"I want you to know that this fight is not Pakistan's alone," she said in remarks carried live on Pakistani news channels. "This is our struggle as well."

Sahib Gul, a doctor at a nearby hospital, said 86 people were killed and more than 200 injured. Many of the victims were women and children.

No group claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that is not unusual, especially when the victims are Pakistani civilians.

Three bombs have exploded in Peshawar this month, including another one that killed more than 50 people, part of a barrage of at least 10 major attacks across the country that have killed some 250 people. Most have targeted security forces, but some bombs have gone off in public places, apparently to sow fear and expose the weakness of the government.

The Taliban have warned Pakistan that they would stage more attacks if the army does not end a new ground offensive in the South Waziristan tribal region, where the military has dispatched some 30,000 troops to flush out insurgents. South Waziristan is a major base for the Pakistani Taliban and other foreign militants.

North West Frontier Province Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain blamed the militants for Wednesday's attack.

"We are hitting them at their center of terrorism, and they are hitting back targeting Peshawar," he said. "This is a tough time for us. We are picking up the bodies of our women and children, but we will follow these terrorists and eliminate them."

When Obama came into office in January, 142,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq, conducting regular patrols of the major cities. His Republican rivals were dead set against U.S. withdrawal on a strict timetable. He faced something close to an insurrection from some of his commanders in the field, such as Gen. Ray Odierno, who opposed a quick departure from Iraq. Moreover, Obama assumed the presidency at a time when Iran and the U.S. were virtually on a war footing and there had been no direct talks between the two countries on most of the major issues dividing them. In February, the government of Pakistan virtually ceded the Swat Valley and the Malakand Division to the Pakistani Taliban of Maulvi Fazlullah, allowing the imposition of the latter's fundamentalist version of Islamic law on residents, and Islamabad had no stomach for taking on the increasingly bold extremists.

Eight months later, it is a different world. While it is still early in his presidency, and there is too much work unfinished to give him an overall grade, it's already apparent he's outperforming his predecessor.

Iraq: B Obama has decisively won the argument over Iraq policy. Despite the massive bombings in Baghdad on Sunday -- the most deadly since 2007 -- the U.S. troop withdrawal is ahead of schedule and seems unlikely to be halted. One reason is that the security situation in Iraq, while shaky, did not deteriorate when U.S. troops ceased their urban patrols on June 30 (a date Iraqis celebrated as "Sovereignty Day"). Occasional big explosions obscure the reality of reduced guerrilla attacks. According to the Pentagon, civilian casualties have been steadily declining since late summer. Even John McCain said that Sunday's carnage should not delay the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- a 180-degree turn in policy for the former presidential candidate.

The process of U.S. disentanglement from Iraq has been gradual, generating no big headlines, no "Obama brings 22,000 troops out of Iraq, cuts war spending by $30 billion." But, in fact, troop levels are down to about 120,000 from 142,000 early this year, and spending on the war has fallen, from $180 billion in 2008 to $150 billion this year. Many things could still go wrong in Iraq, affecting the ability of the U.S. to meet the current timetable, but so far the Iraqi security forces are generally keeping order (there were horrific bombings when the U.S. was in control, too). He can be faulted for not working closely enough with the Nouri al-Maliki government to ease the transition, hence a grade of B instead of an A.

Iran: A There has also been movement on Iran. On Oct. 1 the administration fulfilled its campaign pledge by joining other members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany in Geneva to jawbone with Iran on the nuclear issue. As a result, Iran accepted that a United Nations inspection team would visit the newly announced enrichment facility near Qom, and on Monday inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived at the Fardo plant. The acceptance of inspectors is an excellent sign. As long as Tehran remains willing to allow U.N. inspections, both at Natanz near Isfahan and at Fardo (which is not operational but could eventually house 3,000 centrifuges), neither facility can be used to produce fissionable material. Obama has changed the West's dynamics with Iran by direct negotiation, something that 63 percent of the American people support.

Pakistan: B Then there is Pakistan. The Obama administration came into office determined to whittle away the "state's rights" prerogatives of the Pashtuns, who form about 12 percent of the Pakistani population, of which the tiny minority of Taliban had taken advantage. From its inception, the Pakistani federal government had inherited from the British Empire a policy of not attempting to rule the tribal Pashtuns too heavy-handedly. In addition, the Pakistani military uses some Taliban and other guerrilla groups to project influence in the Pashtun areas of neighboring Afghanistan, making the generals reluctant to move against them. In spring-summer, the Obama administration convinced the Pakistani government to launch a major military operation against the Taliban in the Swat Valley. Despite temporarily displacing 2 million residents, the operation enjoyed substantial success and gained wide popular support from a Pakistani population -- including most Pashtuns -- increasingly appalled at the brutality of Taliban rule. In October, the military launched a similar operation against the Taliban in South Waziristan, despite a raft of bombings aimed by the militants at deterring the federal government from coming after them.

