Killing Taliban leaders isn't enough
To diminish support for the Taliban ... there eventually must be greater accommodation of the aggrieved population’s interests. If those grievances cannot be accommodated, it will not matter how many (Baitullah) Mehsuds our forces assa
The reported killing of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud earlier this month provided a gloss of success to the U.S. policy of drone attacks inside Pakistan. Unfortunately, it remains doubtful that such attacks will ever slow the Taliban insurgency, let alone defeat it. Less than a week after Mehsud’s apparent death, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Taliban have grown more aggressive and more effective in southern Afghanistan. Although the theater commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has challenged the Journal’s characterization of his views, the report nonetheless portrayed a faltering war effort against an increasingly powerful adversary. In short, we remain very much in trouble in Afghanistan.
Two years of drone attacks on top al Qaida and Taliban leaders have had negligible impact on the organization or fighting capacity of the enemy; indeed, they could very well have contributed to the Taliban’s expansion of control over additional territory. This likely would be the case with or without the contributions of Mehsud, all of which makes it harder to believe U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke when he declares Mehsud’s death to be "a very big deal."
The Pakistani public’s reaction to Mehsud’s death has been favorable, largely due to Mehsud’s sponsorship of suicide bombings inside Pakistan. But the lethal deployment of American drones continues to be resented by Pakistanis and officially condemned by their government as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. Thus, the attacks offer short-term tactical victories at the price of long-term Pakistani support for the war effort. Ultimately, they make the population of western Pakistan more receptive to the Taliban than they would otherwise be.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Public sentiment aside, it is questionable whether eliminating individual leaders has a decisive impact on insurgencies. Pakistan’s own efforts to quell unrest in its Baluchistan province by eliminating prominent Baluchi leaders do not inspire confidence. Having failed to bring the province under control with such tactics, Pakistan has lately resorted to accusing India of stirring up the Baluchi insurgency.
Killing individual leaders and temporarily disrupting their organizations has little effect on the social bases from which such movements draw power. Pashtun resistance to the governments in Kabul and Islamabad, which is the animating spirit of the Taliban, is as deeply rooted as the Baluchi quest for greater autonomy. Our tendency to personalize the enemy, identifying a cause with particular leaders, encourages us to conclude that their deaths are pivotal events. But the causes of insurgency are usually deeper, and more resistant to attempts to uproot them by force.
Consequently, even if true, the reports that Mehsud’s death has prompted infighting among different Taliban factions will provide, at most, a temporary pause in Taliban efforts.
Even the Anbar Awakening in Iraq, which everyone acknowledges was crucial to improving security and halting Iraq’s Sunni insurgency, has not ensured an end to Sunni resistance because their political grievances remain unaddressed. Indeed, the dangers of renewed civil war in Iraq remain quite real. Unlike Sunnis in Iraq, who sought compromise, the Pashtuns of western Pakistan and southern Afghanistan have shown few signs that they are willing to turn against the Taliban and embrace a deal.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
To diminish support for the Taliban, or to get them to cease hostilities, there eventually must be greater accommodation of the aggrieved population’s interests. If those grievances cannot be accommodated, it will not matter how many Mehsuds our forces assassinate. At present, we are looking at a future in which allied governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be under siege indefinitely and in which our mission in Afghanistan will remain similarly open-ended. Periodic drone attacks on militants will not resolve the underlying political conflicts that roil the region. Our mission in Afghanistan needs well-defined, achievable objectives. Thus far, the Obama administration has not provided them. There will be no reward in Afghanistan for "staying the course."
Daniel Larison has a Ph.D. in history and is a contributing editor at The American Conservative. He also writes on the blog Eunomia.
-
Sudan's forgotten pyramids
Under the Radar Brutal civil war and widespread looting threatens African nation's ancient heritage
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Being more nuanced will not be easy for public health agencies'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Where did Democratic voters go?
Voter turnout dropped sharply for Democrats in 2024
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Issue of the week: Yahoo’s ban on working from home
feature There’s a “painful irony” in Yahoo’s decision to make all its employees come to the office to work.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Another big airline merger
feature The merger of American Airlines and US Airways will be the fourth between major U.S. airlines in five years.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Feds’ fraud suit against S&P
feature The Justice Department charged S&P with defrauding investors by issuing mortgage security ratings it knew to be misleading.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Why investors are worried about Apple
feature Some investors worry that the company lacks the “passion and innovation that made it so extraordinary for so long.”
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Does Google play fair?
feature The Federal Trade Commission cleared Google of accusations that it skews search results to its favor.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: The Fed targets unemployment
feature By making public its desire to lower unemployment, the Fed hopes to inspire investors “to behave in ways that help bring that about.”
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Is Apple coming home?
feature Apple's CEO said the company would spend $100 million next year to produce a Mac model in the U.S.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Gunning for a hedge fund mogul
feature The feds are finally closing in on legendary hedge fund boss Steven Cohen.
By The Week Staff Last updated