Internally, the US President is coming under huge strain; his fellow Democrats don’t support adding more troops to the Afghan war since it is highly unpopular with their base; the Republicans did not support his announcing of a deadline to commence withdrawal of troops. The biggest fear of everyone is that by announcing a date, the Taleban, which has been out of power for 8 years now and fighting the insurgency, can afford to wait 2 more years and then make the effort to overthrow Karzai when the US leaves. Pakistan would no longer be willing to invest in an effort to fight the Taleban if it sees the US disengaging from the area, and needs a friendly Afghanistan to counter India.
So now, you have US officials trying their best to persuade leaders from all over that the US has not announced a disengagement, that the withdrawal would only happen if the Afghan army and security services are in a good enough condition, and that the end date for the withdrawal is not decided. Further, the US would set up bases in the area to ensure that it retains a sizable balance. However, Obama is also being accused of making decisions based on politics by ensuring that a withdrawal is in place when he is fighting for re-election.

Now the situation in Afghanistan is that there are just not enough troops on the ground to support the cities, forget the countryside where the Taleban reigns supreme. The US military commander in Afghanistan (Gen. Stanley McChrystal), who was given charge earlier this year, has now asked for 40,000 – 60,000 troops more, making clear that less number of troops than that will lead to a defeat. Obama is already facing many of his own supporters who are asking for a reduction of troops from Afghanistan, or even a complete removal. It is difficult for him to add the number of troops requested, but any refusals (or even going with his veep’s half-baked proposal of less troops, and more missiles and UAV’s) will open him upto the charges of being weak on national security. And if the US now withdraws or reduces its presence, or allows the Taleban to control more territory, this will be a sign of weakness that the US cannot really exhibit, given that it has foes such as Al-Qaeda (and its linked organizations), enemy states such as Iran and North Korea. For these foes, a US withdrawal means that the US does not have the stomach to go in for fights, and is an open invitation to attack it closer to home. Obama needs to take the correct decision, looking into mind the long term, and disregarding the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.

There are also a lot of games being played in the background, with the western countries having spy rings inside Iran, and one of these spy rings detected the presence of another Iranian secret nuclear enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom. This detection forced the Iranians to announce the presence of this nuclear facility in a letter to the IAEA, and there are complex legalities about whether having a secret facility like this was proper or not (Iran claimed that it only had to announce once it reached a certain stage of activity). This announcement however raised more suspicions about the motives of the Iranians, and whether there were more such facilities that were hidden in the country. The Western countries are also racing against another unstated deadline, possible Israeli activity. Israel sees Iran as a deadly enemy, and may act militarily to destroy the Iranian facilities, something that would dramatically escalate tensions. Other powers in the area, such as Saudi Arabia would also be uncomfortable if Iran went ahead and built a bomb (link to article):

ElBaradei urged Iran to submit to more comprehensive inspections because its nuclear program is so advanced. “It would help the agency to have Iran subscribing again to our regulations that allow us to be informed of the construction of nuclear facilities as early as possible,” he said. He also pressed Iran to give the IAEA “the authority for more information, for access to more locations that would enable the agency to provide assurances not only about declared nuclear activity in Iran but also about possible undeclared activities.”
Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili met with William J. Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, a senior U.S. official and a diplomatic source confirmed to CNN. The men discussed Iran’s nuclear program, a sit-down described as the first face-to-face meeting between the U.S. and Iran over the program. International powers want inspectors to have free access to Iran’s new facility and have threatened more sanctions if the Islamic republic doesn’t change its ways.

On an immediate basis, the Pakistan Army needs to decide whether or not to go ahead with a fully fledged military operation in South Waziristan, the headquarters of the TTP. But before that, Pakistan’s government, army and intelligence agencies will have to undergo some existential angst articulating Pakistan’s absolute stance on militancy. The outcome of that thought process will determine what happens next. The Pakistan Army should not make the mistake of sitting back and hoping that a battle of succession will lead to rampant infighting that will forever fragment the TTP.
The US, meanwhile, has expressed concern that Pakistan will try to negotiate with Baitullah’s successor. After all, reports suggest that Baitullah’s father-in-law Malik Ikramuddin had been in touch with government officials looking to strike a new peace deal. Striking now will indicate a genuine desire to rid Pakistan of militancy. Talking, on the other hand, will suggest that Pakistan is still engaged in a double game.

Past deals with terrorists have always led Pakistan into more trouble, with the terrorist seeing such deals as being reflective of the inability of Governments to fight with them (or of having the stomach to take losses), and using this time to regroup and build up into being a formidable force again. The international community also suspects the intention of the Government when it strikes such deal.

US troops are withdrawing from towns and cities in Iraq, six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security duties to new Iraqi forces. A public holiday – National Sovereignty Day – has been declared, and the capital, Baghdad, threw a giant party to mark the eve of the changeover. US-led combat operations are due to end by September 2010, with all troops gone from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election next January. The US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, said there would be no major reduction in forces until next year but the pullback was a “milestone”.