Obama has, moreover, signed a $7.5 billion civilian aid package that encourages economic, educational and medical development and puts pressure on the civilian government to keep the military under its control. The Bush administration gave most of its aid in the form of military weaponry or support, something of which polling shows the Pakistani public disapproves. Obama intends to build clinics and schools and to develop an infrastructure that might help fight militancy more effectively than any drone strikes can.

Obama's Pakistan approach, of building state capacity and improving the economy and basic services, while dealing with the Pakistani Taliban through large-scale military operations, may or may not succeed. But compared to his predecessor's policy of just handing over billions to corrupt military officers, some of whom have links to factions of militants, Obama's policies have been far more coherent. His use of unmanned predator drones to kill suspected al-Qaida operatives and the aid bill's demand for the supremacy of civilian rule over the military are both unpopular in some quarters, because of fears that the U.S. is turning the country into a sort of colony and infringing against its sovereignty. Obama may need to be less heavy-handed in the future to avoid a popular backlash. If not for this insensitivity to Pakistani popular opinion, he might deserve an A. The Swat and South Waziristan campaigns, at least, appear to have the support of the Pakistani public.

The administration has not succeeded everywhere. The president has yet to make a determination on his Afghanistan policy, and so far little progress has been made on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A verdict is still outstanding about his performance in those two regions, leading to two grades of "incomplete." But Obama's withdrawal from Iraq is actually ahead of schedule, his direct engagement with Iran is producing some tentative results, and he has strong-armed the Pakistani state into owning the problem of the Pakistani Taliban, while instituting a major civilian aid program. Far from accomplishing nothing in his first eight months, Obama has been a whirlwind of activity and has already gained a place in the Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani history books. He receives his lowest grade for his failure to force America's chattering classes to take notice. While it is a bit of a relief not to be subjected to the constant propaganda of the Bush administration about its creation of shining cities on a hill abroad, the Obama administration has gone too far in the opposite direction, hiding its light beneath a bushel.

The earthquake had a preliminary magnitude of 6.2 and was centered in the mountains about 167 miles (268 kilometers) northeast of Kabul and 140 miles (230 kilometers) west of Mingaora, Pakistan, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Buildings shook in the Pakistani cities of Peshawar and the capital Islamabad, and the quake was felt as far east as Lahore near the Indian border, Pakistani television stations reported.

The Afghan Interior Ministry said it had no immediate reports of deaths or damage.

Paul Caruso, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said that even though the quake was centered in a remote area, casualties were still possible given the size of the temblor. Caruso said Friday's quake was felt as far away as New Delhi, the Indian capital.

Caruso said the area is capable of producing large earthquakes because of the compression created when what is now India slammed against the Asian continent millions of years ago.

He said the largest quake recorded in that area was 7.8 on March 14, 1965.

So what is in South Waziristan? Groups that are targeting Pakistan itself. These include the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan [TTP] or Pakistani Taliban Movement and elements of anti-Shiite Sunni extremist groups from the Punjab, who have begun hitting Pakistani government targets. The campaign will thus have little effect on the fighting in Afghanistan, except to the extent that some militants may be displaced from Pakistan north to Afghanistan.

Dawn reports on the Pakistan military's advance into South Waziristan on the campaign's second day.

I picked out some worrisome parts of this report which are mentioned but not highlighted:

• South Waziristan's population is 600,000; the campaign has already displaced 100,000 of them.
• Afghan Taliban commander Mullah Sangin has brought in 1,500 Afghan Pashtun fighters to support the Pakistani Taliban Movement in South Waziristan.
• Azam Tariq, spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban Movement, said that militants’ supporters from Muslim seminaries in Punjab, Sindh and the North-West Frontier Province were in touch with the Taliban and were coming to the battle zone through various routes.

(In support of this last point, police teams intensively investigated seminaries or madrasahs in the capital of Islamabad and some other areas on Sunday.)

Pakistan may even have to close its schools for a week because they have been threatened by the Taliban.

In other words, this military campaign is not just a matter of troops versus guerrillas. It is becoming a rallying point for Muslim radicals, with volunteers coming in from Afghanistan and others from madrasahs from all over Pakistan -- and with Pakistan's own security hanging in the balance.

