Today in the Northwest Frontier Province

Andy, I see your point, but it would pretty hard to prove who would be better at making the pitch since we haven't really made the pitch in earnest before. I just think the work that Clinton is doing now may make him a more credible figure to certain population. One of the reasons that Obama was so popular abroad is because he represents an immediate departure from the white supremacy that has always been an integral part of U.S. foreign policy when dealing with developing nations-- But Obama is not going to be the person who leads these discussion, Clinton at least has a successful model for aiding developing countries that is less condescending than previous aid models and being a former president it will be seen as a high profile appointment and signal the importance of the region. Once you get p@ss all of the ego issues then you can get down to negotiations. Of course this doesn't mean Clinton is the only one who can fill this slot, I just want to make sure that we are not dismissing Clinton because we have personal issues with Bill and I take your word Andy that you are not.

Clinton's a good idea. Clinton and Bush I would be a good idea. H3ll, Wesley Clark would good for this, too. Any kind of diplomacy that is sincere and directed to resolving conflict will be a refreshing change.

@Dee: I'm with you on the global initiative having leverage with humanitarian aid organizations in the NFP. And the baggage issue is going to come up no matter where Clinton (or any US rep) is deployed...
.
My advocacy of Bill for the Israeli/Palestinian spot is based on (1) reports I read at the time (1999/2000) that said that although the deal ultimately flopped, Clinton's grasp of the minutiae of the situation (settlement locations, land claims, etc.) was thorough enough to bring the two sides as close as they came, and (2) the need to focus high-level attention on this issue from DAY1 if there is to be any hope of reaching an agreement by 2012.
.
What better way to show the world that we are serious about peace in the region than sending an ex-president? (OK, not just *any* ex-president.

Why not try and resolve Israel and the Palestinians first (which is probably more realistic!). After all, the governments of India and Pakistan are both relatively weak
.
Or we can work on both at the same time. Which would be nice, because IIRC both the Pakis and the Indians have nukes.

Other bit of good news in the linked Kaplan piece:
.
According to a story by Bryan Bender in the Boston Globe, the Defense Business Board, a senior advisory group appointed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, recommended huge cuts in the military budget, noting that the current level of spending on weapons is "unsustainable." Several private and congressional defense analysts have been making this point for a few years now; the U.S. Government Accountability Office recently calculated that the Pentagon's 95 largest weapons systems have accumulated cost overruns amounting to $300 billion (that's just the overruns, not the total cost, which amounts to many hundreds of billions more). It's also clear, from the Pentagon's own budget analyses, that well over half of the $700 billion-plus budget has little if anything to do with the threats the United States faces now or in the foreseeable future. The past seven years have been a free-for-all for the nation's military contractors and service chiefs; the number of canceled weapons projects can be counted on one hand; they've otherwise received nearly all the money for everything they've asked for. Even many of the beneficiaries realize that the binge is coming to an end; the nation simply can't afford it. Obama's fortune is that he can order the cuts, invoking not his own preferences but the sober-minded urgings of a business advisory group in the Bush administration.

JK I echo Stuart_Zechman. Bravo!

Jayackroyd, kudos to you for getting JK to interact. I'm with you on finding anyone who is willing to move the ball forward.
.
I'm intrigued with Wesley Clark, particularly because he did good work in the Balkans and has some experience dealing with factions that have hundreds of years of conflict between them.
.
Dee, I'm was thinking if Al Gore would step up on this. He should have been POTUS, has a nobel peace prize, and is wonkish enough to be involved. I just don;t know if he has the interest or need to do this right now.
.
I'd also be interested in what Richard Clarke might bring to the table. Anyone have any responses to these three people?

I think everything we know about Renegade (I love this secret service moniker)tell us that he is big on multi-tasking. Remember what he said when grandpa tried to suspend his campaign -- "A president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time." So I'm thinking that he is going to focus on the middle east conflict from the outset and at the same time focus on Pakistan and India so that he has more leverage to resolve the Afghanistan/Pakistan issue. Clearly, it is just as important if not more so since it is clear that the Taliban is trying to bring down Pakistan so they can gain control of those nukes.

I'd also be interested in what Richard Clarke might bring to the table. Anyone have any responses to these three people?
.
I think he may a loon whom you may want purely in a staff role. Sometimes loons are right, and you need people who see danger everywhere in place. But you don't want them making decisions.
.

"This time, however, the U.S. should help the process along with a concerted and targeted aid package: military aid that can only be used to fight the Taliban (counterinsurgency training and equipment like up-armored humvees etc.) as opposed to untargeted military aid, plus civilian assistance to build local institutions (especially schools, to provide an alternative to the madrassas). "

Joe, I understand where you're coming from on this, but please let me give you a word of warning. My parents were born and raised in Pakistan, and I have been there a number of times over the last ten years. I know many of the politicians personally and am quite aware of the sordid state of affairs the government is in right now. With that said, providing any aid to a government run by Zardari is a HUGE mistake. This guy is the biggest crook in Pakistan's history and is the likely mastermind of his wife's murder (in Pakistan, recently it's being looked at in the public kind of like we look at OJ being "not guilty" in the US).

