Conservative Principles Now

After months of mounting frustration with Pakistan over its unwillingness to crack down on Afghan Taliban leaders finding sanctuary on its soil, Pakistan appears to be coming through with cooperation that could help turn the tide in the war in Afghanistan.

Following last week’s revelation that the number two Taliban leader, Mullah Baradar, was captured in Pakistan earlier this month, fresh reports indicate that at least three other senior Taliban leaders have also recently been arrested in Pakistan. These include Mullah Abdul Kabir, a deputy prime minister in the former Taliban regime and a member of the Quetta Shura (Taliban leadership Council) as well as two “shadow governors” of provinces in Afghanistan.

Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar has said he hoped these arrests represent the beginning of a “large-scale” Pakistani operation against the Taliban. Afghan officials have also claimed that Pakistan has agreed to turn over Baradar to Afghan authorities, although Pakistani officials say he will be tried in Pakistan first. If Pakistan does indeed hand over Baradar to the Afghans, that would be a promising sign of new Pakistan-Afghanistan cooperation at a critical time in the Afghanistan war.

U.S. and NATO forces launched a key offensive two weeks ago to oust the Taliban from one of their strongholds in the southern Helmand province. After the area is secured, the U.S. will help the Afghan government establish its writ over the area through an infusion of development aid and assistance with institutional capacity building. The Afghan Taliban leadership based in Pakistan coordinates the insurgency across the border in southern Afghanistan and thus convincing Pakistan to disrupt their sanctuary is critical to coalition forces gaining the upper hand against the insurgents.

It is unclear why Pakistan is stepping up to the plate now on cracking down on the Afghan Taliban. Most observers believe Islamabad may be seeking to ensure it has a role in determining any potential settlement of the conflict. Others say it is partly a response to building U.S. pressure. President Obama appealed directly to the Pakistanis to crack down on the Afghan Taliban through a letter hand-delivered by National Security Advisor Gen. Jones to Pakistani President Zardari last fall. The letter coincided with revelations from the arrest of David C. Headley, a Pakistani-American who worked with the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba in Pakistan to scout sites for the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai. Headley was arrested by U.S. authorities in early October and a former Pakistani Army major was named in the U.S. affidavit as serving as Headley’s handler for the Mumbai terror attacks. Since then, the U.S. has repeatedly made the case to Pakistan that facilitating some terrorist groups while fighting others is counterproductive. It is possible this message is finally beginning to sink in.

But given Pakistan’s long track record of support to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan and India, it is too early to determine whether the most recent arrests signal a permanent reversal of its past policies, or merely a tactical shift to demonstrate its leverage in the region.

The world needs American leadership. In the interwar years, we saw that the enemies of freedom advance when the great liberal and democratic powers of the day failed to lead. We saw it again in the dark years of the Cold War under President Carter. The alternative to an America willing and able to lead is not a paradise of peace through engagement. It is a world where the undemocratic, the unsatisfied, and the illiberal powers of the world advance at the expense of American ideals, American interests, and America’s allies.

During President Obama’s first year in office, he failed almost completely to exercise meaningful leadership in the world. His Nobel Peace Prize was proof enough of this: it was awarded not for any substantive achievement, but because the Committee hoped he might do something in the future. The President generously gave himself a B+ rating on Oprah Winfrey’s Christmas Special, but even his most fervent supporters among Sweden’s socialists could not bring themselves to give him more than an incomplete.

The President did make one decision that does him credit: in December, he recommitted the U.S. to the war in Afghanistan, and promised to reinforce the U.S. troop commitment there. But even this decision was taken with agonizing slowness and, just as bad, without any reference to America’s allies who were fighting and dying alongside U.S. troops. And it came with such obvious reluctance, and with so many possible exit ramps, that it signals the likelihood of more hesitations in his second year in office.

The President’s other leadership initiatives have all fallen flat, or proven counterproductive. He sought to hit the reset button with Russia: the result is weakened U.S. missile defenses and more Russian threats. He tried to take the lead in the Copenhagen conference: the conference failure, though good for the U.S. economy and its sovereignty, was a humiliation. He reached out to Iran, with his signature policy of engagement: they responded with missile tests, insults, and the beating, torture, and murder of dissidents and protesters.

In President Obama, this nation elected a man who is uncomfortable with the concept of American exceptionalism, who embarked on an embarrassing ‘apology tour’ of Europe, the Middle East, and the United Nations, and who spent much of his first year in office blaming his predecessor for all of the problems that confront him. Casting blame is politically convenient, but it is not leadership. The time has come for the President to recognize that, if he does not speak and lead for freedom, the enemies of freedom will take note – and take advantage.

The Foundry will be featuring analysis of President Obama’s first year in office throughout the week.