analysis: Rising to the challenge

[fatman17]

analysis: Rising to the challenge —Talat Masood

It would not be long before the US decides to terminate the war in Iraq and declare Afghanistan and Pakistan as the epicentres of the global war on terrorism

These are challenging times for Pakistan, even in comparison to its highly turbulent and precarious past.

The US is getting impatient for us to “do more” or risk unilateral military action by the US in FATA. There is a sharp increase in US surveillance activities and air strikes have become a common occurrence. Pressure has also mounted after the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was moved to the Arabian Sea from the Persian Gulf.

Hype is being generated by congressional hearings, media and think tanks. This dangerous dynamic could lead to President Bush authorising intensification in air strikes and even limited ground operations in the tribal belt. Perhaps President Bush believes this would improve his legacy and increase prospects of a Republican victory in the forthcoming presidential elections.

From the US perspective the immediate threat of Islamic radicalism rests along the Pak-Afghan border; the Iranian nuclear danger could be dealt with at a more opportune moment. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has also been saying that Iraq is the wrong war and Afghanistan the right one. It would not be long before the US decides to terminate the war in Iraq and declare Afghanistan and Pakistan as the epicentres of the global war on terrorism.

Clearly, any such move will inflame passions in Pakistan. Anti-American sentiments will rise exponentially. The civilian government would be destabilised and moderate forces will be further marginalised. For the Taliban and Al Qaeda this would be an ideal situation.

Already the Tehrik-e Taliban has consolidated its hold in FATA and increased its activities in several districts of the NWFP. The writ of the state is shrinking and according to western intelligence sources cross-border support to Afghan Taliban by these groups is increasing.

On the eastern front, things are no better. In the last few months, there have been a few instances of firing across the LoC that do not augur well, since faithful adherence to a ceasefire has been the most successful CBM between India and Pakistan. National Security Advisor of India, Mr Narayanan has accused the ISI of masterminding the terrorist attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. The Indian strategic community is harping that militancy in Kashmir has increased since General Kayani has taken over as COAS and Pakistan is falling back on militant proxies.

On the contrary, Pakistan claims it has concrete evidence that the Indians are fuelling the insurgency in Balochistan, supporting militant groups in FATA and increasing anti-Pakistan activity in Afghanistan.

All this distrust will cast a deep shadow on the India-Pakistan peace process and our military could get locked up on two fronts.

Similarly, there are serious misgivings in the US military that our army, intelligence services and society are supportive of the Taliban. Pakistan has its own list of misgivings that the US is supporting the Northern Alliance at the expense of Pashtuns and encouraging India’s growing influence in the region.

Islamabad also considers it highly unfair that the resurgence of the Taliban has been attributed to Pakistan. After all Pakistan at one time supported Hikmatyar’s Hizb too but its influence remains limited.

It appears that the US, India and Afghanistan have synergised pressure on Pakistan’s military and the ISI. In the process they are creating enormous difficulties for the new government that has yet to take charge and formulate a coherent policy on terrorism and counter insurgency.

Over the years domestic politics in Pakistan has been skewed to a point wherein people are unable to differentiate between what is good for them and what is detrimental to their interest. Our leaders, also, have failed in harmonising individual, community and national interests.

These shortcomings are reflected in our foreign policy. Pakistan after sixty-one years of independence is still grappling with its identity and value system. The reality is that the nation is not clear where it stands with the US in the war on terror. It is as confused about its relationship with the Taliban.

The majority in Pakistan abhor the medieval and obscurantist worldview of the Taliban and consider it the antithesis of the vision of the Quaid-e Azam.

But there are elements in Pakistan who genuinely feel that it is not prudent to antagonise the Taliban. There is a strong perception among influential sections in Pakistan that the rise in militancy is a direct consequence of the unjustified American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The dilemma is that if Islamabad pays heed to this view, it invites international (and US) wrath and also indirectly assists the spread of Talibanisation in its own territory.

