Shireen M Mazari
October 21, 2009
There is a dangerous pattern connecting the events happening in and around Pakistan today. Unless we can see this larger picture, we will be overwhelmed by the fallout and our detractors like the US will have fulfilled their agenda for this nuclear capable country. The roots of this US agenda go back to Musharraf’s hasty embrace of the US “war on terror”. What was not realised at the time was the psychological trauma the US had undergone as a result of 9/11, which had led to the bolstering of the already suspicion-tinted view the US had of the Muslim world. Of course, some pliant Muslim leaders were reluctantly embraced as “allies”, but always on a tight leash, but by and large nationalist Muslim leaders and their nations were something the Americans never felt comfortable with. If these nations were also militarily or economically strong, the US felt even more uncomfortable. In this context, Mahathir’s Malaysia, Revolutionary Iran and nuclear Pakistan certainly stood out as irritants in one way or another. So when 9/11 happened, even though it was Saudi citizens who were responsible for the actions, Pakistan was brought centre-stage and the US saw this as the opportunity to cut the country down to size and finally gain control of its nuclear assets.
That Musharraf proved excessively compliant from the beginning came as a shock even to the Bush Administration, but they realised his limitations in terms of compromises at the tactical level because of the military - which often put a spanner in the US agenda for Pakistan. Hence the constant critique of the Pakistan military and its intelligence outfits - especially once the CIA fell out with the ISI two years ago over whom to target in FATA!
So what is this US agenda that bodes ill for Pakistan? An article published in the US Army Journal entitled “Blood Borders” captured the broad outline a few years earlier. The main components that can now be identified are: One, to restructure Pakistan and its state institutions according to US wishes; two, to take control of its nuclear assets since they cannot really be “taken out”; and, three, to move it towards accepting Indian hegemony in the region and to distance it from its strategic partnership with China.
What has been the strategy for implementing this agenda? To create enough chaos and violence in Pakistan so as to be able to justify coming in and seizing control of the nuclear assets, restructuring a new state model for the country, which would include bringing it under Indian hegemony. How would this agenda be implemented?
First, through shifting the centre of gravity of the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan. This has finally been accomplished through a number of interesting tactics. The beginning was made by allowing the Al-Qaeda and Taliban to escape from Afghanistan during the Tora Bora bombings. Then the internal destabilisation of Pakistan began through drone attacks, which caused the traditionally highly patriotic tribal population of FATA to gradually turn against the state especially when the US pressured the army into moving into this area. Also, India was given a free run in Afghanistan so money and weapons for terrorists flowed in from Afghanistan into Balochistan and FATA as well as NWFP. In addition, a new entity emerged with its own violent agenda - the TTP with a huge stock of weapons that clearly had come from across the border since some of them were of US origin. Meanwhile, the US gradually increased its covert presence in Pakistan - beginning with Tarbela and the so-called “trainers” as well as the private US security concerns that have traditionally worked as mercenaries for the US government in places like Iraq. Balochistan also saw an increase in the US presence, especially as the US also sought to operationalise its covert operations against Iran through this province and the bases Musharraf had so generously handed over to the US. There was also the Bandari air base in an area 78 kilometres south of Kharan, near a place called Shimsi - not Shamsi base which is on the border with Iran near Dalbandin - from where the drones have been flying. This is the only airport that is not listed as being under CAA control.
All along, the US at the diplomatic and political levels was continuing with its “do more” mantra and undermining the credibility of the military in terms of its intent vis-à-vis fighting extremism and terrorism. The ISI especially was singled out for attack while the nuclear assets kept coming in for periodic targeting by the US media. As the US became more bogged down in Afghanistan, it sought to shift its failures on to Pakistan so that in the end many assume that it is this reason that has forced the US to shift the war to Pakistan. However, that may only be an offshoot of the larger original game plan to destabilise Pakistan from within by taking the war to the heart of the country - which is where the situation stands poised right now. The Musharraf-US alliance would have continued, but for the people of Pakistan’s desire for justice and freedom which spurred the judicial movement when Musharraf overplayed his hand. But once again the nation was short-changed because the US cleverly managed a new partner linked through the NRO. In Zardari they found an even more cooperative leader - and with democratic credentials to boot! If Musharraf had begun the granting of unfettered access to the US, the Zardari regime has taken it beyond all limits.
The second phase of the US implementation strategy has now begun to be operat-ionalised - that is, to destabilise Pakistan from within by increasing acts of terror carried out in Pakistani cities through well-trained and well-equipped groups centring on TTP - which finds no mention in the Kerry-Lugar Act. Alongside, the military has been tied down in military operations, first in Swat and now in SWA - which has its own fallouts in terms of terrorism and displacement of the population. It has also become necessary to isolate Pakistan from its neighbours and hence the extensive terrorist attacks on Iran’s security forces in Sistan province bordering Pakistan’s Balochistan, so that Iran-Pakistan relations are destroyed - Iran being the only friendly neighbour apart from China. The US covert presence in Pakistan has also now been put in place like a web - beginning from Sindh and Balochistan in the south and southwest, to Punjab to the Capital to Peshawar. There are now US armed covert operatives along with overt marines surrounding the Pakistanis and their nuclear assets. The Kerry-Lugar Act merely gives formal recognition to what has already happened in practice - submission to US diktat.
Only one last phase of the US agenda has to be operat-ionalised, but that will be the toughest. This is to push the country into a civil war-like situation by threatening to target Quetta and southern Punjab as well as Muridke. First there was pressure on the army to move into Swat; now it is SWA and the new mantra of moving the army into southern Punjab has already begun! Overstretch the military and create civil-military fissures so as to totally destabilise the country. When there is a state of total chaos, the US can pressure the UNSC into allowing it to takeover Pakistan’s nuclear assets - what will euphemistically be termed “under international control”. But the big problem now is that too many in the corridors of power in Pakistan are beginning to see the light while the people have also woken up to the lethal American agenda for Pakistan. Unless we can see the whole US game plan, and connect all the dots we will continue to fall prey to this destructive design.
