The rising civilian death toll in the spiral of violence in and around Peshawar in Pakistan’s North- Western Frontier Province is reportedly prompting the question among sections of the local public: ‘Is Pakistan being converted into another Afghanistan?’

In a connected development, the winning by Hamid Karzai of a second presidential term in Afghanistan is raising the poser among sections of world opinion: ‘Does this second coming to power also mean that we are seeing the last of bad governance in this conflict-ridden state?’

These issues, of course, are of immediate relevance to the states concerned but ultimately it is the US that needs to do the answering, in consideration of the fact that the situations in the respective countries are essentially of US making, for, they are in great measure products of US strategic policy in South West Asia. Underscoring the continuing importance of the US-Pakistan security ‘partnership’ in South-West Asia, for instance, US President Barack Obama was quoted saying recently: ’We have an effective partnership with Pakistan that is working to achieve our goals in the entire region and that we are not working at cross-purposes, that issues of corruption are dealt with, that we are identifying not just a national government in Kabul, but provincial government actors that have legitimacy…right now.’

Steeply increasing civilian casualties in Pakistan’s North Western Frontier Province and outside, in the wake of the Pakistani security forces’ South Waziristan offensive, has led to an intensifying public outcry against the seemingly unrelenting blood-letting and has placed a huge question mark over the soundness of the rationale for US military involvement in the region. There is no let-up on the part of the US and its allies to crush the Taliban insurgency, but at what great cost? Should not it be clear to the Obama administration that this effort at ending the Taliban presence on the Afghan-Pakistan border would only have the effect of toughening the resistance to the Pakistani offensive, on account of the unpopularity of the operation among parts of the Pakistani public?

To be sure, not all sections of the local public bewail the continuation of the South Waziristan operation but the possibility is great of the armed resistance winning a great measure of public support on account of the frequent civilian deaths.

Close consideration should be given to calls in Pakistan that the Kerry-Lugar Law, which envisages the provision of US financial assistance for the socio-economic development of Pakistan, be given full and expeditious effect. One such voice was that of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer who told a visiting US delegation recently that the forthcoming funds should be used in spheres, such as, education, health and poverty eradication.

We need hardly reiterate the now well known position that military action without a genuine attempt by states at ‘winning hearts and minds’ would be of no avail in situations featuring identity-based, internal conflicts in particular. A primary means of ‘winning hearts and minds’ is consistent and sustained socio-economic development and this the countries of this region could forget only at their peril, Sri Lanka included.

Given the reportedly widespread misgovernance and state sector corruption in Afghanistan, the question of profound relevance in relation to it is whether the US could prevail on President Karzai, in this his second term, to give a good account of himself as a fighter of these ‘systemic’ distortions. Could he also eventually showcase Afghanistan as a state where ‘swords have been turned into ploughshares’ or as a state where ‘the development miracle’ has taken root?

In Afghanistan too the US finds itself up against a set of painful dilemmas which could defy easy resolution. Afghanistan is of considerable strategic importance to the US in view of its geographic proximity to particularly Iran and the oil rich Persian Gulf region, besides the central position it occupies in South West Asia, but the US would find itself in a Vietnam-type military debacle and ignominy in Afghanistan if it lulls itself into a state of complacency in the belief that the mere presence of a top US ally in Kabul, would help in advancing its interests in the region.

No less a person than retired Major General Arnold Fields, the US’ chief inspector for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, has placed on record the enormity of the task of fighting public sector corruption and of making governmental systems operate effectively in the country. Said Fields: ‘Oversight and controls for more than $40 billion in US funds to rebuild Afghanistan have been "sloppy" so far despite lessons from Iraq….There is an underlying issue of corruption that needs to be addressed’.

If the US is really bent on fighting ‘terror’ in Afghanistan, it could not do so effectively by propping-up a corrupt administration in Kabul. As could be seen in the cases of Pakistan and Sri Lanka, for instance, one of the most effective ways of tackling ‘terror’ is to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people through a ‘no-holds-barred’ development drive. It is no longer a secret that the very considerable Western funds being pumped into Afghanistan for development purposes are being ferreted away by corrupt public officials and other parasitic elements. This process of wrongful self-aggrandisement is hugely facilitated by "sloppy" monitoring of public expenditure.

Rather than agonise over how many more US troops should be sent to Afghanistan and when, the Obama administration would be helping to put down ‘terror’ more effectively by compelling the Karzai regime to get down to the task of initiating accountable governance forthwith.