The Taliban have tasted power, are well-armed and have access to finances generated through drug trafficking, timber smuggling and levying of taxes. They are unlikely to give up power voluntarily to a state that is soft and incapable of providing the basic requirements of personal security, justice, employment and other aspects of governance in these neglected areas.

In this highly complex situation the civilian government finds itself overwhelmed.

The military leadership too is new and has clearly indicated that it would formulate the counter insurgency plans on the basis of government’s policy and will abide by democratic norms to gain people’s support in this fight.

The only viable strategy is to unite at the national level and actualise the full democratic potential of Pakistan. We have been hoping that the civilian leadership and the institutional strength of political parties will provide a new direction and steer us from this quandary. It seems we will have to wait, but is time on our side?
The writer is a retired Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at talat@comsats.net.pk

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Majnun]

It would not be long before the US decides to terminate the war in Iraq and declare Afghanistan and Pakistan as the epicentres of the global war on terrorism

And this would be far more likely if Obama were made president. He is struggling to prove his anti-Islam credentials but is desperate to pull out of Iraq. He is a populist, pulling out of Iraq is a populist decision, and naturally attacking Pakistan is the next step.

The majority in Pakistan abhor the medieval and obscurantist worldview of the Taliban and consider it the antithesis of the vision of the Quaid-e Azam.

The problem is the overtly religious elements such as the Islamic parties. They need to be dismantled and shown for what they are. They were against the idea of Pakistan before it was made and then, when the nation was created, they came here with the aim of implementing Sharia on the people.
As stated, most Pakistanis (of all shades) do not want this. This is shown by the fact that, except for the 2002 elections, the Islamic parties have never done well in any electons in Pakistan's history.
If they cannot be rid of democratically, these parties must be removed by force.

But there are elements in Pakistan who genuinely feel that it is not prudent to antagonise the Taliban. There is a strong perception among influential sections in Pakistan that the rise in militancy is a direct consequence of the unjustified American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The dilemma is that if Islamabad pays heed to this view, it invites international (and US) wrath and also indirectly assists the spread of Talibanisation in its own territory.

And they are right. The Taliban should, at least behind the scenes, not publically, be befriended, not antagonized. They are more likely than the US (India is lucky to be friends with the less fickle Russia) to honour any promise they ever make to us.
Any problems in the war are entirely America's fault and America should take the blame.
If America and Karzai and the NA stop trying to hurt Pakistan, this WoT will be much more likely to succeed.

 

[Majnun]

By the way, the writer doesn't have a good reputation in the military.

 

[muse]

"Over the years domestic politics in Pakistan has been skewed to a point wherein people are unable to differentiate between what is good for them and what is detrimental to their interest. Our leaders, also, have failed in harmonising individual, community and national interests"

Stating the obvious. And therefore...what should be done? This unending hand wringing, this unending vascillation -- What is it's antidote?? Is any other than resolve and willfullness in a chosen direction?? He who hesitates is ....?

"The majority in Pakistan abhor the medieval and obscurantist worldview of the Taliban and consider it the antithesis of the vision of the Quaid-e Azam"

This may be comforting us, but is it true????? Does evidence not point that this statement is a negation of experience?? What have you seen or can point to that suggests that Gen. Masood's statement requires no critical inquiry?? Who is openning madaress teaching lunatic ideas? Is it not Pakistanis? And who is sending their children, not just sons but daughters to these madaress?? Is it other than Pakistanis?? And Who is beheading Pakistani soldiers? Is it not Pakistanis?? And who is it that supports the people who do this? Is it not Pakistanis??

Gentle friends, we MUST be honest with ourselves, it's not like we a choice.

Make a decision, make it be the best decision that we can make and then stick to it, come hell or high water -- exert the will to succeed to prevail!!.

Everything else will work itself out once the players see they are confronted with a unbending determination.


Allah keep Pakistan safe and give her peoples sense and courage to see that sense.