Tariq took responsibility for the recent horrific bombings in the Punjabi city of Lahore, which targeted Pakistani security forces, thus claiming that South Waziristan had a very long reach into the rest of the country.

Pakistani security forces also arrested some 300 Afghans on Sunday.

CBS reports on the Waziristan campaign: 

 

Reuters also has a video news report.

As if the fighting in Pakistan itself is not worrying enough, the USG Open Source Center translates a threat against India from TTP leader Hakimullah Mahsud:

Pakistan: TTP Chief Hakimullah Mehsud Says India Next Target After Country

Unattributed report: "We Shall Declare War Against India After Islamic States Is Established in Pakistan: Hakimullah Mehsud"

Khabrain

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Document Type: OSC Translated Text

Islamabad -- Hakimullah Mehsud, chief of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), has threatened that the Taliban will send terrorists to fight against India after succeeding in establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan. He said in the footage shown in a British news channel Sky News : "We wish to make Pakistan an Islamic state, and we are striving for this objective. We are battling against the Pakistan Army, the police, and militia."

(Description of Source: Islamabad Khabrain in Urdu News, a sensationalist daily, published by Liberty Papers Ltd., generally critical of Pakistan People's Party; known for its access to government and military sources of information. The same group owns The Post in English, Naya Akhbar in Urdu and Channel 5 TV. Circulation of 30,000)'

Professor Nye, the Taliban are advancing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, North Korea has a nuclear bomb, Iran is developing one. Isn't it time for hard power, the use of military force?

Every American president has three options. He can use force -- in other words, hard power -- to assert his interests, he can invest money or he can lead by attraction. The latter I call soft power, the appeal of American cultural values. I have never argued that the so-called hard-power instruments of a superpower -- the military, the intelligence services or economic sanctions -- can be replaced. It is all about the right mix of hard and soft power.

And right now military force would be more effective?

It is, of course, pointless to talk to al-Qaida. Their leaders cannot be attracted by American values. But the young people that Osama bin Laden wants to recruit for new terrorist attacks can be reached. That is where the soft power comes in.

How can they be reached? By the speech President Obama gave in Cairo in which he showed respect for the Muslim world, for example?

This speech was impressive. An America that listens, adheres to its own values and respects the values of other cultures makes the recruiting effort of the terrorists much more difficult. So, soft power can also be effective in a conflict that is largely dominated by the use of hard power.

Is there a historical example where a milder form of power politics was really effective?

Think of the end of the Cold War. Not a single shot was fired. For decades, the American military was necessary to deter Soviet aggression and expansion. But it was mainly the soft-power elements that penetrated the Iron Curtain and made the people on the other side lose faith in their system.

What are the sources of soft power?

It comes from three main sources: One is the culture of a country -- in the case of America, that ranges from Harvard to Hollywood. Second, political values can be very attractive for other countries, from democracy to freedom of speech to opportunity. And the third one is the legitimacy of a country's foreign policy -- meaning that if your foreign policy is considered to be legitimate by other nations, you are more persuasive. Conversely, a foreign policy that is seen as illegitimate, as was the case under George W. Bush, destroys the power of values and culture.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reacted with annoyance when asked about your concept. He once said that he did not understand the meaning of soft power.

That was the mind-set of the Bush administration, at least during its first term. They did not understand the potential of soft power and could not use it. They had to learn the hard way that hard power alone was not sufficient to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

Obama uses hard power in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a way that is not very different from his predecessor. The Pentagon is sending an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan in a bid to defeat the Taliban.

We should not play off the hard strategies against the soft strategies. We must restore a certain degree of security in Afghanistan before schools and clinics can be built. Violence must cease before civil aid can be given. In this case, hard power comes before soft power. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the strategy in her testimony before the U.S. Senate as the "three D's": defense, diplomacy, development -- in that order.

Has President Obama really changed the strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy?

He is in the process of doing that. Clinton has now created the job of a second under-secretary of state whose primary job will be to oversee development, not just in Afghanistan. Our foreign policy has been over-militarized. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized that most resources went straight to the Pentagon.

President Obama speaks with empathy and wisdom. Is that already a policy?

His speeches are helpful, but he needs to follow them up with concrete policy steps. It is not enough to have an attractive person at the top if his policy is not attractive.

So the hard part is still ahead of the president?

Yes, and that is normal. Every new administration first needs to define where it stands and what its goals are. Then the work really begins.

Does the economic crisis not inevitably weaken America's attractiveness to the world?