Courtesy: The News
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Forgotten lessons of history
Roedad Khan
October 21, 2009
On Saturday last, the army launched an operation, code-named Rah-i-Nijat against Mehsud strongholds in South Waziristan. "Both air and ground troops are taking part", Major General Athar Abbas, Chief of the Inter-Services Public Relation told the journalists. Earlier Army Chief General Kayani briefed the political leadership on the "imperative" of the operation against the Mehsuds. The die is cast. An invisible Rubicon crossed.
With this operation Pakistan is launched on the path to a protracted, inconclusive war in the mountains of Waziristan. The decision to commit our forces to such a war is, in my view, a tragic error. Waziristan may not be Vietnam but it has its own river of history that General Kayani is now stepping into.
Once again, there is a dry wind blowing throughout Waziristan and parched grasses wait the spark. Now that the match is lit, the blaze may spread like wildfire throughout the tribal area. Talking about Waziristan, a Mehsud tribesman told a missionary doctor at Bannu: "When God created the world there were a lot of stones and rocks and other lumber left over which were all dumped down on this frontier".
In the early 1900s, a crusty British general, Andrew Skeen, wrote a guide to military operation in Waziristan. His first piece of advice: "When planning a military expedition into Pashtun tribal areas, the first thing you must plan is your retreat. All expeditions into this area sooner or later end in retreat under fire".
The British decision to send troops into the Khaisora valley in November 1936 which transformed Ipi's agitation into a full scale uprising almost over night and set Waziristan on fire which lasted until after 1947. The British failed to capture Ipi and the campaign had to be called off. The judgment displayed by the British and the poor intelligence upon which they based their decisions were chiefly to blame for the disasters that followed. This was the last major rebellion in Waziristan which stemmed from an abrupt change of policy.
The tribesmen's unrivalled fighting record, their ability to intervene in Afghan affairs and to involve Afghans in their own affairs, were factors ignored by the British that made Waziristan different from other Frontier areas. This disastrous attempt to "pacify" Waziristan was the last of several major incursions into tribal territory during the hundred years of Britain's presence in Northwest India. On each occasion the tribes and the mountains won a strategic victory, despite local tactical reverses, and the bulk of the Indian troops were forced to withdraw back into the plains of the Indus valley. The British soon learned that you can annex land but not people.
When the British left, Pakistan had reason to be glad that it had inherited a secure North West Frontier. In September 1947, Mr. Jinnah took a bold decision to reverse the "pacification" policy, withdrew regular troops from Waziristan and entered into new agreements with the tribes. Cunningham, the new governor of NWFP, appointed by Mr Jinnah was a Frontier expert. His disillusion with the "pacification" policy was complete. "I think that we must now face a complete change of policy. Razmak has been occupied by regular troops for nearly 25 years. Wana for a few years less. The occupation of Waziristan has been a failure. It has not achieved peace or any appreciable economic development. It ties up an unreasonably large number of troops, and for the last 10 years there have been frequent major and minor offenses against the troops." The change in policy produced dramatic results and paid rich dividends.
All this has now changed. Mr Jinnah's Waziristan policy which had stood the test of time has been reversed. Our troops are back in Waziristan. Some time back, the commander of the US led troops in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Borno, let the cat out of the bag when he said that US and Pakistani forces were working together like "hammer and anvil" to trap Osama and Al Qaeda forces along the border".
Those who know the Frontier are deeply concerned. The Pakistan government is playing with fire. By reversing Mr Jinnah's Waziristan policy, at the behest of Americans, it has alienated powerful tribes in Waziristan and unsettled our western border which had remained peaceful for 62 years since the birth of Pakistan.
The nation is beginning to see the rapidly unfurling consequences of General Musharraf's fateful decision to join the "coalition of the coerced". America's dreaded war on terror has indisputably arrived on Pakistan's soil. Pakistan is slipping into anarchy and stands on the brink of civil war. A perfect storm is looming on the horizon.
We have stumbled into a war that we cannot fight and win for the simple reason that we don't seem to realize what guerrilla war is like. We are sending conventional troops to do an unconventional job. I can foresee a perilous voyage. The war in Waziristan cannot be won because it is perceived as the white man's war. It could be won only if perceived by the powerful tribes as Pakistan's own war. That, unfortunately, is not how they perceive this war. The conflict will, no doubt, be long and protracted. We will suffer more because not even a great power can beat guerrillas. The enemy cannot be seen: he is indigenous to the country. My fear is that we will get bogged down.
War against our own people is too terrible a thing to resort to. Many questions spring to mind. Was the decision to go to war determined by the absence of other viable options? Why was it not debated in parliament? Why deploy military means in pursuit of an indeterminate and primarily political end? Was there a geopolitical imperative to resort to war in Waziristan? Aren't we Pakistanising the American war on our soil?
We must also recognize the limitations of modern, high technology, military equipment in confronting highly motivated guerrilla movement in a treacherous terrain. We must also recognize that the consequences of large-scale military operations – against our own people – particularly in this age of highly sophisticated and destructive weapons – are inherently difficult to predict and control. Therefore, they must be avoided, excepting only when our nation's security is clearly and directly threatened. These are the lessons of history. Pray God we learn them. But as George Bernard Shaw said: "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
Courtesy: The News
October 21, 2009
On Saturday last, the army launched an operation, code-named Rah-i-Nijat against Mehsud strongholds in South Waziristan. "Both air and ground troops are taking part", Major General Athar Abbas, Chief of the Inter-Services Public Relation told the journalists. Earlier Army Chief General Kayani briefed the political leadership on the "imperative" of the operation against the Mehsuds. The die is cast. An invisible Rubicon crossed.
With this operation Pakistan is launched on the path to a protracted, inconclusive war in the mountains of Waziristan. The decision to commit our forces to such a war is, in my view, a tragic error. Waziristan may not be Vietnam but it has its own river of history that General Kayani is now stepping into.
