Does the threat from al Qaeda justify a major escalation in Central Asia?

The Afpak muddle (part 2)

Does the threat of international terrorism -- specifically al Qaeda -- justify a costly, long-term engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan? President Obama and his advisors think so, but I'm still not convinced. I certainly understand that we have a terrorism problem; I just don't believe that it is serious enough to warrant the level and type of effort the administration is proposing. And if the results of the recent NATO summit are any indication, our ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Apr 10, 2009 - 8:14 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Apr 10, 2009 - 12:27 PM PDT
Dwight Rousu
4.2
by Dwight Rousu - Apr. 10, 2009

Walt gets real in looking at risks, and the potential for over-reacting to them. Though persuasive in steering the reader away from the current path, a more desirable path is not charted. The article appears to be a multipart report, linking the other parts may add content.

Focus on non-military means; focus strategy around Pakistan.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Fabrice Florin
3.7
by Fabrice Florin - Apr. 10, 2009

Original article by Harvard University Professor Stephen M. Walt about what he calls the Afpak muddle. The author argues thoughtfully that 'the threat from al Qaeda does not justify increasing our military presence in Afghanistan, and certainly does not justify major military operations in Pakistan.' He cites factual evidence and helpful context to support his points, which are presented in a responsible way.

The threat from al Qaeda does not justify increasing our military presence in Afghanistan, and certainly does not justify major military operations in Pakistan. More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Randy Morrow
4.5
by Randy Morrow - Apr. 12, 2009

This article puts forth reasoned arguments against pursing a major military escalation in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. A thought provoking (and recommended) piece.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
4.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Apr. 10, 2009

Asks some important questions about America's costly involvement in Central/South Asia. I like how he give counter-arguments, which don't appear to be straw man arguments (see linked responses from Democracy Arsenal and Obsidian Wing)

In America, the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. And that would be true even if the United State were to suffer one ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Derek Hawkins
3.9
by Derek Hawkins - Apr. 10, 2009

Illustrates the difficulty in the long-term pursuit of terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Very well done.

Equally important, the United States is not going to mount a large scale invasion of Pakistan, which is what would be necessary to completely eliminate al Qaeda from that ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.0

Good
from 5 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
4.1
Information
3.6
Insight
4.6
Style
3.8
Context
4.0
Expertise
3.5
Originality
4.5
Relevance
4.5
Responsibility
4.8
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.4
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • Does Terrorism Matter in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    I don’t think Walt’s analysis fully reflects the degree to which Afghanistan and Pakistan have become a unified problem, a problem which strikes me as being so maddeningly ...
    Posted by Kaizar Campwala
  • We're From the US Government, and We're Here to Help

    (Blog Post) Even if we succeed in stamping out the safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, terrorists could merely relocate. If multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar campaigns are ...
    Posted by Kaizar Campwala