Debating the endgame
In what is essentially a conference on Afghanistan, all eyes are going to be on Pakistan in Chicago. Even the most pathologically aloof members of the western public know how integral Pakistan is to make or break any possible Afghan solution, what to speak of the dignitaries of the 61 nations present there.
The American endeavour in Afghanistan is extremely unpopular within the country. The public wants US forces to pull out as soon as possible. The US government, however, cannot humour those wishes completely for a whole score of reasons. There is the fact that it would be irresponsible; the insurgency will inevitably take over and wreak havoc on the semblance (just that) of the modern nation-state that Isaf has tried to fashion in the war-torn country. An annihilation of that would be a comment on America’s place in the world.
Moreover, it isn’t a unilateral decision. The US isn’t the only country to have its forces in Afghanistan. Any decision has to be tethered to other ones.
And, for better or worse, that decision is tethered to where Pakistan figures in the scheme of things. The West might be persuaded to concede that a lasting solution would involve Pakistan having a seat at the table. But Pakistanis also need to realise that the deep state wants that table all for itself, with others having no leverage. What makes this impulse of the powers that be in Pakistan much worse is that they probably don’t want even the Afghans to have a say.
More than one American dignitary, when caught off guard, has remarked that the Pakistani political government might be on the same page as it as far as the war on terror is concerned but is ineffectual. That it is not empowered enough to make many decisions, at least not ones that pertain to issues of defence and foreign relations. By that account, with President Zardari’s visit to Chicago, Pakistan puts its best foot forward as far as conciliation is concerned.