Occasional WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has posted his take on today’s report from the New York Times that al Qaeda has effectively regrouped in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area. Gartenstein-Ross says it should come as little surprise “that the Waziristan Accord–which was signed on September 5, and was designed as a treaty between Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders–‘had been a failure.'” He points to this WEEKLY STANDARD article on the Accord, which he coauthored with Bill Roggio back in October of 2006.
The agreement is, to put it mildly, a boon to the terrorists and a humiliation for the Pakistani government. . . . The accord provides that the Pakistani army will abandon outposts and border crossings throughout Waziristan. Pakistan’s military agreed that it will no longer operate in North Waziristan or monitor actions in the region. Pakistan will return weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani army operations. And the Pakistani government essentially paid a tribute to end the fighting when it agreed to pay compensation for property destroyed during combat — an unusual move since most of the property that was destroyed belonged to factions that had consciously decided to harbor terrorists. Of particular concern is the provision allowing non-Pakistani militants to continue to reside in Waziristan as long as they promise to “keep the peace.” Keeping the peace will, in practice, be defined as refraining from attacks on the Pakistani military. Meanwhile, since the military won’t be monitoring the militants’ activities, they can plan and train for terrorist attacks or work to bolster the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan without being seen to violate the treaty.
The bottom line: “although analysts now concede that the Waziristan Accord has failed, they aren’t discussing what should be done now. Indeed, I have spoken with nobody in policymaking or intelligence circles with a good answer to that question.”
