But the situation is too grave for satire. A much more useful approach is needed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner provides one. He has compellingly argued that the risks of doing too little in responding to the economic and financial crises are far greater than those of doing too much. The same line of reasoning surely applies to AFPAK. Despite the bold, comprehensive and regional steps the strategy proposes -- and each is commendable -- after all the interactions and compromises with Congress, the public and friends and allies, suppose AFPAK ends up doing too little. Here are some reasons why that outcome could prove disastrous and why too much is a better goal.

First, the AFPAK strategy portrays al-Qaida as the threat to be disrupted and defeated. But let's face it: Al-Qaida is not the only threat. Nor is it necessarily the most dangerous. From the perspectives of Kabul and Islamabad, Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists who wish to depose and replace both governments are the existential dangers. Eliminate al-Qaida, and Pakistan still has to deal with many equally dangerous insurgent groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which almost provoked a hot war with India when its disciples struck Mumbai last November.

Second, both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden understand the broader dangers. Biden has said, rightly in my view, that it would be "unimaginable" if Pakistan became a failing state, armed with a hundred or so nuclear weapons, under the control of a fundamentalist regime. While the Pakistani army would most likely intervene to prevent that result, is that a desirable state of affairs? Most Americans and Pakistanis would say no. So are we providing too many or too few resources to prevent that?

Push this line of questioning further. The U.S. taxpayer has shelled out or accepted liabilities for more than $7 trillion in the various rescue packages in play. AIG has received $170 billion, with some $30 billion of that going directly to banks in the United States and abroad on the grounds that failure would collapse the global financial system.

Would not a collapsed or fundamentalist Pakistan pose an equivalent risk to the international community that probably would cost well in excess of the $170 billion that went to AIG? After all, what has the Iraq war cost? One can haggle over numbers, but the point is clear. The additional American aid for Pakistan numbers in the single digits of billions, a tiny fraction of what the costs of a failed Pakistan would be.

Third, the strategy is very much based on building up Afghanistan's army and police -- the former to 134,000 and the latter to perhaps 80,000. When compared with Iraq's 700,000 or more security forces, these numbers appear to be too few, and no one has addressed the feasibility of recruiting to those levels. The absence of literacy even among Afghan high school graduates who, by some accounts, can only read to third-grade standards in the United States no doubt is a huge constraint on fielding an effective army and police force no matter how highly regarded the Afghan army may be. Similar questions can be asked about manning new hospitals, schools and other infrastructure. Where are the doctors and trained people to operate those new facilities?

Fourth, the promise to project a civilian surge into Afghanistan assumes that agencies outside defense and intelligence can order employees into harm's way. Not even the State Department can do that. So are we prepared to do more in drafting directives or passing laws to ensure the civilian surge is effective? Probably not.

If these were not terrible enough quandaries, what more will our allies in NATO and other friends and non-governmental organizations do for AFPAK? NATO will give at best rhetorical support, a handful of additional troops and possibly several million more euros. The heavy lifting will have to come from this side of the Atlantic, and that may be too little.

The administration is absolutely correct that the threats in the region are existential to Pakistan and Afghanistan and that frighteningly clear and present dangers to us and much of the world persist. In the movie "Jaws," when Police Chief Martin Brody, played by Roy Scheider, sees the great white shark for the first time, he exclaims, "You're gonna need a bigger boat!" We need a bigger boat if we are to succeed in AFPAK.

(Harlan Ullman is a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and a frequent visitor to Pakistan.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
News From Across The Stans

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News