A Letter to Robert Kagan

Dear Sir,

As a long-time admirer of your work, I am, quite frankly, disappointed in your latest piece, “The Sovereignty Dodge”. We often disagree, but your articles always make me think, which is, of course, what foreign policy discourse is all about.

Regarding two of your larger past works, “Of Paradise and Power” and “The Return of History and the End of Dreams”, I found your analysis to be very poignant and prescient. However, I disagreed with your conclusions: in the former, that given Europe’s inherent weakness and unwillingness to use force, Washington has no choice but to act unilaterally; and in the latter, that as a result of the rise of autocratic powers such as Russia and China and their efforts to obstruct our actions at international forums such as the United Nations Security Council, the United States and others must form a League of Democracies to protect their interests.

In the same vein, in this most recent article, I agree with your diagnosis, but not your prescription. To be sure, Pakistan is host to a series of dangerous circumstances: lawless regions, terrorist havens, and the presence of nuclear weapons. Many members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who conduct cross border attacks against coalition troops in neighboring Afghanistan, seek and find refuge in pockets of Pakistan such as Waziristan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of western Pakistan. The newly-elected democratic government must do more to combat these threats, especially given the recent attacks in Mumbai, whose perpetrators are surely linked to Pakistan in some fashion.

That said, your recommendation that “the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security” and “establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas” is unrealistic and potentially dangerous.

No sovereign, self-respecting nation, especially one as nationalist as Pakistan, could hand over sections of its country to the “international community”. The idea, which you put forward in the Washington Post, that this action would “save face for the Pakistani government” is ludicrous. How could the Pakistani people, many of them already incensed by U.S. drone attacks that have violated their sovereignty and resulted in civilian deaths, back this measure?

Moreover, the Pakistan military, a powerful and entrenched actor in the country, which has overthrown four governments since the nation’s inception, would never support the current government if it allowed the international community to do what you have prescribed. Although well intentioned, the likely result would be another military coup – likely backed by an offended populace – that would create a whole other set of problems in an already unstable country.

U.S. policymakers are in a bind. They need Islamabad to take tangible measures against terrorist elements on its soil but must be careful not to be seen as imposing a foreign edict, which would delegitimize any cooperative Pakistani government. Of course, drastic times call for drastic measures, and the White House should reserve the right to strike within Pakistan if absolutely necessary. However, the upmost restraint should be shown.

There is no use further inflaming Pakistani public opinion and creating even more terrorist sympathizers unless it is paramount. The US should provide any financial, political, or military support needed by the nascent democratically-elected government in Islamabad. But ultimately the solution must come from within.

Sincerely,

The Weekly Hacl