Acts of Terrorism in Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mk Sahib and like minded others:

We pakistanis give our army too much credit, respect and power.

Hog wash.

The majority of Pakistanis, political parties and media ripped into the Army after the LM fiasco when it did act decisively against the extremists.

The only people who are gutless and spineless here are the Pakistanis on either side that attack the Army for (a) Going after the terrorists or (b) Bowing to public opinion and the democratic process and not going after the terrorists.

The analysis on either side is the shallow and safe one of finding a convenient scapegoat, instead of recognizing that the problems are much deeper in Pakistan's polity and society.

The Military cannot win an insurgency without support from the public and the GoP. What has the GoP done to rehabilitate the refugees from bajaur? What plans does it have for rehabilitation and reconstruction if lets say the Army goes in tomorrow and clears out every part of the Tribal areas?

Some of you seem to think that the only thing we need to do is send in the Army to blow away the Taliban and all is well. In the absence of a supporting reconstruction and development strategy, any military gains will be squandered, and you will have an extremely pissed of populace that will be easy pickings for the next wave of extremism.

Sorry, but I don't see analysis here, I just see a frustrated blame game focused solely on the kinetic aspects of fighting the insurgency, without any thought given to the overall requirements for a long term solution.

We don't have the resources of the US and NATO, we cannot afford to waste billions as they have in Afghanistan with so little to show while continuing to use military force to maintain a stalemate.

And while the Army gets damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, the 'democratic' government representing 'Solah Crore Awaam' is sitting pretty twiddling its thumbs hoping someone else makes the decisions for it so it can resort to plausible denial in case things don't work out, and many of you are abetting the GoP and the remaining political leadership in that abdication of its responsibilities.

If you want the Army to be responsible, then advocate for and get the country to support a dictatorship, Martial law and an autocratic state first.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi AM,

If you feel that way---that is your right by choice.

What I am saying over here is that this insurgency is the indirect creation of the pak army. When the pak army didnot analyse the situation properly when the al qaeda were on the run from afghanistan and coming to hide in pakistan---that was the job of the pak millitary heirarchy to understand----that today is the day that tables have turned----the world has changed----old alliances need to left alone and new issues must be tackled head-on.

In the early days after the war started---pakistan army would be strutting around capturing an al qaeda leader one here and another one there, making a show out of it for the american TV media and visiting american officials. It became so fake---that just to watch it, became nauseating.

The actions of pak millitary officers when rounding up al qaeda operatives is also debatable. They weere talking about " our muslim brothers " and got blown away---a bus load of prisoners was not properly shackled---they in turn rushed and over powered their millitary guards--snatched the weapons---killed the guards and disappeared into the mountains---when asked by the officer incharge---why the prisoners were not bound---he came with the muslim brotherhood excuse one more time---over the dead bodies of his soldiers---.

I keep repeating again and again---pak millitary didnot properly comprehend the consequences of the after effects of afghanistan invasion properly. Its anger towards the americans for the 15 years of SANCTIONS played a big part in how they thought about the situation and planned and acted upon it.

The pak millitary also had a very difficult time in cutting off the umbilical cord with the mujahideen---in their minds they still wanted to utilize the services of the mujahideen in future confrontation with india---but the problem here is they forgot how to get out of this mess first and foremeost.

The civilian govt has come into force just now---a year or so ago. Who stopped the millitary in the first year---2002---2003---2004---2005---2006. No one but the millitary itself.

That is what I am saying---the long term analysis of the pak millitary was wrong---their assessment about the situation was faulty---their lack of understanding of other powers involved in the de-stabilization effort of pakistan was simply pathetic and beyond excuse.

Did anyone think that india would sit down and take it quietly when the gwadar port was being built. Pakistanis were bragging openly about chinese navy having a base their in the future. Did anyone with any bit of intellect believed that india won't do anything to counter it---.

That was the job of the pak millitary and its intelligence wing and the generals to realize what has happened and what is in it for us in the future.

The intentions of the u s were clear right from day one in afghanistan---the u s had landed in afghanistan without a total committment by its land forces---with a minimal number of ground troops and all the air support---the message was clear to understand for the pak millitary. Their job would be ten times as tough---but that was upto the pak millitary heirarchy to understand---well much did they understand the treachery.

Then on a deception---india places half a million troops on pak border---on the pretext of a fake attack on indian parliament. Pak millitary should have closed ranks then and there right away circled the wagons and realized what india was planning to do---then in turn, turned around and assaulted the al qaeda and its cohorts with a renewed vengeance and gotten rid of the menace with a massive strike force.