Once again, there is a dry wind blowing throughout Waziristan and parched grasses wait the spark. Now that the match is lit, the blaze may spread like wildfire throughout the tribal area. Talking about Waziristan, a Mehsud tribesman told a missionary doctor at Bannu: "When God created the world there were a lot of stones and rocks and other lumber left over which were all dumped down on this frontier".
In the early 1900s, a crusty British general, Andrew Skeen, wrote a guide to military operation in Waziristan. His first piece of advice: "When planning a military expedition into Pashtun tribal areas, the first thing you must plan is your retreat. All expeditions into this area sooner or later end in retreat under fire".
The British decision to send troops into the Khaisora valley in November 1936 which transformed Ipi's agitation into a full scale uprising almost over night and set Waziristan on fire which lasted until after 1947. The British failed to capture Ipi and the campaign had to be called off. The judgment displayed by the British and the poor intelligence upon which they based their decisions were chiefly to blame for the disasters that followed. This was the last major rebellion in Waziristan which stemmed from an abrupt change of policy.
The tribesmen's unrivalled fighting record, their ability to intervene in Afghan affairs and to involve Afghans in their own affairs, were factors ignored by the British that made Waziristan different from other Frontier areas. This disastrous attempt to "pacify" Waziristan was the last of several major incursions into tribal territory during the hundred years of Britain's presence in Northwest India. On each occasion the tribes and the mountains won a strategic victory, despite local tactical reverses, and the bulk of the Indian troops were forced to withdraw back into the plains of the Indus valley. The British soon learned that you can annex land but not people.
When the British left, Pakistan had reason to be glad that it had inherited a secure North West Frontier. In September 1947, Mr. Jinnah took a bold decision to reverse the "pacification" policy, withdrew regular troops from Waziristan and entered into new agreements with the tribes. Cunningham, the new governor of NWFP, appointed by Mr Jinnah was a Frontier expert. His disillusion with the "pacification" policy was complete. "I think that we must now face a complete change of policy. Razmak has been occupied by regular troops for nearly 25 years. Wana for a few years less. The occupation of Waziristan has been a failure. It has not achieved peace or any appreciable economic development. It ties up an unreasonably large number of troops, and for the last 10 years there have been frequent major and minor offenses against the troops." The change in policy produced dramatic results and paid rich dividends.
All this has now changed. Mr Jinnah's Waziristan policy which had stood the test of time has been reversed. Our troops are back in Waziristan. Some time back, the commander of the US led troops in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Borno, let the cat out of the bag when he said that US and Pakistani forces were working together like "hammer and anvil" to trap Osama and Al Qaeda forces along the border".
Those who know the Frontier are deeply concerned. The Pakistan government is playing with fire. By reversing Mr Jinnah's Waziristan policy, at the behest of Americans, it has alienated powerful tribes in Waziristan and unsettled our western border which had remained peaceful for 62 years since the birth of Pakistan.
The nation is beginning to see the rapidly unfurling consequences of General Musharraf's fateful decision to join the "coalition of the coerced". America's dreaded war on terror has indisputably arrived on Pakistan's soil. Pakistan is slipping into anarchy and stands on the brink of civil war. A perfect storm is looming on the horizon.
We have stumbled into a war that we cannot fight and win for the simple reason that we don't seem to realize what guerrilla war is like. We are sending conventional troops to do an unconventional job. I can foresee a perilous voyage. The war in Waziristan cannot be won because it is perceived as the white man's war. It could be won only if perceived by the powerful tribes as Pakistan's own war. That, unfortunately, is not how they perceive this war. The conflict will, no doubt, be long and protracted. We will suffer more because not even a great power can beat guerrillas. The enemy cannot be seen: he is indigenous to the country. My fear is that we will get bogged down.
War against our own people is too terrible a thing to resort to. Many questions spring to mind. Was the decision to go to war determined by the absence of other viable options? Why was it not debated in parliament? Why deploy military means in pursuit of an indeterminate and primarily political end? Was there a geopolitical imperative to resort to war in Waziristan? Aren't we Pakistanising the American war on our soil?
We must also recognize the limitations of modern, high technology, military equipment in confronting highly motivated guerrilla movement in a treacherous terrain. We must also recognize that the consequences of large-scale military operations – against our own people – particularly in this age of highly sophisticated and destructive weapons – are inherently difficult to predict and control. Therefore, they must be avoided, excepting only when our nation's security is clearly and directly threatened. These are the lessons of history. Pray God we learn them. But as George Bernard Shaw said: "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
Courtesy: The News
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The way forward
Hamid Mir
October 20, 2009
Many Pakistanis still remember the prediction of a US military advisor, David Kalcullin, in March this year. He claimed that Pakistan may collapse in the next six months and Taliban will take over Islamabad. Six months passed in September 2009. Pakistan is not only intact but Pakistani security forces defeated Taliban in Swat. Now Pakistan Army has started a new operation in South Waziristan but misunderstandings about Pakistan are still visible in Washington. This time US policy makers fear a military coup against Zardari-led government in Pakistan. They think that a successful operation in South Waziristan will give more credibility and popularity to Pakistan Army, which will further undermine the authority of Zardari government in Pakistan. Very few people in Washington realise that tension between Pakistan Army and President Zardari were actually created by Kerry-Lugar Bill.
US Congressman John F Tierney is the one who led the efforts to include several controversial provisions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in the US Congress. He tried his level best to defend the Kerry-Lugar Bill in a conference on US-Pakistan relations in Harvard University the other day. Harvard Extension International Relations Club organised the Conference. The US ambassador of Pakistan, Mr Hussain Haqqani, PML-N secretary information Ahsan Iqbal, myself and some other experts were also invited to speak there. This conference provided an excellent opportunity to the students and academia of Harvard to listen the arguments from both sides but unfortunately there was no consensus that how to move forward jointly in the right direction. Ambassador Haqqani rightly said that the only way forward is democracy. US must support democracy in Pakistan. When I raised a question why the US is not listening to the voice of democracy in Pakistan coming through an elected parliament? There was no answer from US side.