There is no doubt that the crisis of the capitalist system weakens the soft-power possibilities of the United States. Wall Street is currently not very popular in the rest of the world. Now it is important for the U.S. government to master this crisis and make the necessary reforms to prevent it from happening again. That is the right way to strengthen our attractiveness. Should our policies fail, America will be weaker.

You emphasize the importance of a combination of hard and soft power in foreign policy. But does the use of one not sometimes handicap the use of the other? In Pakistan, even the Obama administration is still deploying unmanned drones to target and kill Taliban commanders. There is often collateral damage and many civilians are getting killed. This undermines America's reputation in that region because such a cruel use of force is seen as illegitimate by the people there.

Too much hard power can be counter-productive. The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has talked about investigating these instances. He promised to avoid civilian casualties in future. Both steps are necessary because such incidents hurt the legitimacy of U.S. policy.

Does Osama bin Laden not have an attractive message for many people in that region of the world?

Sure, he has a lot of soft power. He proved this when he brought down the Twin Towers. Bin Laden did not hold a gun to the heads of the people who flew the planes. He did not pay them either. They did it because they were attracted by his convictions.

Has bin Laden's soft power increased or decreased since?

I think that his soft power was greater in 2001 than it is today. His excessive use of terror, including numerous attacks that indiscriminately killed many women and children, and of course many Muslims, has hurt the attractiveness of his message.

President Obama has not been able to celebrate any major foreign policy breakthroughs so far -- which of course is not all that easy. How, for example, should the United States deal with North Korea? By relying more heavily on hard power?

Yes. But when it comes to North Korea, Chinese hard power is needed. Beijing provides the majority of food and fuel for North Korea. It would be important to persuade the Chinese to actually do more with their hard power. To achieve that, America will have to employ subtle diplomacy. We need to quietly assure the Chinese that we won't be sending U.S. troops to North Korea. That will alleviate some of the Chinese fears about the consequences of a North Korean collapse.

What strategy would you recommend to Obama for dealing with Iran?

The question with Iran is whether it will be possible to persuade them that they would be better off following the example of Japan. The Japanese have the technology to build a nuclear weapon. But they decided it is too costly to be a nuclear power and not very useful for enhancing prosperity.

And you truly believe that the mullahs will forgo their nuclear ambitions for economic considerations?

We won't know until we have negotiations. Obama wants to explore the diplomatic options to determine what is possible and what is not. I think he is right about that.

How can a politician learn soft power?

Every politician just has to remember how he got his position in the first place. A young candidate running for Congress or any outsider interested in public office could only achieve his goals by relying on soft power. They could not force anyone to vote for them. They needed to convince their potential voters, they needed to do fundraising, they needed to be attractive candidates. Democracy is the best school to learn soft power.

Is Obama too soft?

If you have grown up in Chicago politics, you understand hard power versus soft power. Obama can be hard and soft.

Henry Kissinger, the doyen of American global policy, would object that foreign policy is not about hard or soft power, but about interests. Isn't your soft-power concept a contradiction of his realpolitik?

Kissinger was my professor when I was a graduate student at Harvard. There are differences to a degree, but we are not far apart. The key question is how you define the national interest. Was it in America's interest to go into Iraq? I think not. Was it in America's interest to go into Afghanistan? I think yes. I partly agree with Henry: It is about interests. It's the definition of America's national interest we sometimes disagree on.

How would you define the current national interest of the U.S., the world's only remaining superpower?

I don't think that the national interest is predetermined by geopolitics or the history of a country. Important political leaders never just followed their interests -- they were concerned about the interests of their people. Take Nelson Mandela: He decided that reconciliation would be more important for South Africa than revenge. Or look at Helmut Kohl: He put the goal of German reunification at the top of his political agenda and was less concerned about the German exchange rate or the effects on the West German economy at that time.

What is the priority of U.S. foreign policy right now?

I think that America should find its interests in ways that are more consistent with the interests of other countries, which are things that are good for us but also good for others. That will make Americans exporters of hope again, not exporters of fear.

Hillary Clinton wanted to make you ambassador to Japan. The White House intervened and appointed a major donor to the Obama campaign instead. Are you disappointed?

Well, the State Department can only recommend a person, but, frankly, the White House has the final say. As you know, there is a long tradition in the United States that about a third of the ambassadors are political appointments.

Should that be changed?

Money and donations are an important part of our political system. They are hard power. I would much rather have Obama spend his political capital on the big issues and not the small issues.

---

This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement with Salon. For more from Europe's most-read newsmagazine, visit Spiegel Online or subscribe to the daily newsletter.