 

[Majnun]

"Over the years domestic politics in Pakistan has been skewed to a point wherein people are unable to differentiate between what is good for them and what is detrimental to their interest. Our leaders, also, have failed in harmonising individual, community and national interests"

Stating the obvious. And therefore...what should be done? This unending hand wringing, this unending vascillation -- What is it's antidote?? Is any other than resolve and willfullness in a chosen direction?? He who hesitates is ....?

"The majority in Pakistan abhor the medieval and obscurantist worldview of the Taliban and consider it the antithesis of the vision of the Quaid-e Azam"

This may be comforting us, but is it true????? Does evidence not point that this statement is a negation of experience?? What have you seen or can point to that suggests that Gen. Masood's statement requires no critical inquiry?? Who is openning madaress teaching lunatic ideas? Is it not Pakistanis? And who is sending their children, not just sons but daughters to these madaress?? Is it other than Pakistanis?? And Who is beheading Pakistani soldiers? Is it not Pakistanis?? And who is it that supports the people who do this? Is it not Pakistanis??

Gentle friends, we MUST be honest with ourselves, it's not like we a choice.

Make a decision, make it be the best decision that we can make and then stick to it, come hell or high water -- exert the will to succeed to prevail!!.

Everything else will work itself out once the players see they are confronted with a unbending determination.


Allah keep Pakistan safe and give her peoples sense and courage to see that sense.

No, it is only a fringe of the Pakistani population. Very few do that.

 

[fatman17]

By the way, the writer doesn't have a good reputation in the military.

kindly elaborate! in my opinion he has a impeccable reputation!

 

[Majnun]

kindly elaborate! in my opinion he has a impeccable reputation!

Sorry about that. I mixed him up with someone else. I'm trying to delete that post now.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And they are right. The Taliban should, at least behind the scenes, not publically, be befriended, not antagonized. They are more likely than the US (India is lucky to be friends with the less fickle Russia) to honor any promise they ever make to us.

No! The only ones that should be befriended are only those who do not take up arms against the state, and respect the writ of the state - which extends to not carrying out cross border attacks.

In fact various Taliban groups have broken their promises to the State - starting from the failure of the first peace deals last year, and now the ones in Swat as well.

The results of those broken promises was a year of horrific suicide bombings, violence and chaos, and Pakistan is still reeling from the effects. If that isn't a clear demonstration of the fact that these groups cannot be trusted, then what is?

 

[Majnun]

No! The only ones that should be befriended are only those who do not take up arms against the state, and respect the writ of the state - which extends to not carrying out cross border attacks.

As America is doing.

In fact various Taliban groups have broken their promises to the State - starting from the failure of the first peace deals last year, and now the ones in Swat as well.

Again, as America has done countless times.

The results of those broken promises was a year of horrific suicide bombings, violence and chaos, and Pakistan is still reeling from the effects. If that isn't a clear demonstration of the fact that these groups cannot be trusted, then what is?

I think that that is more a failing of the new government.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

SMM,

If the US is doing so it is because the militants are giving them the excuse to do so. The US pretext is that all their ills are due to the militants from across the border, these militants as mentioned have also made life miserable for Pakistanis, so why not go after one (the militants) and settle both issues?

No more militants, no more US excuses.

 

[Majnun]

SMM,

If the US is doing so it is because the militants are giving them the excuse to do so. The US pretext is that all their ills are due to the militants from across the border, these militants as mentioned have also made life miserable for Pakistanis, so why not go after one (the militants) and settle both issues?

No more militants, no more US excuses.

Here, I agree with you but I think that Pakistan should hedge its bets-after all, that's what the US is accusing them of doing anywyas, so why not?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here, I agree with you but I think that Pakistan should hedge its bets-after all, that's what the US is accusing them of doing anywyas, so why not?

The question is about what future course you want to set for Pakistan.