No doubt that the US is the most controversial country in Pakistan and Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the US. There is a huge mistrust on both sides but even then both countries need cooperation of each other because they are facing some common threats. Pakistan lies in one of the world's most important geopolitical regions surrounded by Afghanistan, Iran, China and India.
One must admit that many international players want to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam for US. These international players will take advantage of the mistrust created by Kerry-Lugar Bill between Pakistani military and US. I don't doubt the intensions of Senator John Kerry because he really wanted to help Pakistan but weak public diplomacy of Obama administration became a big problem for Senator Kerry. US Congress tried to remove misunderstandings through an explanation but many questions are still there.
Many Pakistani legislatures felt that once again the US Congress ignored the concerns raised about the Kerry-Lugar Bill in their parliament. The Pakistani parliament has adopted unanimous resolution against US drone attacks in the past but US just ignored the voice of Pakistani parliament and increased the drone attacks. Increase in drone attacks has increased suicide bombings in Pakistan. Today US and Pakistan need a joint strategy to defeat terrorism. How can we form a joint strategy to defeat terrorism in the region?
First of all US must stop its drone attacks in Pakistan. US is using drone with a justification that Taliban and Al Qaeda militants are using Pakistani tribal areas as a base to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan. If this is the case then why is the US not interested in securing the 2,500-kilometres-long border between Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why is there no fencing and no proper border check posts? There are more than 350 illegal entry points on the Pak-Afghan border. Every day more than 20,000 vehicles and 45,000 people cross the border without proper documents. How can we stop the cross-border movement of militants if the border is not properly secured?
Secondly the US must give a roadmap for the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. Remember that US President Obama won his election in the name of peace. He opposed the adventurous policies of Bush administration but today he is just following the policies of Bush by sending more and more troops to Afghanistan. Does Obama have any substitute of US troops in Afghanistan? Yes, Obama can give a strong role to UN in Afghanistan. UN peacekeeping forces from countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt should replace US and NATO troops. People of Afghanistan and Pakistan will have more trust in the neutral peacekeeping forces of UN. Replacement of Western troops with Asian troops will weaken Taliban and Al Qaeda. They will lose justification that they are fighting against crusaders.
Thirdly, international community must start immediate efforts to turn Afghanistan into a neutral country like Switzerland. All the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan are interfering there. They are fighting their proxy wars in Afghanistan. A contact group of countries like Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, India, US, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Japan should be created under UN umbrella. This group must chalk out a plan to stop foreign interference not only in Afghanistan but also in the whole region. US must realise that its presence in the region is the root cause of the problem. Nobody can deny the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have become unsafe after the arrival of US troops in the region.
Many people ask the question why there was no insurgency in FATA and Balochistan province before 2002? Many people rightly or wrongly say that the Baloch insurgents are getting training and arms from Afghanistan, which is actually controlled by the US. The US is always concerned by the alleged presence of Taliban in Quetta, but why has the US administration not expressed any concern about the terrorist activities of Baloch insurgents around Quetta? Congressman Tierney told his audience in Harvard that "I am a friend of Pakistan and I will always be honest with Pakistan. I expect the same thing from my counterpart." Honesty demands that US administration must listen to the majority of Pakistanis and answer their valid questions. Honesty demands that if the Supreme Court of Pakistan has given a verdict against a dictator on July 31, 2009, the dictator must be tried in Pakistan and if someone is claiming that Musharraf could not be tried because some "foreign powers" don't want his trail then the US must clarify that at least Washington is not trying to protect the dictator.
It is a fact that the Bush administration brokered a deal between some political players and Pervez Musharraf through infamous "National Reconciliation Ordinance" in 2007. This NRO legitimised corruption in Pakistan. Zardari government has tabled NRO in the parliament. Majority of Pakistanis want their parliament to reject NRO. Honesty demands that Obama administration should stay away from protecting NRO. Majority of Pakistanis believe in democracy but they want a neat and clean democracy. They hate corrupt democracy. They hate any Pakistani Karzai who is more powerful than the elected parliament. Only a powerful parliament, independent judiciary and free media can stop a military coup in Pakistan. No, Karzai can stop a military coup because Karzai always lacks support from his own public. People like David Kalcullin have always created misconceived panic in Washington about Pakistan. Washington needs to understand and respect the will of the common man in Pakistan. They want to become friends but not slave of US. This is the only way forward.
Courtesy: The News
October 20, 2009
Many Pakistanis still remember the prediction of a US military advisor, David Kalcullin, in March this year. He claimed that Pakistan may collapse in the next six months and Taliban will take over Islamabad. Six months passed in September 2009. Pakistan is not only intact but Pakistani security forces defeated Taliban in Swat. Now Pakistan Army has started a new operation in South Waziristan but misunderstandings about Pakistan are still visible in Washington. This time US policy makers fear a military coup against Zardari-led government in Pakistan. They think that a successful operation in South Waziristan will give more credibility and popularity to Pakistan Army, which will further undermine the authority of Zardari government in Pakistan. Very few people in Washington realise that tension between Pakistan Army and President Zardari were actually created by Kerry-Lugar Bill.
US Congressman John F Tierney is the one who led the efforts to include several controversial provisions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in the US Congress. He tried his level best to defend the Kerry-Lugar Bill in a conference on US-Pakistan relations in Harvard University the other day. Harvard Extension International Relations Club organised the Conference. The US ambassador of Pakistan, Mr Hussain Haqqani, PML-N secretary information Ahsan Iqbal, myself and some other experts were also invited to speak there. This conference provided an excellent opportunity to the students and academia of Harvard to listen the arguments from both sides but unfortunately there was no consensus that how to move forward jointly in the right direction. Ambassador Haqqani rightly said that the only way forward is democracy. US must support democracy in Pakistan. When I raised a question why the US is not listening to the voice of democracy in Pakistan coming through an elected parliament? There was no answer from US side.
