Obama Asks For Help Against Terrorism

[Merlin]

This is going to be difficult for Obama. He asks for more Nato forces in Afghanistan, and help from Europe on the fight against Terrorism. The main reason is to defeat al Qaeda and the Talibans.

But is it in Europe's interest to do so? The more they help, the more they get attacked by angry Muslims. See below.

Obama asks for help against terrorism

11 Apr 2009 [PressTV] US President Barack Obama says Washington is not able to counter new-millennium security threats like al-Qaeda terrorist group alone.

"It is only by working together that we will finally defeat 21st century security threats like al Qaeda," Obama said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.

The US president's remarks came after he returned from an eight-day European tour aimed at restoring the US image abroad. ...

"Let us not allow whatever differences we have with other nations to stop us from coming together around those solutions that are essential to our survival and success," he concluded.

Rhetorically this sounds good. But what is in it for Europe?

Sadiq Khan says US foreign policy on Pakistan is damaging Britain

12 Apr 2009 [Gurardian] The UK must distance itself from American foreign policy if Pakistani youths are to be prevented from growing up hating Britain, according to the government's social cohesion minister.

The comments by Sadiq Khan, who has just returned from a fact-finding trip to Pakistan, ...

Khan, London's first Muslim MP, said the UK must differentiate itself from the US after attending meetings at universities in Pakistan. "I listened to the anger and pain over the challenges that young people growing up in Pakistan face, including the anger and frustration over US drone attacks," he said. ...

[Merlin]

Pakistan is also asking the same question. Is it damaging for them? The Newsline article below is from Pakistan.

The Obama Plan: Peril and Possibility

April 2009 President Barack Obama’s strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan announced on March 27 presents new challenges for relations between Washington and Islamabad, which are increasingly characterised by a lack of public support in both countries and mutual suspicion and mistrust.

Some aspects of the new strategy are positive shifts in policy for Islamabad. But other elements will be a source of worry and concern. While the two countries are in agreement over the principal goals, their differences in tactics and approach will have to be reconciled and harmonised. President Obama has acknowledged that Pakistan is pivotal for the new strategy to work. This makes it all the more necessary for Washington to adjust its policy approach to Islamabad’s concerns.

Washington’s new strategy defines the core goal to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and prevent their return. This refocusing of the US-led mission, emphasis on a civilian surge in Afghanistan to step up reconstruction and development, willingness to negotiate with the Taliban, expanding Afghanistan’s army and police to enable them to shoulder their own security, committing more economic assistance to both nations and offering help to build their security capacities, as well as addressing narcotics, are all objectives that converge with Pakistan’s thinking.

Islamabad’s long-held view has included a number of key elements. One, insurgencies cannot just be addressed militarily but have to be neutralised primarily by political means. Two, an adequately resourced development surge is essential to win hearts and minds. Three, the reconcilable Taliban should be separated from Al-Qaeda and brought into the political mainstream. Four, the Afghan security sector must be strengthened while ensuring that the security forces reflect Afghanistan’s ethnic balance. And five, the narcotics trade must be curbed because it fuels the insurgency. ...

But certain aspects of the new strategy are problematic for Islamabad. The military escalation dimensions of the strategy pose the greatest anxiety. They suggest that despite the new emphasis on ‘soft and smart power’ by Washington and the assertion that the region’s security problems cannot be addressed in military terms alone, substantial reliance is still being placed on military means by the US-led mission.

An even more significant worry for Islamabad is the military escalation signalled by the focus on rooting out safe havens in Pakistan’s border region. This was reflected in President Obama’s suggestion that if Pakistan did not take action, the US would. This implies a widening of the war into western Pakistan, even if the president later explained that he would consult Pakistani leaders before terrorist hideouts are pursued.

That has still left open the prospect of increased US Predator strikes against targets in FATA. This foreshadows a risky course as this will only inflame public opinion in Pakistan, and have destabilising effects. Drone attacks have already evoked condemnation from the National, NWFP and Balochistan Assemblies. Any policy which is vehemently opposed by the people will ultimately be unsustainable. The tactical gains claimed from these drone strikes must be set against the costs in terms of undermining strategic goals. This approach also ignores the fact that Al-Qaeda has to be defeated in the ideological battle because it is its ideology that finds followers, ever ready to replace those ‘taken out.’....

President Obama’s new strategy will face many challenges. No challenge is more important in this initial phase as that of ensuring that Islamabad and Washington are able to harmonise their policy and tactical approaches and close their perception gaps in a spirit of openness and mutual understanding. ...