The Times of India reminds us of Pakistan's slow-motion fall before an Islamist urgency:
"Barely 48 hours after Pakistan President Asif Ali [JK: "Mr. 10%"] Zardari warned that Taliban was "trying to take over Pakistan'', his government appeased the ultra Islamic extremist group by signing an agreement on Monday with pro-Taliban leader Sufi Mohammad to impose Islamic law, sharia, in Swat in return for a 10-day ceasefire by the Taliban.
Swat is just 80 miles northwest of Islamabad. Over the past few years, Tehrik-i-Taliban, the local Taliban outfit there led by Mullah Fazlullah - better known as Mullah Radio because of his illegal FM channel - has gained virtual control over the area. More than 200 girls' schools have been destroyed in a campaign against female education, music shops have been burned, tens of thousands have fled their homes, government offices been ransacked, while the security forces have grudgingly conceded that the government is fighting a losing battle.
The 10-day pause in hostilities, during which Mullah Radio would monitor the rollout of Islamic law in Swat, is not expected to lead to a longer peace.... The agreement for imposing sharia will cover Pakistan's northwest Malakand area under which Swat valley comes. Malakand is a regular part of Pakistan, not the wild tribal area that runs along the Afghan border. Critics fear that the concession to hardliners here would spur demands elsewhere in the country for sharia."
The practical message? After losing any pretense of control over Waziristan and tribal areas, the government is now beginning to lose control over other areas of Pakistan to an entrenched guerilla army led by al-Qaeda. The current government was touted as being able to forestall that collapse, but instead appears to be accelerating it.
Update...
Pakistan's ambassador appears to be worried about this exact perception. Shah Mahmood Qureshi in Washington as the Obama presidency attempts to craft a policy for Pakistan and Afghanistan. He wants Predator drones, helicopters, and night vision devices via military aid, and is quoted as saying that:
"Do not doubt our commitment - this government has demonstrated its political will - but make us more effective, and, if you want to see better performance, then enhance our capacity."
...."He also addressed criticism by the West of Pakistan's efforts to strike a peace deal with militants in the Swat valley. On Tuesday, militants in Swat announced an indefinite cease-fire in support of the initiative, which allows for the imposition of a version of Islamic law there.
Qureshi said the issue has been "gravely misunderstood" and that he has explained to concerned U.S. officials that militants must lay down their weapons before any agreement is signed. "There is no question of surrender; there is no question of capitulation."
Except that Pakistan's political will is exactly what is in question here, and is in question at all levels of the American policy-making apparatus.
The legalities of any agreement, which will surely be phony on the Taliban side anyway, are not very relevant. The issue is not whether the paper has been signed. It is whether the government is already following them at a practical level, on the ground. The history of the Waziristan Accords, and of Pakistan's current democratically-elected oligarchy, are not encouraging on these scores. Not now, and not going forward.
Some level of cooperation will Pakistan's government may be required anyway, as a lever against al-Qaeda's allies in Pakistan's military and intelligence services. That is not the same thing as trust, however, and that needs to be clear. Clear to Pakistan, and clear to the American public.
The only way to make that sort of triangulation work is to make any aid conditional on the government's willingness to use it. The only way to have an effective regional policy, is to have one that does not hinge on the Pakistani government's success, and has several alternative approaches ready. And the only way to avoid a credibility-destroying surprise with the American electorate is to admit the risks in Pakistan up front, and talk about them frequently and openly.
Biden made that point often about Iraq, and he was right. Can his team follow that advice, now that they're in the hot seat?
(Updated from Feb 18/09)