No doubt that the US is the most controversial country in Pakistan and Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the US. There is a huge mistrust on both sides but even then both countries need cooperation of each other because they are facing some common threats. Pakistan lies in one of the world's most important geopolitical regions surrounded by Afghanistan, Iran, China and India.
One must admit that many international players want to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam for US. These international players will take advantage of the mistrust created by Kerry-Lugar Bill between Pakistani military and US. I don't doubt the intensions of Senator John Kerry because he really wanted to help Pakistan but weak public diplomacy of Obama administration became a big problem for Senator Kerry. US Congress tried to remove misunderstandings through an explanation but many questions are still there.
Many Pakistani legislatures felt that once again the US Congress ignored the concerns raised about the Kerry-Lugar Bill in their parliament. The Pakistani parliament has adopted unanimous resolution against US drone attacks in the past but US just ignored the voice of Pakistani parliament and increased the drone attacks. Increase in drone attacks has increased suicide bombings in Pakistan. Today US and Pakistan need a joint strategy to defeat terrorism. How can we form a joint strategy to defeat terrorism in the region?
First of all US must stop its drone attacks in Pakistan. US is using drone with a justification that Taliban and Al Qaeda militants are using Pakistani tribal areas as a base to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan. If this is the case then why is the US not interested in securing the 2,500-kilometres-long border between Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why is there no fencing and no proper border check posts? There are more than 350 illegal entry points on the Pak-Afghan border. Every day more than 20,000 vehicles and 45,000 people cross the border without proper documents. How can we stop the cross-border movement of militants if the border is not properly secured?
Secondly the US must give a roadmap for the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. Remember that US President Obama won his election in the name of peace. He opposed the adventurous policies of Bush administration but today he is just following the policies of Bush by sending more and more troops to Afghanistan. Does Obama have any substitute of US troops in Afghanistan? Yes, Obama can give a strong role to UN in Afghanistan. UN peacekeeping forces from countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt should replace US and NATO troops. People of Afghanistan and Pakistan will have more trust in the neutral peacekeeping forces of UN. Replacement of Western troops with Asian troops will weaken Taliban and Al Qaeda. They will lose justification that they are fighting against crusaders.
Thirdly, international community must start immediate efforts to turn Afghanistan into a neutral country like Switzerland. All the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan are interfering there. They are fighting their proxy wars in Afghanistan. A contact group of countries like Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, India, US, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Japan should be created under UN umbrella. This group must chalk out a plan to stop foreign interference not only in Afghanistan but also in the whole region. US must realise that its presence in the region is the root cause of the problem. Nobody can deny the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have become unsafe after the arrival of US troops in the region.
Many people ask the question why there was no insurgency in FATA and Balochistan province before 2002? Many people rightly or wrongly say that the Baloch insurgents are getting training and arms from Afghanistan, which is actually controlled by the US. The US is always concerned by the alleged presence of Taliban in Quetta, but why has the US administration not expressed any concern about the terrorist activities of Baloch insurgents around Quetta? Congressman Tierney told his audience in Harvard that "I am a friend of Pakistan and I will always be honest with Pakistan. I expect the same thing from my counterpart." Honesty demands that US administration must listen to the majority of Pakistanis and answer their valid questions. Honesty demands that if the Supreme Court of Pakistan has given a verdict against a dictator on July 31, 2009, the dictator must be tried in Pakistan and if someone is claiming that Musharraf could not be tried because some "foreign powers" don't want his trail then the US must clarify that at least Washington is not trying to protect the dictator.
It is a fact that the Bush administration brokered a deal between some political players and Pervez Musharraf through infamous "National Reconciliation Ordinance" in 2007. This NRO legitimised corruption in Pakistan. Zardari government has tabled NRO in the parliament. Majority of Pakistanis want their parliament to reject NRO. Honesty demands that Obama administration should stay away from protecting NRO. Majority of Pakistanis believe in democracy but they want a neat and clean democracy. They hate corrupt democracy. They hate any Pakistani Karzai who is more powerful than the elected parliament. Only a powerful parliament, independent judiciary and free media can stop a military coup in Pakistan. No, Karzai can stop a military coup because Karzai always lacks support from his own public. People like David Kalcullin have always created misconceived panic in Washington about Pakistan. Washington needs to understand and respect the will of the common man in Pakistan. They want to become friends but not slave of US. This is the only way forward.
Courtesy: The News
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Cycle of violence
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal
October 17, 2009
As the season changes and 2009 hurls to its inevitable end--with an ever-changing yet ever-present scenario of random as well as planned violence, inflicting lands stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq with Pakistan at the centre--one is inclined to look at the grand scheme of things from which this unbridled violence has emerged to claim thousands of lives. What has made these ancient lands so full of violence and death? Why is so much blood being spilled in certain countries of the world and not in others? What is behind this ever-present scene of ruthless killing of human beings in these lands which are supposed to be filled with a sense of security and peace because the majority of people who inhabit these ancient lands are Muslim--that is, those from whose hands other human beings are supposed to be safe?
The case of Iraq is rather clear: a ruthless military dictator came to power, established an unjust system of governance and ruled with an iron fist, until he became too big for his boots: his ambition invited foreign players who used him against Iran, then overthrew him and killed him once he started to misbehave. The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq led to the destruction of whatever system there was and killing and displacement of millions of human beings. Thus violence was sowed in the land and it is being harvested.
The case of Afghanistan is likewise explicable: The Soviet invasion of 1979 brought this sleepy pre-modern land to the forefront of an international confrontation, and the American involvement in its affairs since then has been at the root of all its problems. It continues to remain under American occupation and thus, after thirty years of violence and with continuous occupation by foreign troops, it has little possibility of peace.
The case of Pakistan is rather strange: it seems that this land was hurled into the fire, rather than giving birth to a now intensifying cycle of violence and death. Despite its political instability, Pakistan was still a peaceful land until Z A Bhutto was hanged at Central jail, Rawalpindi, on 4 April, 1979. Whatever the personal shortcomings of Z A Bhutto, he was a man of a previous era--an age in which politics still followed certain rules of conduct and his famous declaration about the murder case against him still holds: My lord, he had said in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, this is not a case of murder; it is murder of a case.