Since taking over I can almost 100% guarantee you that the treasury has been emptied and sent to Zardari's bank account. This is no different from the behavior of Zardari's only other real competition in Nawaz Sharif, who after being deposed was found to have tons of hidden palaces bought using government money.

The rest of the world is wise though. China, Pakistan's historically closest ally, for the first time gave Zardari a huge slap in the face by rejecting a request for aid. They know this guy is corrupt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/asia/19zardari.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The World Bank promptly cancelled its 300 million dollar loan meant to shore up Pakistan's economy about a week later after this crook met with the IMF and did not make a convincing argument:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=58688

Musharraf's old party is already working behind the scenes to try to bring him back into politics to challenge Zardari and the PPP. Obama would be wise to stay out of this maelstrom and let this play out because the lack of support we're getting from Pakistan in Afghanistan is directly related to this internal power struggle that is still unresolved, as Zardari continues to bankrupt an increasingly unstable nation.

"Perhaps most important, as President-elect Obama indicated to me a few weeks ago, a high-powered special envoy should be named--someone like Bill Clinton--to try to solve the eternal dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir."

While Pakistan would love this, it will be a non-starter for India - they've firmly held to the position that Kashmir must be resolved by bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, with no third parties involved. This position hasn't changed in decades and through several Indian changes in leadership. The US would be well advised to stay out of this - there's a lot of downside and minimal chance at an upside.

honestly I'm not sure how much good the up-armored Humvees would end up doing, the main problem areas are extremely mountainous and hard to access, we'd be a lot better off if we managed to coordinate our UAV recon flights with Pakistani forces, that way we don't insult them by essentially invading their country every time we see a target but we can make use of our superior intelligence gathering capability. We may have to put some special forces liaisons into place but this could be accomplished without needing any additional US troops on the Pakistani side of the Border.

# morayeel Says:
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm

"Perhaps most important, as President-elect Obama indicated to me a few weeks ago, a high-powered special envoy should be named--someone like Bill Clinton--to try to solve the eternal dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir."

'While Pakistan would love this, it will be a non-starter for India - they've firmly held to the position that Kashmir must be resolved by bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, with no third parties involved. This position hasn't changed in decades and through several Indian changes in leadership. The US would be well advised to stay out of this - there's a lot of downside and minimal chance at an upside.'

I agree. The last time boundaries were drawn on the basis of religion in the subcontinent ,millions perished. Nobody wants a repeat of that. Besides, Obama's objective is not so much a solution to the Kashmir problem as a segue from the unilateral neo-con intervention in Iraq to a more circumspect engagement in Afghanistan/Pakistan. A part of that approach is to build confidence in Pakistan that the US is willing to try a different strategy. Offers to mediate in the Kashmir dispute, I think, is part of that confidence building.

Hi Joe,

Indians have been pretty supportive of Obama's election over McCain primarily because 1) his message of unity and change resonates in a country as diverse as India 2) Obama's pledge to deal strongly with Pakistan's support of terrorism was appealing to a country that has long suffered Pakistan's terrorist ativities.

However, Kashmir is non-negotiable and using it as a bait to get Pakistan to co-operate is definitely not a winning option for US. We may have our differences but when it comes to Kashmir Indians stand united. Kashmir is an integral part of India and it will remain so. And I take objection to the comments made by esblofeld. They are as ignorant and as hawkish as the Republican party in US.

If Pakistan wants to obssess about Kashmir and destabilize its economy further, that is their choice. As Indians, we will contnue to do what we have always done - protect our territorial integrity and focus on our economical growth.

As others said, the Indian policy of bilateral talks have been pretty stable over the years. It should be noted that it was a strategy specifically designed to keep US and even UN (which India thought was dominated by the US) out of it. So there is a severe level of mistrust on this.

Over the years Indian politics has ushered in the era of coalition governments, where no party has enough political capital to get a territorial solution to Kashmir issue. So it is harder now than say 15 years ago.

Further, what is the US leverage with India? The nuclear issue could have been, but it was almost enough to topple the govt. without any mention of Kashmir. The fact is that U.S. does not have as much leverage with India as it has with Pakistan.

Finally, my sense is that the Indian foreign policy establishment was pretty suspicious of the Clinton govt. and Clinton may not be the best person (to gain Indian confidence) on this issue. Bill Clinton does not really have the larger than life persona for Indians.

[...] then I read Joe Klein’s take on it. Followed by Daniel Larison’s take (one, two) on both the Obama interview and [...]