When less is more (Rep. Ed Royce)

On a trip to Pakistan last spring, I heard from our embassy about plans for a "diplomatic surge" to add many more U.S. personnel to the country.  Given the level of anti-Americanism in the country, I asked whether added manpower would help or hurt our cause.  There is, after all, something to be said for a "small footprint" in a foreign land.

So I wasn't surprised by Tuesday's New York Times headline "U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance," accompanied by a picture of a spirited protest.  Pakistanis resent the U.S. Embassy plans for a very large new building that will house 1,000 personnel and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  The State Department also reportedly has plans to buy the biggest building in Peshawar for its consulate in the North-West Frontier Province.  Conspiracy theories surrounding the embassy security contractors abound.  Our embassy's media officer sure has his work cut out.   

Don't get me wrong.  We have critical interests in Pakistan, mainly seeing that its nuclear arsenal stays intact.  Radical Islam is growing.  But is this edifice the best way to go? 

Many games are being played.  Some protesting thugs are professional agitators, no doubt.  And Pakistani military and intelligence operatives are likely stirring the pot, keeping the pressure on us to deflect our pressure on them to be more aggressive against the militants.

The U.S. has been very unpopular among Pakistanis for a long time.  Maybe it's inevitable, but it sure doesn't help when the average Pakistani must ask --"What are the Americans doing?"  Americans, after all, would have similar concerns were the shoe on the other foot.  Maybe more official U.S. personnel in Pakistan are needed --to oversee an expanded aid program-- but this has the feel of thoughtless bureaucratic expansion. 

Cross-posted at the Foreign Intrigue blog.