By Amir Zia
June 2, 2014
The News
The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy
PTI chairman Imran Khan has again advised the military leadership to review its decision of an operation against Al-Qaeda-linked foreign and local militants in the troubled tribal areas. Ironically, his latest appeal was made the same day Chief of the Army Staff General Raheel Sharif was visiting troops in South Waziristan on May 27 with a message that the nation has rejected the “misplaced ideology of the terrorists.”
While the army chief’s statement reflected the clarity of thought of a soldier, Imran Khan’s views were of a sceptic and betrayed a defeatist mindset. The politician dubbed the restrained military action against the terrorists’ hideouts as the “use of naked force” and alleged that it was creating “an East-Pakistan like situation” in the tribal areas.
This very parallel between the tribal areas and former East Pakistan is enough to show Imran Khan’s limited and flawed grasp of history, geography and politics. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The entire nature, scope and dynamics of the two conflicts are poles apart, but perhaps this is the discussion for some other time.
The important point is army chief’s mission statement that called for getting rid of the ‘menace of terrorism’. This, indeed, remains the most vital precondition if any government wants to revive the country’s economy and take it forward. General Sharif, while reiterating the mission statement, hit the bull’s eye when he told his troops and the people that the “terrorists… have clearly lost their cause” and are being “marginalised”.
However, Imran Khan, who lives in his make-believe bubble, passionately pleaded that the government should stick to the controversial peace process with the local Taliban that remains stalled since end-March.
Imran Khan is not the only politician opposed to the military operation against militants. He has his ideological allies within Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government – which is a reluctant partner in the fight against extremism and terrorism – as well as in rightwing and religious parties that fail to see the gravity of this internal challenge for the country.
The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy.
Rather than galvanising the nation behind the armed forces and taking the ownership of this more conflict, many of leading politicians are attempting to confuse the issue by calling it an ‘American war.’ By doing this, they are advertently or inadvertently supporting the terrorists and extremists, who want to bring down the state and see the military as their enemy number one as it is the only organised force that has the ability to foil their designs.
After being a victim of the organised bloodletting and ceaseless terror campaign unleashed since 2002, what could be more unfortunate for a country that its key politicians are unable to see the internal enemy holed in North Waziristan – the last remaining terror sanctuary on the Pakistani soil?
The pertinent question is: what do the local Taliban and their foreign allies aim to achieve through the talks? And, more importantly, whether the state is ready to concede to the Taliban demands?
To begin with, the local Taliban want a ‘peace-zone’ in South Waziristan, which has been cleared hill-by-hill by the security forces at the cost of huge sacrifices. The creation of such a zone will leave the local population again at the mercy of the Taliban and their savage ways. It will threaten the lives of those locals who sided with the armed forces. It will allow the Taliban to expand the base of their operations, run a state within the state and use the Pakistani soil to foment terrorism both within the country and abroad. No sane mind can accept this demand. The military leadership is 100 percent right in vetoing such a concession.
In international politics, peace zones are established by a third party, such as the United Nations. The creation of such zones underlines the erosion or collapse of the state. Do the advocates of peace talks realise the ramifications for the country if any such demand gets accepted?
The second sticking point is the Taliban demand for the release of hardened terrorists. Again, the military leadership’s refusal to accept this demand makes sense as these hard-core terrorists – responsible for killing countless of Pakistani soldiers and civilians – will again join the terror network.
Hundreds of such terrorists are locked up at the 11 centres. The trials of these terrorists are moving at a proverbial snail’s pace due to absence of proper anti-terror laws and courts – issues the government and parliament have failed to address so far.
The Taliban leadership are effectively using talks as a ploy to regroup and reorganise themselves when pressed hard by the armed forces. In return, they offer symbolic relief from terror attacks, but maintain their potential to fight another day. This makes perfect sense for non-state actors wanting to prolong the conflict. But for a state, protracted conflicts are always a bad omen.
Those politicians advocating talks and pleading with security forces not to react in the wake of terror assaults should try to go into the details of the Taliban set of demands, which aims to protect their terror sanctuaries. Should the state concede?
