Pakistan's commitment questioned in Senate hearing

Its good to see that Americans now understand what is going on. They need to send in more troops and pressure PA & ISI into fighting this menace & killing the cancer instead of trying to separate good Taliban from bad.

Pakistan’s commitment questioned in Senate hearing - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Days after President Obama announced his strategy for security in Afghanistan, senior Defense Department leaders told a congressional panel more effort is needed to fight the growing insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Gen. David Petraeus testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Those two countries together make up the front line for the war on terror, Gen. David Petraeus, chief of U.S. Central Command, and Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, said in their appearance Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But the chairman of the committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, expressed doubt about the administration’s plan, which puts much more emphasis on working with Pakistan to help it solve its own insurgency problems and close the porous border.

“I remain skeptical that Pakistan has the will or capability to secure their border,” Levin said.

Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan has long been a problem for U.S. troops as insurgent fighters move easily between the two countries while planning and carrying out attacks on U.S. and Afghan troops.

While it is important to help Pakistan, Levin said, he disagrees with the administration’s claims that the fates of Afghanistan and Pakistan must be linked. Video Watch more on Obama’s “Af-Pak” policy »

“I do not agree with statements by some in the administration that we cannot make progress in Afghanistan without success on the Pakistan side of the border,” he said. “We should not tie Afghanistan’s future totally with the success of efforts in Pakistan.”

Both Petraeus and Flournoy urged senators to back aid and training for Pakistan.

“Considerable further work is required,” Petraeus said. “We need to provide the support and assistance to the Pakistani military that will enable them to confront the extremists.”

Asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, whether the central front of the war on terror has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, Petraeus said it has, though the front is in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“In fact, our focus is truly shifting to that front,” Petraeus said.

He said there is no doubt the United States will see more casualties and costs.

“This is going to get harder before it gets easier,” the general said, echoing the words of Vice President Joe Biden. “That is our assessment, and it is worth seeing this through to conclusion.”

Flournoy added, “There will be higher human costs and higher financial costs to this effort.”

Senators pressed Flournoy and Petraeus about the lack of quantifiable goals to measure success in the new strategy.

“How will you know whether or not this new strategy is working? It seems to me you need a set of clear benchmarks going in,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “We should not be committing additional troops until we have a means of measuring whether or not the strategy is successful.”

Flournoy replied there are “broad metrics” for measuring cooperation from Pakistan and there also are measurements for Afghanistan that the new administration is trying to refocus. Troops were sent ahead of that refocusing in response to the need expressed by the commanders in Afghanistan, she said.

“We aren’t starting with a blank sheet, but we are in the process of refining the metrics that have been used in Afghanistan,” she said.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, wanted to know what will indicate that the United States can end its involvement in military operations in the region.

“I think a key point of defining success is when both the Afghans and Pakistanis have both the capability and the will to deal with the remaining threat by themselves,” Flournoy said. “(When) the period of extraordinary intervention and assistance comes to a transition point and we go to a more long-term, normal development assistance relationship with both countries. When we have reduced the threat and built that capacity locally to the point where they can be much more self-reliant in managing this problem.”

Petraeus added, “The test will be for them to shoulder the responsibilities of their own security and other responsibilities of governance.”

Senators were concerned that commanders’ requests for 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan have not yet been fully met. So far, the administration has announced plans to send 21,000 more troops.

“I think it would be far, far better to announce that you will have the additional 10,000 troops dispatched. They will clearly be needed,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who otherwise said he agrees with the administration’s strategy.

“To dribble out these decisions, I think, can create the impression of incrementalism. We all know what is needed,” he said.
advertisement

Later in the hearing, Flournoy and Petraeus said the president is aware of the request but wants to assess the need closer to when they would be deployed.

“What the president was told (is) that the request is out there, but he doesn’t have to make a decision until the fall so the troops will arrive as planned in 2010,” Flournoy said. “He wanted to reassess where we are when … that decision has to be made.”

Re: Pakistan's commitment questioned in Senate hearing

I use to work for a company who have high dream and targets, in order to achieve them they hired the best Managers with local experience and expertise, and then they got some American & Brits to develop the corporate strategy for these managers to implement.

The whole show collapsed, as these American & Birts were may be the best available consultants but they lack the knowledge of working with the locals and know-how of the local market.

They developed the strategy without consulting the managers, and then gave to managers to implement it, Managers made some changes and gave recommendation of the same strategy.. GORA refused to accept those recommendations and still went ahead to implement it... the result like i said was a disaster...

Same Applies here... American + NATO can put pressure as much as they like.. there wil be no result until they act on the recommendation of Pak-Army and ISI... their first recommendation was to Seal the border... but i guess American think they are smart enough to work without the recommendation.. and they are blaming Pak-Army and ISI for the failure of their very own Strategy....

Obama is doing the same... so the result is going to be the same... no matter how hard they pressurize Pakistan... unless they have the right strategy they are not going to get the results..

BTW: i strongly doubt that USA want any kind of peace in FATA or Pakistan, as it will expose their failure in Afghanistan.. which will be another blow to the Reputation of US-Army after losing in Iraq.

before commenting on pakistans credentials please shed some light on achievements of US in Afghanistan.

their commitment can be from this fact that they have lesser troops deployed in whole afghanistan than pakistani troops deployed just in fata which is i gues less than 1/4 of afghanistan.

We should focus on Pakistan & Pakistan's interest. Supporting jihadi terrorists is not in interested of Pakistan & Taliban monster was created by PA & event today it sustained by PA & ISI. That is pretty well known fact.

Now, the question is, how do we take control of border areas & prevent terrorists from turning those areas into launching pad for terrorism across the globe. We also need to understand that if there is major terrorist attack in the US...gues who Americans are going to bomb back to stoneage?

Pakistan had long ago recommended sealing of Pak-Afghan border but Afghanistan and coalition didn't like the idea. Afghanistan may have opposed it because of Durand-line issue. But it is important for both Pakistan and Afghanistan to seal the border entirely. Once the border is sealed militants supply lines on both sides will be cut. Then Pakistan can focus on targetting militants on its side and Afgh/coalition can focus on militants on their side.