani regime is extraordinarily vulnaerable and often the left hand seems unaware wht the right hand is doing as in the case of the recent attacks in India, however allowing this government to collapse widens the war even further

 

[Annie]

The Pakistani Government has damn little choice. They can't hang on to the limited power they have in the country and vigorously prosecute a war against the militants in the North and they still have to placate the US as best they can to keep US support comming in hence the peculiar policy of condemning US attacks on militant targets in the North while simultaneously furnishing bases for the drones that carry out said attacks. It is, in short, real politik at its closest to the ground.

On the other hand the US is a bit short on rational choices as well. The current Pakistani regime is extraordinarily vulnaerable and often the left hand seems unaware wht the right hand is doing as in the case of the recent attacks in India, however allowing this government to collapse widens the war even further

So you and Munin agree, Obama is basically creating a new war with Pakistan?

 

[garyd]

Not with Pakistan per se but rather continuing a war against the Taliban and Al Qeada by any means necessary and with the tacit if unspoken support of the Current Pakistani government.

 

[Truthmatters]

As I recall Obama said he would go after them even during his campaign.

 

[garyd]

Yep he did. I think however that he is taking a far more nuanced approach to it than his campaign indicated he would and frankly that would be a good thing. Now if we can just get him to do something to actually help the economy instead of hamstring it....

 

[Annie]

Not with Pakistan per se but rather continuing a war against the Taliban and Al Qeada by any means necessary and with the tacit if unspoken support of the Current Pakistani government.

He's quickly widening the war in Pakistan, threatening their sovereignty. No doubt what is going on, question is how long Pakistan will not react and join the Taliban.

 

[garyd]

Not really. I suspect the Pakistani political leaders are getting some say in targetting at times and that we are trying to take into account there needs as well as our own as much as we reasonably can. Let's not forget here that essentially Pakistan is two countries with one government and has been so in many respects since it split of from India shortly after the British Raj was overthrown.

 

[Annie]

Not really. I suspect the Pakistani political leaders are getting some say in targetting at times and that we are trying to take into account there needs as well as our own as much as we reasonably can. Let's not forget here that essentially Pakistan is two countries with one government and has been so in many respects since it split of from India shortly after the British Raj was overthrown.

I disagree. The reaction time will not be long. India and Pakistan already are at each other's throats again, I can't see Pakistan affording this, which is why they have de facto recognized the Taliban as legal in the 'state' of Swat.

 

[garyd]

Again it is simply real Politic. The Pakis have simply admitted to a political reality over which they have very little control in any case.

 

[Munin]

So you and Munin agree, Obama is basically creating a new war with Pakistan?

I didn't say that, Obama is at war with the taliban. Pakistan does not control taliban occupied territories, as was shown once again. So basicly nothing has changed, Obama is not creating a new war: he is only extending his old one over fictional borders (in reality the borders of Pakistan are not the same as the official ones). I d argue that the taliban-occupied-Pakistan is not Pakistan, but a "rebel state" where the taliban makes the laws (as was proven recently).

 

[Annie]

So you and Munin agree, Obama is basically creating a new war with Pakistan?

I didn't say that, Obama is at war with the taliban. Pakistan does not control taliban occupied territories, as was shown once again. So basicly nothing has changed, Obama is not creating a new war: he is only extending his old one over fictional borders (in reality the borders of Pakistan are not the same as the official ones). I d argue that the taliban occupied Pakistan is not Pakistan, but some other country where the taliban makes the laws (as was proven recently).[/QUOTE]

Indeed, we should also recognize that area as a 'state' and deal with it as such. Much better than combatants. I do wonder though how Pakistan will feel about that?

 

[Munin]

Indeed, we should also recognize that area as a 'state' and deal with it as such. Much better than combatants. I do wonder though how Pakistan will feel about that?

Pakistan already unofficially allowed the Bush attacks: this was leaked out by members of the former Bush government, this already shows what Pakistan feels about that.

Unofficially they will cooperate, officially they don't so they can avoid a civil war.

 

[Annie]

Indeed, we should also recognize that area as a 'state' and deal with it as such. Much better than combatants. I do wonder though how Pakistan will feel about that?

Pakistan already unofficially allowed the Bush attacks: this was leaked out by members of the former Bush government, this already shows what Pakistan feels about that.

Unofficially they will cooperate, officially they don't so they can avoid a civil war.

By unmanned drones and within specific areas. This is much more wide-ranging and continues to escalate.

 

[garyd]

And the Paki government, which exist only so long as the US supports it and will fight for it in any case, doesn't care Annie. It is better, in thier view, to rule a rump than to be cast into jail or blown the hell up or have your head sawed off with a dull knife. One suspects that the excesses of the Taliban and Al Qeada in that regard have cause them almost as many problems as we have.

 

[Munin]

Indeed, we should also recognize that area as a 'state' and deal with it as such. Much better than combatants. I do wonder though how Pakistan will feel about that?

Pakistan already unofficially allowed the Bush attacks: this was leaked out by members of the former Bush government, this already shows what Pakistan feels about that.

Unofficially they will cooperate, officially they don't so they can avoid a civil war.

By unmanned drones and within specific areas. This is much more wide-ranging and continues to escalate.

This escalated on the day of 9/11, everything that happens now does not compare to that escalation (At least if you look from the US point of view).

 

[Annie]

Pakistan already unofficially allowed the Bush attacks: this was leaked out by members of the former Bush government, this already shows what Pakistan feels about that.

Unofficially they will cooperate, officially they don't so they can avoid a civil war.

By unmanned drones and within specific areas. This is much more wide-ranging and continues to escalate.

This escalated on the day of 9/11, everything that happens now does not compare to that escalation (At least if you look from the US point of view).

I just KNEW someone could dial it back. Good show! Won't change what happens but good attempt to blast to the past.

 

[Munin]

By unmanned drones and within specific areas. This is much more wide-ranging and continues to escalate.

This escalated on the day of 9/11, everything that happens now does not compare to that escalation (At least if you look from the US point of view).

I just KNEW someone could dial it back. Good show! Won't change what happens but good attempt to blast to the past.

You don't go to war to attack and retreat, if you go to war you should go all the way. Cause and effect, you know?
War already is the escalation, you seem to forget that.

You seem to be good at criticizing but I ve not heard any reasonable solution from you.

 

[Annie]

This escalated on the day of 9/11, everything that happens now does not compare to that escalation (At least if you look from the US point of view).

I just KNEW someone could dial it back. Good show! Won't change what happens but good attempt to blast to the past.

You don't go to war to attack and retreat, if you go to war you should go all the way. Cause and effect, you know?

You seem to be good at criticizing but I ve not heard any reasonable solution from you.

Afghanistan cannot be won in the way Iraq could be, imperfect that it was. Time will tell.