In Fata alone, more than 4,000 soldiers have embraced martyrdom since the start of the conflict, while more than 13,500 have been wounded. The civilian death toll exceeds 8,200 with more than 24,000 wounded. Yet, we hardly see Imran and his likes ever speaking for these victims and their families in as passionate a manner as they speak for militants. Instead, they attempt to demoralise the nation, try to insert doubts in the minds of our soldiers and belittle their sacrifices by calling the retaliatory strikes by the armed forces as use of naked force.
Let there be no confusion that it was the Al-Qaeda and its allies who brought this war to Pakistan. The conflict started when militants refused to demolish their terror network in the tribal areas despite repeated pleas by the former military-led government, forcing our troops to move in to establish the writ of the state and meet Pakistan’s international obligations.
Instead of backing our soldiers fighting this internal enemy, many timid politicians – for their narrow vested interests and safety – are preaching to the military to review its policy without realising its domestic and international implications. They choose to ignore what happened to past peace accords during the previous era. Each and every deal was broken by militants.
For any state, a protracted conflict is the worst choice to be made. No state allows the existence of a potential disruptive force that challenges its writ and makes the security forces vulnerable within its own territory.
Some rightwing analysts and politicians are celebrating the fact that the talks resulted in the decline in incidents of terrorism and created a wedge between Taliban factions. However, they forget that infighting among bands of non-state actors also undermines the state and in no way means that the potential threat has gone. Our history shows that playing one set of militants against the other is not smart statesmanship. Within its territorial boundaries, the state alone should have the sole prerogative of resorting to violence. It cannot be given to any outlawed or legal group.
The tactics of an on-off operation and retaliatory attacks itself is questionable. It demonstrates lack of a cohesive strategy. Pakistan must smash the terror network, re-establishing the writ of the state and show zero tolerance for foreign militants on our soil. North Waziristan remains the last safe haven for terrorists and it can be reclaimed by the Pakistan Army within weeks, provided it is allowed to do its job by the government and the Imran Khans of this world. But our politicians live on a totally different plane.
June 2, 2014
The News
The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy
PTI chairman Imran Khan has again advised the military leadership to review its decision of an operation against Al-Qaeda-linked foreign and local militants in the troubled tribal areas. Ironically, his latest appeal was made the same day Chief of the Army Staff General Raheel Sharif was visiting troops in South Waziristan on May 27 with a message that the nation has rejected the “misplaced ideology of the terrorists.”
While the army chief’s statement reflected the clarity of thought of a soldier, Imran Khan’s views were of a sceptic and betrayed a defeatist mindset. The politician dubbed the restrained military action against the terrorists’ hideouts as the “use of naked force” and alleged that it was creating “an East-Pakistan like situation” in the tribal areas.
This very parallel between the tribal areas and former East Pakistan is enough to show Imran Khan’s limited and flawed grasp of history, geography and politics. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The entire nature, scope and dynamics of the two conflicts are poles apart, but perhaps this is the discussion for some other time.
The important point is army chief’s mission statement that called for getting rid of the ‘menace of terrorism’. This, indeed, remains the most vital precondition if any government wants to revive the country’s economy and take it forward. General Sharif, while reiterating the mission statement, hit the bull’s eye when he told his troops and the people that the “terrorists… have clearly lost their cause” and are being “marginalised”.
However, Imran Khan, who lives in his make-believe bubble, passionately pleaded that the government should stick to the controversial peace process with the local Taliban that remains stalled since end-March.
Imran Khan is not the only politician opposed to the military operation against militants. He has his ideological allies within Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government – which is a reluctant partner in the fight against extremism and terrorism – as well as in rightwing and religious parties that fail to see the gravity of this internal challenge for the country.
The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy.
Rather than galvanising the nation behind the armed forces and taking the ownership of this more conflict, many of leading politicians are attempting to confuse the issue by calling it an ‘American war.’ By doing this, they are advertently or inadvertently supporting the terrorists and extremists, who want to bring down the state and see the military as their enemy number one as it is the only organised force that has the ability to foil their designs.