The current Iraqi Government is treating the event as a major watershed in its regaining of the total control of Iraq, since the presence of US troops in the cities ensured that the Iraqi Government could not take many steps that they would have liked (such as when the Government wanted to apply pressure on Sunni sections in the cities, they had to face some resistance from the US army). With the general elections also due in the next few months, the Iraqi Government is sure to use the opportunity to claim this withdrawal as a victory.
However, the withdrawal does not really reduce the number of troops in the country, and many of the problems that Iraq faces are still there:
1. Security remains a problem
2. Simmering tension between the Sunni and Shia factions remains in place, increased by the impending elections and signs of fraud
3. The army and police are still not upto the required level of training, and not free from factional bias

At the same time, this inaction was something that the western backers of Pakistan were not able to understand; it seemed like a vindication of the fact that the Taliban was not something that the government or the military seemed to want to tackle; and the pressure exerted was incredible. There was a huge flurry of articles and interviews about how Pakistan is on the verge of collapse, that the institutions have lost credibility and were not able to ensure social justice in the country (which encouraged the growth of a force such as the Taleban), that the nuclear arms hosted by Pakistan were in danger of being taken over by the Taleban, and so on.
There is also another view that is seeming to emerge, that action taken by the Government on the urging of western Governments would turn the population further against the west and against the actions of their own Government; already there is a feeling that this is not Pakistan’s war and that forcing the Pakistani army to fight their own Muslim brothers is just not done. The view was that it needed for people to hear more about the kind of society that the Taleban is bringing on, and that as the Taleban occupied more areas of the country and that people realized that now they were in mortal danger, that this was not something that was happening far away, they would finally turn against the Taleban. This would be a time for the Government to take action.
Currently, the Pakistani Government has declared that the pact in Swat is dead, and fierce military action is underway against the Taleban. There is no common thoughts on whether the Government did indeed plan it this way, or whether the action was taken because the pressure on the Pakistani Government and the army was proving impossible to face; indeed, the fact that the Pakistani military has always been a proponent of the strategic depth option in Afghanistan makes it hard to say either way. It needs to be seen whether the action will go all the way, or will end when Zardari comes back to Pakistan.

A couple of years back, North Korea crossed one major line by exploding a nuclear bomb, and also launched a long range rocket that crossed over Japanese airspace, drastically increasing tensions in the region. After a gap, North Korea is at it again, threatening to launch a communications satellite. Why would this matter ? Because it is believed that this launch is actually the test of a new rocket that will overfly Japanese territory. Japan has threatened that it will shoot down any debris that seems to be coming towards Japan, increasing the tension level manifold (link to article):

North Korea has completed preparations for launching what it says is “an experimental communications satellite,” the reclusive nation’s state news agency reported early Saturday. Western nations fear that North Korea plans a ballistic missile test rather than a satellite launch, but the administration’s special envoy to the Six-Party Talks, Stephen Bosworth, said it didn’t matter if the North Koreans were trying to put a satellite in space or testing a ballistic missile that could threaten Japan or the United States.
The U.S. Navy is monitoring the expected launch with at least four ships in the region around the Korean Peninsula and northern Japan, according to U.S. military officials. The ships — three destroyers and one cruiser — are capable of tracking and shooting down ballistic missiles using powerful Aegis radar systems aboard each vessel.

The situation remains tricky, akin to dealing with a neighborhood bully who has bombs that can threaten the neighborhood. Even countries such as China and Russia have not been able to exert much influence; and Japan cannot politically easily accept a North Korean rocket to overfly its territory or have debris landing inside the country.

After mounting pressure from the United States and India, Pakistani authorities raided a camp run by the militant group suspected of carrying out the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani and American officials said Monday. The operation on Sunday appeared to be Pakistan’s first concrete response to the demands from India and the United States to take action against the militants suspected in the attacks, which have raised tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors to their highest point in years.
A senior Pakistani security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said about a dozen people had been arrested in the raid, which took place in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The raid on Sunday appeared to be the first step by the Pakistanis that at least tacitly recognized the American and Indian claims. Counterterrorism experts familiar with the behavior of the Pakistani security services said there was a need by Pakistan to be seen to be doing something to alleviate the American and Indian pressure, as well as to avert the possibility of an Indian military strike.