Time is the worst enemy against any insurgency---the seriousness of the situation needs to be understood right from day one---but the problem was that the paks got into the debate of if it was or if it was not---did Bin Laden do it or did he not---whereas they should have been thinkinh---how can we get out this mess alive and in one piece. Once you do that---then one can discuss the intricacies of the issues and have the debates thay want to.

We put the blame on our millitary, because we spend the most money on our millitary---they have been the center of our financial attention for the longest time---we expect them to be well in tune with the world affairs---we want them to know about about the treachery and deceit of our enemies well ahead of us and have a game plane ready to counter the threat----when they don't and get an egg on our faces---they will get what is coming to them. Pak army is no HOLY COW.

 

[muse]

AM

Your ire is misplaced - allow me to examine your citique,you suggest that the "democratic" govt is to blame - I refer you to the IHT editorial, no one is excusing the so called "democratic" govt and you can read exactly what I think of this sham of a democratic govt on threads such as "Iching for a coup" - you go on to say

What has the GoP done to rehabilitate the refugees from bajaur? What plans does it have for rehabilitation and reconstruction if lets say the Army goes in tomorrow and clears out every part of the Tribal areas?

You seem not to realize that your assumption is that the Pak Fauj is Alien with in Pakistan, you assume that the peoples want the Talib.

You are wong in both assumption. Pakistan army need no winning of hearts and minds, it needs only to perform it's duty which is at least to some of us, clear; safeguard Pakistanis and their property. It is the Talib that is the alien, the usurper and the people scared for their lives and this would not have been the case as MK has pointed tohad the army been dicisive in years preceeding the so caled democratic government.

The position that

Some of you seem to think that the only thing we need to do is send in the Army to blow away the Taliban and all is well. In the absence of a supporting reconstruction and development strategy

is again based on assumptions that apply to a alien occupation force - regardless of what The Australian Kilcullen suggests, at the end of the day, the insurgency is quelled when the insurgent is killed - lets be clear, while you base your assumptions on the notion that the people support the talib, the opposing position suggests that the people do not support talib but are intimidated by the talib and seek relief and that the infection and contagion of the talib has spread only because it has not been countered by the army with a view to eradicate it. The people now surrendered to the talib would like development but they are not in insurection, and they have not said build me X or Y or Z or I will burn the flag of Pakistan and suicide bomb Pakistani cities. I would encourage you to take this in to account and refine your position.

You offer "

If you want the Army to be responsible, then advocate for and get the country to support a dictatorship, Martial law and an autocratic state first

Again, please indicate that you understand the reason for the army's existence - is it any other than safeguarding Pakistanis and their property against all threats?? See, this it the Army Primary DUTY -- and as you will note in the editorial, and while you accept that Mr. Gen. Kiyani played a political role in dissipating the conflict inherent in the long March, and you will agree that it was a political role, now suggest that to safeguard Pakistanis and their property, the proponents of army action ought to be adviocating a dictatorship -- in fact we are warning against a dictatorship that Mr. Nawaz Sharif has spent significant time and capital planning.

AM, army can change the political dynamic in the country which you suggest is "complex" - well, it is a given that the politics in Pakisgtan is complex, however; army action against the Talib will win it support - Pakistanis are not, repeat not, pro-talib, certainly not in Pakistan and are looking to army to do it's DUTY. Kinetic action is what army is about and the talib will not be placated by our surrender, it is our conversion that he seeks, it becomes simple either he lives or we do.

You have further suggested that the army is being scapegoated, but by whom? By those who want the army to do it's duty or is it that by keeping army inactive, a space is being created to further Talib ambitions? You will have noted that the literature suggests that the Talib training has become increasingly sophisticated and that their strategy is one of maoist peoples war combined with "focoist strategy popularized by by Che Guevera and later regis Debray, according to which the presence of a roving armed band is supposed to arouse oppositionto the government through inspirational violence...and Pakistani-sponsored insurgents in Kashmir during the 1990s adopted a very similar approach, even though a Maoist protracted warfare model might have served them better. As Schfield further demomnstrates, the focoist approach has since been endorsed as the official Pakistani special forces doctrine for sponsoring insurgents in the conduct of guerrilla warfare" (Kilcullen Pg87)

Kilcullen is not so subtle and his readers do not fail to read between the lines, lets similarly, agree that continued army inaction and unwillingness to eradicate the talib/AQ will arouse suspicions that may prove most damaging indeed.

