Indeed, that may be one of the few alternatives left if that region is ever to be stabilized and made more peaceful.

Pakistan is in the midst of multiple existential crises over security, its economy and the super floods that continue to inflict tragedy and ruin on that nation.

But, in Islamabad, despite the countless checkpoints and armed police and military in clear sight, the sense of urgency in coping with these crises and massive scale of suffering is difficult to detect. Perhaps that mood is reflective of the dilemmas and paradoxes that probably will limit the amount of foreign aid and assistance Pakistan so desperately needs from being sent.

In the United States, the Obama administration understands the extent of this humanitarian catastrophe and the possible geostrategic consequences.

However, pragmatism and cynicism are also evident. The White House doesn't hold the Pakistani civilian government in high regard. As a result, U.S. President Barack Obama has still not spoken with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari although Vice President Joe Biden did call Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani six weeks into the floods to express support.

The administration apparently believes that the army, despite its high institutional standing among the Pakistani people, isn't controlled by the civilian leadership. And Inter-Services-Intelligence is still seen as operating independently and not always in concert with the best interests of the United States and its allies fighting in Afghanistan. Furthermore, given the state of the American economy and the mood in Congress, the White House concludes that U.S. largess is limited.

Last year, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act appropriated $7.5 billion over five years in aid for Pakistan. Yet, no funds have been transferred, in large measure because the United States is rightly worried about how that money will get to intended users and not the pockets of intermediaries, realities Pakistanis find offensive. Another billion or so dollars is used for annual coalition support funding to underwrite Pakistani army operations. So the American golden goose, in the eyes of the administration, has run out of eggs.

The major advocates for Pakistan have been U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who has visited Pakistan, seen the extent of the cataclysm and been a force for good in trying to rally the international community to come to Pakistan's aid, and the European Union, spurred on by British Prime Minister David Cameron, has lifted, temporarily, textile tariffs on Pakistani cotton goods even though it is uncertain when the next cotton crops will occur given the flood damage. Unfortunately, the United States hasn't been able to do the same, lifting its tariffs.

Interestingly, given American ineptitude in dealing with Hurricane Katrina, it is surprising that the White House seems to expect more from Pakistan's far less capable government in coping with these crises. Given that the Pakistani civilian government cannot change the image or reality of its competence overnight and the Obama administration has self-imposed limitations of what it can and cannot do to help, are there any alternatives beyond muddling through?

Aside from the humanitarian disaster, the main U.S. interest in the region is stability. As argued before in this column, success no matter how defined in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without Pakistan. A major contention has been the border between the two states and allegations and evidence of sanctuaries in Pakistan used by Taliban and other insurgents as well as ease of cross-border transit. Why not then consider building a high-tech, well-manned and monitored barrier well on the Pakistan side of the Durand line to prevent or reduce this traffic?

That border is some 1,500 miles in length but only 300 or so miles between Peshawar and the northern tip of Baluchistan are most critical. Americans will argue that fences don't work no matter how high-tech, citing their own border with Mexico and the flood of illegal immigrants and drugs that haven't been checked.

On the other hand, barriers worked in Baghdad and Israel where terror attacks were greatly reduced as well on the Indian side of the Kashmir border -- and sadly divided Berlin for more than 40 years -- if properly manned and designed using the latest sensor and surveillance technology. And Pakistan does have nearly 150,000 troops on its border with Afghanistan in some 850 outposts to ensure that any barrier does indeed work.

The potential of such a barrier must be carefully examined from every strategic, political, economic and social direction. But, it may well be that "please fence me in" is a sound and given the circumstances, our best option.

(Harlan Ullman is chairman of the Killowen Group, which advises leaders of government and business, and senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News