Despite his political activism and grassroots appeal, it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who planted seeds of violence in Pakistan. His socialist policies, coming so late in the day when the entire world was moving in the opposite direction, his failed economic policies which slowed down Pakistan's economic progress, and, most of all, his human-rights abuses, especially those in Balochistan, certainly destabilised Pakistan and strained its already weak socio-political fabric.
As if this was not enough, the military dictator who replaced him poured oil over fire by opening Pakistan to the Afghan drug trade and American weapons: thousands of Pakistanis were recruited to fight a war in Afghanistan, which despite its glorious title of Afghan Jihad, was, in the final analysis, an American war. Thousands more came from other parts of the Muslim world through a well-advertised and well-funded campaign.
In the heydays of the Afghan Jihad, no one was concerned about the after-effects of that war; no one was concerned about the spread of weapons in Pakistan and the consequent emergence of smaller groups which would turn their weapons against the state once the Afghan Jihad was over. True, Afghanistan needed to be released from the Soviet iron fist and there as an Islamic imperative for this, but the same Islamic imperative also demands sagacity in matters that involved the living conditions which would affect future generations. No one was concerned about what would have happen once the Soviet army retreats; no one was inclined to look into the consequences of playing with the fire as if the terrible price of such a play was a joking matter.
Since the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Afghanistan has remained filled with violence, and the ever-increasing circle of the violence that originated in that country is now sweeping through Pakistan. The uncontrollable smaller units of armed men can walk into any city, mosque, building, or other public space and kill at will. This is not what the 180 million people of Pakistan had hoped for; this is not the dream for which millions of people sacrificed their lives and property in 1947; this is not the consequence of anything that emerged from within Pakistan; violence is a foreign element that has intruded and penetrated every nook and corner of public life in Pakistan.
Yet, despite its ubiquitous presence, the present cycle of violence cannot be allowed to become the defining feature of Pakistani polity; it must be brought to a full stop and a new beginning needs to be made for the future of Pakistan. That new beginning requires an entirely new paradigm--an entirely new operative mechanism at the national level. This new policy directive needs to come into existence through a thorough and critical analysis of the present state of affairs, keeping in view the historical roots of violence and the multi-directionality of the very volatile situation that now exists in Pakistan. This is not a weekend project; it requires deep understanding of historical forces which have pushed Pakistan into the cycle of violence and fiercely independent and sincere minds which can come up with a blueprint for a different future for Pakistan. In the absence of such an exercise, the default would be the continuation, even escalation, of violence which now grips Pakistan.
Courtesy: The News
October 17, 2009
As the season changes and 2009 hurls to its inevitable end--with an ever-changing yet ever-present scenario of random as well as planned violence, inflicting lands stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq with Pakistan at the centre--one is inclined to look at the grand scheme of things from which this unbridled violence has emerged to claim thousands of lives. What has made these ancient lands so full of violence and death? Why is so much blood being spilled in certain countries of the world and not in others? What is behind this ever-present scene of ruthless killing of human beings in these lands which are supposed to be filled with a sense of security and peace because the majority of people who inhabit these ancient lands are Muslim--that is, those from whose hands other human beings are supposed to be safe?
The case of Iraq is rather clear: a ruthless military dictator came to power, established an unjust system of governance and ruled with an iron fist, until he became too big for his boots: his ambition invited foreign players who used him against Iran, then overthrew him and killed him once he started to misbehave. The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq led to the destruction of whatever system there was and killing and displacement of millions of human beings. Thus violence was sowed in the land and it is being harvested.
The case of Afghanistan is likewise explicable: The Soviet invasion of 1979 brought this sleepy pre-modern land to the forefront of an international confrontation, and the American involvement in its affairs since then has been at the root of all its problems. It continues to remain under American occupation and thus, after thirty years of violence and with continuous occupation by foreign troops, it has little possibility of peace.
The case of Pakistan is rather strange: it seems that this land was hurled into the fire, rather than giving birth to a now intensifying cycle of violence and death. Despite its political instability, Pakistan was still a peaceful land until Z A Bhutto was hanged at Central jail, Rawalpindi, on 4 April, 1979. Whatever the personal shortcomings of Z A Bhutto, he was a man of a previous era--an age in which politics still followed certain rules of conduct and his famous declaration about the murder case against him still holds: My lord, he had said in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, this is not a case of murder; it is murder of a case.
Despite his political activism and grassroots appeal, it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who planted seeds of violence in Pakistan. His socialist policies, coming so late in the day when the entire world was moving in the opposite direction, his failed economic policies which slowed down Pakistan's economic progress, and, most of all, his human-rights abuses, especially those in Balochistan, certainly destabilised Pakistan and strained its already weak socio-political fabric.
As if this was not enough, the military dictator who replaced him poured oil over fire by opening Pakistan to the Afghan drug trade and American weapons: thousands of Pakistanis were recruited to fight a war in Afghanistan, which despite its glorious title of Afghan Jihad, was, in the final analysis, an American war. Thousands more came from other parts of the Muslim world through a well-advertised and well-funded campaign.
In the heydays of the Afghan Jihad, no one was concerned about the after-effects of that war; no one was concerned about the spread of weapons in Pakistan and the consequent emergence of smaller groups which would turn their weapons against the state once the Afghan Jihad was over. True, Afghanistan needed to be released from the Soviet iron fist and there as an Islamic imperative for this, but the same Islamic imperative also demands sagacity in matters that involved the living conditions which would affect future generations. No one was concerned about what would have happen once the Soviet army retreats; no one was inclined to look into the consequences of playing with the fire as if the terrible price of such a play was a joking matter.