However, the reality is that Pakistan is facing tremendous pressure, which is limiting the ability to do much:
- For the first time, US and other western tourists were targeted, and given the soft nature of these targets, a successful attack such as this will make these tourists seem more susceptible to such dangers
- Pakistani politicians, because of their past projection of India as the enemy, cannot afford to be seen as acting against so-called Kashmiri freedom fighters under US pressure
- The Pakistani military as well as the Government are financially strapped and need desperate financial support (especially when China and Saudi Arabia have refused to provide support)
- The military has just shown how powerful it is in the running of the country, and it would seem that the civilian leadership is buckling under the pressure, especially with the ISI being seen as a rogue party
- These militants, at the same time attack many Pakistani interests (including a much higher rate of suicide and other bombings)
- The incoming US administration comes in with the understanding that Pakistani was deceiving them in terms of previous efforts against the militants, and a lot of the aid was not used as the way that the Americans intended
- The US remains dependent on the Pakistani authority for the war against the Taleban, given that the last few days have seen the support convoys for the Americans in Afghanistan getting attacked in Peshawar

With all these factors, many of them at cross-purposes, it is hard to really guess what the Pakistanis will do. For their own survival, and under tremendous US pressure, they need to show action, while carrying the military along, and yet the public projection should be as low key as possible to avoid being seen to be acting under foreign pressure.

What seems probable is that a decision has been taken whereby the extent of engagement has been decided. It would also be clear that there must have been tremendous US pressure on Pakistan to do more, or to stand aside and let US troops in (and also forego the massive financial support). It cannot be a coincidence that the last few days have seen a major escalation of the conflict between the Pakistani army and its own Taleban (even though the Pakistani army has lost a lot of its sheen in this conflict):

Missiles, believed to have been fired from US drone aircraft, killed as many as 21 people in one part of Pakistan’s tribal area yesterday. Pakistani intelligence officials said most of the dead were militants, but the attacks will aggravate strains between the two countries over American military assaults on targets in Pakistan. Pakistani officials said two villages in the North Waziristan area were hit just before dusk by the missiles. News reports identified 16 of the dead as “foreigners”, a term which usually describes fighters from Arab countries or Central Asia.
Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have complained that missile attacks violate the country’s sovereignty and anger the local population, making it harder to crack down on the extremists. US commanders have spoken of respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty but have suggested they would not stop cross-border strikes on militants whom they suspect of aiding the Taliban insurgency across the border in Afghanistan.

These strikes are also hard for the Pakistani establishment to defend, but they must have calculated that this is a position that can be defended. Not letting the Americans do so otherwise would lead to a much major problem in terms of a confrontation with an enraged nation (the US has concluded that Pakistan under Musharraf did not live upto all its promises of acting against terror).

Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari lashed out at the United States after their troops traded gunfire sparked by claims Pakistan forces shot at two US helicopters for alleged violation of airspace on the border with Afghanistan. “Just as we will not let Pakistani’s territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbors, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends,” he said without citing the United States or the border flareup. “Unilateral actions of great powers should not inflame the passion of allies,” he further said, cautioning that any cross border raids could be counterproductive.

But a State Department spokesman earlier said Washington wanted an explanation from Pakistan, commenting that “the Taliban are not flying helicopters.” “We have been in touch with the Pakistanis about this and we certainly want to have an explanation,” the spokesman said.
A US official told AFP recently that Washington was frustrated with “delays and sometimes non-answers” from Islamabad regarding “actionable intelligence” on militant movements in the tribal areas in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants were believed to be hiding.

This is a natural step up in the series of incidents that have been escalating over the past few months, tremendously fraying the relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It has been an open secret that sections of the Pakistani military have been supporting the Taleban, and the previous Pakistani administration of Musharraf and the military were unwilling to do all they can to get rid of the support to the Taleban from their side (even if these same elements caused much trouble to them inside Pakistan). Reports started appearing in the US media about how the Bush administration is having second thoughts about whether Pakistan really wants to get rid of the terrorism within its borders, and then when the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul happened, the press was all over about how the US wants Pakistan to weed out the elements of the ISI that support terrorism and is no longer willing to believe everything that Islamabad says.
The Pakistanis, under US pressure, have been letting drones into Pakistani territory and attack suspected terrorist hide-outs over there through missiles launched from these drones. However, when President Bush decided in July that rules have changed, and that the US will even attack inside Pakistani territory, this rattled Pakistan. After all, how can a Government allow its sovereign territory to be invaded by foreign forces without permission, and the Government cannot even think about being able to justify this internally. Already there is wide-spread anti-American feeling inside Pakistan. It would seem that General Kiyani, the Pakistani Army is fully behind the push to make sure that American forces cannot come inside Pakistan. Of course, since he is perceived to be not favoring President Zardari, what better way to embarrass him than to create an incident when Zardari is visiting the US and will not be able to explain things.
What the Pakistani Government (including the Army Chief) may not have fully accounted for is the feelings that remain regarding September 11th. No US Government can afford to not be taking action when there are elements of terrorism at large and have been behind the past major attack. With the US being a country where a lot of the pressure happens through the media, there is an incredible amount of push towards making sure that Pakistan cleans up the terrorism in its backyard and gives up the policy of being state sponsors of terrorism. It has already been mentioned in the US campaign as well, and another such incident of firing could quickly escalate the political heat (currently the politicians are pre-occupied in scoring political points with respect to saving the economy). In addition, the Pakistani military gets a good source of funding from the US, and Congress is likely to put more pressure on linking that to showing a determination to get rid of terrorism.