After being a victim of the organised bloodletting and ceaseless terror campaign unleashed since 2002, what could be more unfortunate for a country that its key politicians are unable to see the internal enemy holed in North Waziristan – the last remaining terror sanctuary on the Pakistani soil?
The pertinent question is: what do the local Taliban and their foreign allies aim to achieve through the talks? And, more importantly, whether the state is ready to concede to the Taliban demands?
To begin with, the local Taliban want a ‘peace-zone’ in South Waziristan, which has been cleared hill-by-hill by the security forces at the cost of huge sacrifices. The creation of such a zone will leave the local population again at the mercy of the Taliban and their savage ways. It will threaten the lives of those locals who sided with the armed forces. It will allow the Taliban to expand the base of their operations, run a state within the state and use the Pakistani soil to foment terrorism both within the country and abroad. No sane mind can accept this demand. The military leadership is 100 percent right in vetoing such a concession.
In international politics, peace zones are established by a third party, such as the United Nations. The creation of such zones underlines the erosion or collapse of the state. Do the advocates of peace talks realise the ramifications for the country if any such demand gets accepted?
The second sticking point is the Taliban demand for the release of hardened terrorists. Again, the military leadership’s refusal to accept this demand makes sense as these hard-core terrorists – responsible for killing countless of Pakistani soldiers and civilians – will again join the terror network.
Hundreds of such terrorists are locked up at the 11 centres. The trials of these terrorists are moving at a proverbial snail’s pace due to absence of proper anti-terror laws and courts – issues the government and parliament have failed to address so far.
The Taliban leadership are effectively using talks as a ploy to regroup and reorganise themselves when pressed hard by the armed forces. In return, they offer symbolic relief from terror attacks, but maintain their potential to fight another day. This makes perfect sense for non-state actors wanting to prolong the conflict. But for a state, protracted conflicts are always a bad omen.
Those politicians advocating talks and pleading with security forces not to react in the wake of terror assaults should try to go into the details of the Taliban set of demands, which aims to protect their terror sanctuaries. Should the state concede?
In Fata alone, more than 4,000 soldiers have embraced martyrdom since the start of the conflict, while more than 13,500 have been wounded. The civilian death toll exceeds 8,200 with more than 24,000 wounded. Yet, we hardly see Imran and his likes ever speaking for these victims and their families in as passionate a manner as they speak for militants. Instead, they attempt to demoralise the nation, try to insert doubts in the minds of our soldiers and belittle their sacrifices by calling the retaliatory strikes by the armed forces as use of naked force.
Let there be no confusion that it was the Al-Qaeda and its allies who brought this war to Pakistan. The conflict started when militants refused to demolish their terror network in the tribal areas despite repeated pleas by the former military-led government, forcing our troops to move in to establish the writ of the state and meet Pakistan’s international obligations.
Instead of backing our soldiers fighting this internal enemy, many timid politicians – for their narrow vested interests and safety – are preaching to the military to review its policy without realising its domestic and international implications. They choose to ignore what happened to past peace accords during the previous era. Each and every deal was broken by militants.
For any state, a protracted conflict is the worst choice to be made. No state allows the existence of a potential disruptive force that challenges its writ and makes the security forces vulnerable within its own territory.
Some rightwing analysts and politicians are celebrating the fact that the talks resulted in the decline in incidents of terrorism and created a wedge between Taliban factions. However, they forget that infighting among bands of non-state actors also undermines the state and in no way means that the potential threat has gone. Our history shows that playing one set of militants against the other is not smart statesmanship. Within its territorial boundaries, the state alone should have the sole prerogative of resorting to violence. It cannot be given to any outlawed or legal group.
The tactics of an on-off operation and retaliatory attacks itself is questionable. It demonstrates lack of a cohesive strategy. Pakistan must smash the terror network, re-establishing the writ of the state and show zero tolerance for foreign militants on our soil. North Waziristan remains the last safe haven for terrorists and it can be reclaimed by the Pakistan Army within weeks, provided it is allowed to do its job by the government and the Imran Khans of this world. But our politicians live on a totally different plane.
No comments:
Post a Comment