Since the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Afghanistan has remained filled with violence, and the ever-increasing circle of the violence that originated in that country is now sweeping through Pakistan. The uncontrollable smaller units of armed men can walk into any city, mosque, building, or other public space and kill at will. This is not what the 180 million people of Pakistan had hoped for; this is not the dream for which millions of people sacrificed their lives and property in 1947; this is not the consequence of anything that emerged from within Pakistan; violence is a foreign element that has intruded and penetrated every nook and corner of public life in Pakistan.
Yet, despite its ubiquitous presence, the present cycle of violence cannot be allowed to become the defining feature of Pakistani polity; it must be brought to a full stop and a new beginning needs to be made for the future of Pakistan. That new beginning requires an entirely new paradigm--an entirely new operative mechanism at the national level. This new policy directive needs to come into existence through a thorough and critical analysis of the present state of affairs, keeping in view the historical roots of violence and the multi-directionality of the very volatile situation that now exists in Pakistan. This is not a weekend project; it requires deep understanding of historical forces which have pushed Pakistan into the cycle of violence and fiercely independent and sincere minds which can come up with a blueprint for a different future for Pakistan. In the absence of such an exercise, the default would be the continuation, even escalation, of violence which now grips Pakistan.
Courtesy: The News
Friday, October 16, 2009
Taking on the real enemy
Shafqat Mahmood
October 16, 2009
Does the brazen attack on the army's General Headquarters (GHQ) show the terrorists' strength or weakness? However contradictory as it may sound, it demonstrates both. The strength is in the fact that disparate militant elements coming from different parts of the country have coalesced into a coordinated terror network. The weakness is that to make their presence felt, desperate acts with loss of precious assets, have to be undertaken.
Let us look at the strength first. Radical religious groups originating from the Punjab either had an anti-India/pro-Kashmir jihad agenda, in which they had some collaboration from the state. Or they were sectarian outfits targeting Shias, in particular, but also other Sunni groups.
Tribal area based militants were a product of the long Afghan conflict starting in the 80s. After the American invasion of Afghanistan, they became aligned with Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. To find out in detail how this happened please read Imtiaz Gul's book, The Al Qaeda Connection.
Their objective initially was to provide support and safe haven to fleeing Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban. As Gul points out, money played an important part in this. When the Pakistani state began to make life difficult for them, they took it on. Later, their objective morphed into controlling Pakistani territory and establishing a state within a state. This was visible in their Malakand outreach and deliberate infiltration into other parts of NWFP.
These dissimilar groups have now come together with the common agenda of fighting the Pakistani state and this has become the militancy's strength. This merger has been facilitated by their shared hatred of the United States and a warped perception of an ideal Islamic state. They seek to establish it in Pakistan.
The weakness of the terrorist network is reflected in the reckless nature of the GHQ attack. It was indeed audacious and achieved some early results until the Pakistan Army commandos ended it an operation. Many brave soldiers gave the ultimate sacrifice and no words can express the nation's gratitude to them.
But, from the militants' perspective, this attack cost them heavily. They sacrificed an important asset in the shape of the terrorist Aqeel, who has been captured. This raises the possibility of at least parts of their network being exposed.
They could not have been unaware of these pitfalls while planning the operation. It must have been obvious that attacking the GHQ is nothing short of a suicide mission with a low chance of success. The only explanation for this is desperation.
This stems from victory of the armed forces in Malakand that has dealt a deadly blow to the militants, both physically and to their aura of invincibility. The elimination of some top leaders like Baituallah Mehsud and other prominent Al Qaeda allies has further weakened them. The current wave of terror attacks and, particularly, the GHQ operation was a desperate attempt to project strength at a time when the noose is tightening around them.
This is where the forthcoming Waziristan operation becomes so critical. It will be tough given the terrain and the strength of the militants and, sadly, many brave soldiers will die for their country. But, it is the ultimate safe haven crammed with Al Qaeda, Afghan and local Taliban, Uzbeks and Chechens and many wanted terrorists from Punjab. This scorpions den has to be wiped clean.
It will require coordination with American/NATO forces in Afghanistan because unless these elements are interdicted from the other side, they will just vanish and regroup on Afghan territory. The Americans have been pushing for this operation and should do what it takes but will the current imbroglio over the Kerry-Lugar Bill have any effect? Unlikely, because the military to military cooperation is apparently good. While there has been a political reaction to the Pakistan Army's public stance against clauses of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, there has not been a word from the US military. Representative Berman who has taken a lead in this was clearly defending his own position because he is responsible for the folly of putting intemperate language in the bill.
This is also now being widely recognised in the United States. An important commentator in The Washington Post, David Ignatius, said that "the finger-wagging conditions in the bill illustrate a special form of American hubris. US politicians become so accustomed to lecturing others that they lose sight of how their words will be read in foreign capitals and how legislative boilerplate will play on foreign insecurities and anxieties."
Ignatius has aptly identified the kind of mindset that prevails in the American legislative branch. It would also be useful to understand that the parliament, known as Congress in the US, can often act like loose cannon. Its pronouncements, particularly of the lower house, can totally be at variance with the policy of the executive branch.
The various lobbyists that surround it have influence, particularly the Israeli lobby on Mideast issues. But to imagine that on every matter interest groups and particularly foreign representatives will be able to insert language of their choice in legislative acts displays total ignorance of the American system.
It is in this context that I find dark conspiracies attributed to Pakistan's Ambassador Hussain Haqqani so overblown. Haqqani has been a public figure for a long time and many people, including me, can have issues with his political choices and policy postures. But to attribute downright treachery indeed treason to him is uncalled for and entirely without substance.
This may not relate to the topic at hand but if one has to go looking for people who have harmed the country, there is no need to go further than Jamshed Dasti, MNA. This man, who is the chairman of the National Assembly committee on sports, severely damaged our cricket team's already controversial image by alleging match fixing.
Such people have no right to operate at the national level. He showed his true colours by hurling filthy abuses during a session of the national assembly. While I am no fan of Faisal Saleh Hayat, people like Dasti should be told to go back to the hole they have come out of.