We hedge our bets, the US keeps bombing, the militants keep bombing, the economy keeps tanking and instability keeps increasing - this doesn't seem like a very promising future to me.

We get rid of the threat on our side, and while problems from Afghanistan will continue to flow over, they become manageable to some extent since we will primarily be fighting one group external to Pakistan - not groups internal, external and the US thrown in for good measure.

I am not against continuing to maintain a relationship with people like Mullah Nazir, provided they adhere to the governing structures established by the GoP, and refrain from cross border attacks.

However, I have to wonder if the latter condition has become impossible to enforce, given the ethnic and religious solidarity that has come to define the conflict for the militants.

Large scale development would be one way to address the motivation behind the support for the insurgency on our side, as the benefits in the shape of jobs, consumerism, better facilities etc. become a greater part of peoples lives, and therefore make participation in violent conflict much less attractive, as there is a lot more to lose.

Economic development also ends up creating stronger ties between communities involved in commerce, and if development moves the people of FATA away from their traditional inter-Tribal commerce to inter-provincial and intra-Pakistan or even Global commerce, it may act as an agent for disconnecting the ethnic bonds across the Durand (resulting in less motivation for participation in cross border insurgent activity) and shoring up the bonds within Pakistan and with Pakistan, as Pakistanis.

They trade with mainstream Pakistan, they visit mainstream Pakistan for better jobs, travel, leisure, and they slowly become a part of mainstream Pakistan, as a larger part of their lives becomes linked with ours.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Of course, for even the development approach to take place, there needs to be some military force used to maintain the writ of the state. There is no point in setting up schools if the militants will just blow them up.

So I am afraid the development option goes hand in hand with the military option.

 

[Majnun]

The question is about what future course you want to set for Pakistan.

We hedge our bets, the US keeps bombing, the militants keep bombing, the economy keeps tanking and instability keeps increasing - this doesn't seem like a very promising future to me.

We get rid of the threat on our side, and while problems from Afghanistan will continue to flow over, they become manageable to some extent since we will primarily be fighting one group external to Pakistan - not groups internal, external and the US thrown in for good measure.

I am not against continuing to maintain a relationship with people like Mullah Nazir, provided they adhere to the governing structures established by the GoP, and refrain from cross border attacks.

However, I have to wonder if the latter condition has become impossible to enforce, given the ethnic and religious solidarity that has come to define the conflict for the militants.

Large scale development would be one way to address the motivation behind the support for the insurgency on our side, as the benefits in the shape of jobs, consumerism, better facilities etc. become a greater part of peoples lives, and therefore make participation in violent conflict much less attractive, as there is a lot more to lose.

Economic development also ends up creating stronger ties between communities involved in commerce, and if development moves the people of FATA away from their traditional inter-Tribal commerce to inter-provincial and intra-Pakistan or even Global commerce, it may act as an agent for disconnecting the ethnic bonds across the Durand (resulting in less motivation for participation in cross border insurgent activity) and shoring up the bonds within Pakistan and with Pakistan, as Pakistanis.

They trade with mainstream Pakistan, they visit mainstream Pakistan for better jobs, travel, leisure, and they slowly become a part of mainstream Pakistan, as a larger part of their lives becomes linked with ours.

You are completely right. I just don't want to alienate any groups in Pakistan (except perhaps JI, JUI) as, if there is a change in the official predicted outcome of the WoT (US win, Afghanistan stable under people like Karzai), then Pakistan cannot afford to antagonize anyone.

Your last paragraph was very good and it reflected a hope of all Pakistanis.

 

[Majnun]

Of course, for even the development approach to take place, there needs to be some military force used to maintain the writ of the state. There is no point in setting up schools if the militants will just blow them up.

So I am afraid the development option goes hand in hand with the military option.

Nothing to be afraid of, its a good option. The military keep a discreet presence, though.

I am in favour of the Ataturk-style reforms in Turkey, to happen in Pakistan.