Question:
A massive media hype has been raised around the leak of official intelligence documents through the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, specifically regarding Obama's strategy in pursuing the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does the leak of these documents truly represent a significant threat to Obama's war in these two countries? And do David Cameron's recent statements regarding Pakistan and its "export of terrorism" have a connection to the matter?
Answer:
Before answering this question, the following points must be noted:
1- It is no longer a secret that President George W. Bush’s administration's strategy in managing the Afghan war failed miserably. Bush's strategy relied on supporting Karzai, legitimizing his rule and ability to govern, improving the capacity of the Afghan army, involving moderate elements of the Pashtun resistance in the government, and exercising pressure on Pakistan to act against the Taliban and other militants residing in the tribal areas. When Obama took office in 2009, he requested his administration to conduct a complete review of Bush’s strategy.
Obama's initial strategy was summarized as maintaining the basic principles adopted by Bush while increasing the number of American soldiers participating in the war, raising the pace of drone attacks against militants on Pakistani soil, and placing additional pressure on the Pakistani army to carry out operations in the tribal areas, especially in the Waziristan region. There were other adjustments in the strategy, such as attempting to reduce civilian casualties and strengthening civilian institutions, to make this strategy more acceptable to local and international public opinion.
However, Obama's continuous pursuit of reducing the number of American troops deployed in Afghanistan by 2011 continuously undermined the strategy, sparked debate between the Obama administration and American military commanders in the field, and fueled disputes between allies and other regimes, such as the Afghan and Pakistani regimes. From Obama's perspective, the withdrawal timetable is essential to bolster the Democratic Party's chances of competing effectively in the 2012 US presidential elections. Nevertheless, several military and political leaders strongly objected to the Obama administration for its many demands on the US military within a timeframe they deemed unrealistic. One of the most prominent voices was McChrystal, who was forced into early retirement from the US Army. Even with General Petraeus replacing him, Petraeus is unable to move forward fully in implementing the current Afghan strategy and has been forced to make further adjustments to some provisions of this strategy. Several statements were issued by Karzai urging coalition forces to remain and stabilize Afghanistan beyond 2011. Meanwhile, Pakistan protested strongly that America would abandon Afghanistan once again and leave Pakistan to face a fierce war with the Pashtuns on both sides of the border. Consequently, even before the leaks, the Obama administration faced, in addition to the bitter complaints of its followers, growing opposition within the government, the political class, and the US military.
2- For the past nine years, the United States has worked tirelessly to force Pakistan to play a larger role in stabilizing Afghanistan. This meant that the Pakistani army leadership had to struggle to change the mindset of its army to fight a war against its own citizens living in the tribal region. Musharraf's role was essential in this regard, and when he was no longer able to serve his American masters, they removed him and replaced him with Kayani, hoping he would be more effective than his predecessor. It reached the point where the Americans forced the Pakistani government to extend his term as Chief of Army Staff for another three years. Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani said at the time of Kayani's term renewal: "The success of the military operations achieved under the leadership of General Ashfaq Kayani would not have succeeded without his leadership," and said that "these operations are at a critical stage, and the continued success of these operations requires continuity in the senior military leadership." [Financial Times 23/07/2010]. However, the Americans have been disappointed with Kayani's efforts in mobilizing the Pakistani army to support US military operations in Kandahar and to move against the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan, as well as moving against other armed groups. Despite many recent visits by US officials to Pakistan and the provision of civilian and military aid, Kayani has failed to achieve tangible successes against the Taliban and militants to limit their use of Pakistani territory. This failure delayed the start of the Kandahar operation and affected Obama's campaign pledge to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan.
3- The apparent failure of the Obama administration in Afghanistan, especially since this failure was accompanied by massacres of civilians, resulted in the Republicans opening fire on Obama's policy in Afghanistan. Obama feared the influence of these voices in weakening the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections, whether the midterm elections at the end of this year or the 2012 presidential elections. It was in this particular circumstance that the uproar over the documentary leaks was raised.
4- Upon careful examination of the approximately 90,000 leaked documents, we notice that they did not reveal new information about the United States' strategy in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Rather, the vast majority of documents related to Afghanistan and Pakistan criticize the policies followed by Bush. This is not surprising, as the documents are dated before Obama took office and announced his strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Therefore, the leak of these documents exposes the shortcomings of the Bush administration, not the Obama administration. This makes the explanation for the exaggerated US reactions to the leak that it was orchestrated by the Obama administration in the White House.
This is confirmed by what was published on the website "salon.com" on 27/07/2010, that two editors from the New York Times, Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, went to the White House a week prior to inform the administration of what was intended to be published. And they all received gold stars! The site added their saying, "We did it to give the administration the opportunity to comment and respond, and they did. They also praised us for the way we handled the documents, and because we gave them the opportunity to discuss the matter, and for our careful handling of the information as a responsibility."
[New York Times reporters met with White House before publishing WikiLeaks story, Salon, Jul 27 2010].
5- Based on the aforementioned, we can answer the question that the Obama administration is the one that deliberately leaked those old intelligence documents for two purposes: First: Internal, to show the opponents of the US administration that the basis of the failure lies in the era of the previous administration—and here are the documents proving it—and that the previous policy is what led him to conduct a comprehensive review last autumn. This is what Obama stated when he said: "While I’m concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan. Indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct a comprehensive review of our policy last fall." [BBC Online 27/07/2010]. Second: External, to place more pressure on Kayani to mobilize the Pakistani army to move against the Taliban and the Haqqani group located in North Waziristan. It must be noted here that before Kayani succeeded Musharraf, he was the head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) between 2004-2007. Hence, the leak of these documents is an embarrassment to Kayani.
6- As for David Cameron's comments about Pakistan's hypocrisy, they have another perspective. They are intended to pressure Pakistan and appear as a supporter of American policy in Afghanistan, while what is intended "behind the curtain"—as is the custom of British policy—is to embarrass Pakistan before the American people in an attempt to drive a wedge between the US administration and Pakistan when the American people learn that Pakistani intelligence supports the Taliban to kill Americans!
This is in addition to the fact that any statement that shakes Pakistan as a state by labeling it with hypocrisy strengthens the position of India, Britain's ally, and attracts the loyalty of the Indian masses, not just the pro-British Congress Party government. Any stance against Pakistan by Britain increases the strength of the British-Indian relationship, especially since Cameron was accompanied on his visit to India by a large trade delegation from the current British government to address the economic recession by establishing strong trade relations with other countries, most notably India, where the economic market is growing. Strengthening friendly relations between the two countries reflects positively on economic activity.