What of the Kerry-Lugar Bill and how are we going to move forward? As I said last week, there is little chance of the bill's language being changed. A sop to the Pakistani sensibilities is coming in the shape of a statement that will swear everlasting commitment to Pakistan. This fig leaf will be gratefully accepted by the government. The language of the bill will not change.
The reality is that Pakistan and the United States both need each other. Some would argue that the US needs Pakistan more than we need it but this is nothing more than bravado. Pakistan has severe economic and security problems and US help is important.
This can change if the society transforms itself and particularly the well off are willing to reduce their lifestyle. But, that is unlikely to happen. In the meantime, the equation is simple. We need the money.
Courtesy: The News
October 16, 2009
Does the brazen attack on the army's General Headquarters (GHQ) show the terrorists' strength or weakness? However contradictory as it may sound, it demonstrates both. The strength is in the fact that disparate militant elements coming from different parts of the country have coalesced into a coordinated terror network. The weakness is that to make their presence felt, desperate acts with loss of precious assets, have to be undertaken.
Let us look at the strength first. Radical religious groups originating from the Punjab either had an anti-India/pro-Kashmir jihad agenda, in which they had some collaboration from the state. Or they were sectarian outfits targeting Shias, in particular, but also other Sunni groups.
Tribal area based militants were a product of the long Afghan conflict starting in the 80s. After the American invasion of Afghanistan, they became aligned with Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. To find out in detail how this happened please read Imtiaz Gul's book, The Al Qaeda Connection.
Their objective initially was to provide support and safe haven to fleeing Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban. As Gul points out, money played an important part in this. When the Pakistani state began to make life difficult for them, they took it on. Later, their objective morphed into controlling Pakistani territory and establishing a state within a state. This was visible in their Malakand outreach and deliberate infiltration into other parts of NWFP.
These dissimilar groups have now come together with the common agenda of fighting the Pakistani state and this has become the militancy's strength. This merger has been facilitated by their shared hatred of the United States and a warped perception of an ideal Islamic state. They seek to establish it in Pakistan.
The weakness of the terrorist network is reflected in the reckless nature of the GHQ attack. It was indeed audacious and achieved some early results until the Pakistan Army commandos ended it an operation. Many brave soldiers gave the ultimate sacrifice and no words can express the nation's gratitude to them.
But, from the militants' perspective, this attack cost them heavily. They sacrificed an important asset in the shape of the terrorist Aqeel, who has been captured. This raises the possibility of at least parts of their network being exposed.
They could not have been unaware of these pitfalls while planning the operation. It must have been obvious that attacking the GHQ is nothing short of a suicide mission with a low chance of success. The only explanation for this is desperation.
This stems from victory of the armed forces in Malakand that has dealt a deadly blow to the militants, both physically and to their aura of invincibility. The elimination of some top leaders like Baituallah Mehsud and other prominent Al Qaeda allies has further weakened them. The current wave of terror attacks and, particularly, the GHQ operation was a desperate attempt to project strength at a time when the noose is tightening around them.
This is where the forthcoming Waziristan operation becomes so critical. It will be tough given the terrain and the strength of the militants and, sadly, many brave soldiers will die for their country. But, it is the ultimate safe haven crammed with Al Qaeda, Afghan and local Taliban, Uzbeks and Chechens and many wanted terrorists from Punjab. This scorpions den has to be wiped clean.
It will require coordination with American/NATO forces in Afghanistan because unless these elements are interdicted from the other side, they will just vanish and regroup on Afghan territory. The Americans have been pushing for this operation and should do what it takes but will the current imbroglio over the Kerry-Lugar Bill have any effect? Unlikely, because the military to military cooperation is apparently good. While there has been a political reaction to the Pakistan Army's public stance against clauses of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, there has not been a word from the US military. Representative Berman who has taken a lead in this was clearly defending his own position because he is responsible for the folly of putting intemperate language in the bill.
This is also now being widely recognised in the United States. An important commentator in The Washington Post, David Ignatius, said that "the finger-wagging conditions in the bill illustrate a special form of American hubris. US politicians become so accustomed to lecturing others that they lose sight of how their words will be read in foreign capitals and how legislative boilerplate will play on foreign insecurities and anxieties."
Ignatius has aptly identified the kind of mindset that prevails in the American legislative branch. It would also be useful to understand that the parliament, known as Congress in the US, can often act like loose cannon. Its pronouncements, particularly of the lower house, can totally be at variance with the policy of the executive branch.
The various lobbyists that surround it have influence, particularly the Israeli lobby on Mideast issues. But to imagine that on every matter interest groups and particularly foreign representatives will be able to insert language of their choice in legislative acts displays total ignorance of the American system.
It is in this context that I find dark conspiracies attributed to Pakistan's Ambassador Hussain Haqqani so overblown. Haqqani has been a public figure for a long time and many people, including me, can have issues with his political choices and policy postures. But to attribute downright treachery indeed treason to him is uncalled for and entirely without substance.
This may not relate to the topic at hand but if one has to go looking for people who have harmed the country, there is no need to go further than Jamshed Dasti, MNA. This man, who is the chairman of the National Assembly committee on sports, severely damaged our cricket team's already controversial image by alleging match fixing.
Such people have no right to operate at the national level. He showed his true colours by hurling filthy abuses during a session of the national assembly. While I am no fan of Faisal Saleh Hayat, people like Dasti should be told to go back to the hole they have come out of.
What of the Kerry-Lugar Bill and how are we going to move forward? As I said last week, there is little chance of the bill's language being changed. A sop to the Pakistani sensibilities is coming in the shape of a statement that will swear everlasting commitment to Pakistan. This fig leaf will be gratefully accepted by the government. The language of the bill will not change.
The reality is that Pakistan and the United States both need each other. Some would argue that the US needs Pakistan more than we need it but this is nothing more than bravado. Pakistan has severe economic and security problems and US help is important.
This can change if the society transforms itself and particularly the well off are willing to reduce their lifestyle. But, that is unlikely to happen. In the meantime, the equation is simple. We need the money.
Courtesy: The News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)