What to do about Pakistan?

Jane Parlez, New York Times writer wrote today:

GHALANAI, Pakistan — The United States plans to pour $750 million of aid into Pakistan’s tribal areas over the next five years as part of a “hearts and minds” campaign to win over this lawless region from Qaeda and Taliban militants.

But even before the plan has been fully carried out, documents and officials involved in the planning are warning of the dangers of distributing so much money in an area so hostile that oversight is impossible, even by Pakistan’s own government, which faces rising threats from Islamic militants.

Who will be given the aid has quickly become one of the most contentious questions between local officials and American planners concerned that millions might fall into the wrong hands. The local political agents and tribal chiefs in this hinterland on the Afghan border have for years accommodated the very groups the American and Pakistani governments seek to drive out.

My first reaction to this was "Not a good idea." It frankly looks like a desperation move by someone who doesn't know what can be done, so they decide to bribe the population not to support the enemies of America and of the government in Pakistan.

That it, it is a typical idea by conservatives. They have no knowledge of how the society on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan works, and they have no interest in learning enough to work with that society. But they really, really don't like the outcomes that result from that society. In the absence of knowledge about why those outcomes conflict with those of America-in-Pakistan or of the government of Pakistan, they want to "throw money at the problem." This is supposed to change the incentives using the "magic of the Market."

Magic is the appropriate word. This approach is like saying they don't like the outcomes if Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans, so the solution is to bribe the hurricane. Clearly unworkable, right?

OK. So the idea was a bad one. Griff Witte and Imtiaz Ali of the Washington Post have published an article, also today, that shows the bribery idea is dead.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 15 -- A controversial peace deal between the Pakistani government and local tribal leaders in an area where al-Qaeda is known to be regrouping appeared to collapse Sunday, as tensions escalated and a fresh wave of bombings killed at least 44 people.

The 10-month-old deal in the restive region of North Waziristan was designed to curb cross-border attacks against U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. But it has been widely criticized by security analysts and, lately, U.S. officials, who said it provided terrorist groups including the Taliban and al-Qaeda with a safe haven in which to train recruits and plot attacks.

On Sunday, local Taliban fighters proclaimed the deal dead and announced the start of an all-out guerrilla war against the Pakistani army. Pakistani officials stopped short of conceding the agreement's demise, but the military has been moving tens of thousands of troops toward troubled spots along the border in recent days, after the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, last week announced a new crackdown on extremism.

Well, societies sometimes conflict. Understanding the reasons for the conflict can often lead to mutual agreements that defuse the conflicts. But when no one knows enough about the other side to offer them something they need and at the same time won't be honest or open about their own goals, it is hard to find a compromise solution.

Well, they tried bribery and it has been rejected. Why? No one in Washington or Islamabad really has a clue, or if they do they refuse to compromise. They just know what they want, and to hell with anyone who won't go along. The next solution is going to be the short-term quick fix of military action. Kill enough people and everyone in the area will get tired of it and just stop fighting - until the anger that seethes under the surface resurfaces and the fighting starts again. Revenge and honor are strong motivators to attack the government troops. Just do it later when they aren't so much on the alert.

That's really what has set this current violence into motion. Much of this is the direct result of angry and frightened people who lived through the period of wars that started when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. They have learned that anyone who does not hold their tribal and religious beliefs - and who does not display those beliefs publicly by wearing certain clothes, performing specified worship behavior and restricting the dangers of women and sex - are their sworn enemies and cannot be trusted unless they are dead.

I don't know what the solution to this area is, but I do know that handing them money and hoping they won't attack outsiders isn't it. Similarly, sending in troops puts a temporary and short-term Band aid on the problem.

For a set of longer term solutions, there is still nothing at all that the U.S. can do to solve the problems there. The solutions have to come from the Pakistani government.

What I do know is that the idea to try to bribe the locals into not attacking outsiders was a non-starter from the very beginning. What were they Bushies thinking?

Oh, wait. They drift between depending on the magic of the market and praying for miracles from God. Such magical solutions to big problems are so much easier then learning what the most important causes of a problem are and working to change those causes. Especially when the problem comes from dark-skinned poor and primitive people who should be ignored (as any conservative.)

In short, don't send a conservative to solve really tough problems. They can't do it.They don't have the patience and are likely to be distracted by trying to get rich (often in corrupt ways.) In their frustration at not solving the problem they will resort to magical thinking that is more likely to caused more problems than they solve.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are clear examples of conservative failure.