Slow Progress, Setbacks Seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan
A White House report to Congress (pdf) last week assessed “both positive and negative trends in the implementation of our Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy.”
The report described the progress — or lack thereof — made this year towards achieving eight specified objectives. Those objectives include enhancing stability and civilian control in Pakistan, improving Pakistan’s counterinsurgency capabilities, and reversing the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, among others. (The disruption of terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan was addressed in an undisclosed classified annex.)
The report was quite candid in its judgments. “Afghan anti-corruption efforts continue to be weak.” The security situation in Pakistan is “tenuous.” The Pakistani military has demonstrated an “inability” to maintain control of areas it seized from insurgents. During the second quarter of this year, “the Pakistan military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qa’ida forces in North Waziristan. This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritizing its targets.”
Paradoxically, there is something encouraging about the new report since it indicates that U.S. government officials are not actively deluding themselves or deceiving others about the difficult realities of the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The White House report to Congress was first reported in the Wall Street Journal (“U.S. Slams Pakistani Efforts on Militants” by Adam Entous and Siobhan Gorman, October 6) but the document itself was not made readily available to the public. A copy is now posted on the Federation of American Scientists website here.
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.