As MK has said, Holy Cows are not for us, our method and our patriotism is in criticism that seeks to awaken us to duty and the longer we slumber, the more urgently alarms will sound. Please do consider, losing Pakistan will not secure the army, will it??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Muse,

I disagree that the insurgency will be quelled merely through the Military going into the tribal areas, displacing millions and rendering them homeless.

What will happen is what happened in Bajaur - the insurgents will no longer attempt to control the terrain, they will merely blend into it and merge into the surrounding populace. In the mean time your millions of destitute and homeless will become a rallying cry against 'America's rental Army'. The majority of the Tribals may not be against Pakistan now, but when the GoP deserts them in the aftermath of such violence and chaos, the simplistic Utopian vision of 'Shariah' will find far more takers than it does now.

Your argument in favor of overwhelming military action in the absence of any long term strategy to 'hold and develop' the areas will turn FATA into Afghanistan - we are seeing the rumblings in the refugees from Bajaur already.

The people of FATA and Swat are humans after all - human needs will dictate that having food and shelter will rank above a repressive life under the Taliban - such a situation will be untenable and a losing battle to an insurgency that will find fertile ground amongst those rendered destitute through military action and GoP apathy.

You are losing sight of reason in your eagerness to see blood, much as you were when you called for bloodshed in Karachi as a way of 'awakening the masses'.

The Military component cannot be disassociated from a comprehensive reconstruction and development component so as to not lose gains made by the military, unless the threat from the militants reaches a level that necessitates action regardless - which we may now be seeing in Dir, Buner and possibly Swat valley.

Again, please indicate that you understand that the reason for the army's existence - is it any other than safeguarding Pakistanis and their property against all threats??

I understand what the Army's role is quite well, and I also understand that the Army is subservient to our elected leadership.

This is a war of perceptions as much as it is an ideological and kinetic war, and the army acting on its own will lose that war of perceptions as the 'peoples army' unless the political leadership is on board and endorses and owns the Army's actions. This is not some hypothetical scenario, this is precisely what happened in the aftermath of the Lal Masjid.

The army acted on its own (the GoP being an extension of the Army through Musharraf) against extremists and was vilified by Pakistanis and witnessed a surge in violence and extremism. Granted the judiciary issue and the lack of a democratic government played a role in the animosity towards the GoP, but without broad political support, the Army's actions will be looked at as 'dictatorial' and unconstitutional.

Pakistanis have shown signs of awakening from their stupor, as they have seen the barbarity of the Taliban on their TV screens, as they have heard Sufi condemn everything they vilified the Army for - democracy, the rule of law and an impartial judicial system. The Army therefore needs to take up the challenge in a way that shows it supporting the political system, constitution and rule of law, tapping into that sentiment amongst Pakistanis - it should not act on its own.

The people are fickle. Without the political leadership constantly reminding them of the dangers of extremism and the necessity of taking whatever action necessary to thwart it, the people will return to scapegoating the military as 'America's rental army'.

Legitimacy amongst Pakistanis is essential for the Army to operate successfully over the long run, and I do not see legitimacy unless the political leadership owns this war, and while you point at editorials indicating criticism of the GoP, the criticism directed at the Army is a blatant attempt to get it to act regardless of GoP policy, and it is therefore an attempt to get the army to act unconstitutionally which will rob it of its legitimacy if and when things go south (and the situation will get worse before it gets better).

 

[Hellfire]

Agnostic

On the whole I agree with your assesment of how the battle has to be fought viz. militarily as also socio-economically. However you do need to push in as many troops as can be done to hold ground and dominate the area. While the insurgent will blend into the surroundings as you rightly pointed out, the higher the ratio of troops you attain in the combat zone, the higher the effective control you can exercise thus reassuring the local populance of protection from Taliban.

Success for PA in CI grid now will lie in its ability to use only troops in adequate numbers without any heavy armour/air/artillery support which will help in reduction of collateral damage as you shall not be fighting the talibs in open areas but in cities/villages of the area now. This will entail heavy casualties if the adequate force level is not maintained at any onset of operations. Maximal response in terms of manpower will help you overcome the limitations of fire support from ancillary support units in a built up area. The trick is to utilise mountain and built up area fighting concepts without utilisation of any air/artillery/armour assets.

Lets see how quickly PA is able to adopt to a CI grid from conventional posturing as its a time consuming job and you learn with casualties sustained.

 

[Hellfire]

Muse

I do have to agree with AM that PA has to win hearts and minds of the local populance too in order to prevail.

The mere fact that an army is seen as a draconian force by any non-combatant inhabiting an insurgent infested area is a reason alone. In addition to that, with reports of utilisation of helicopter gunships for fire missions as also armour and heavy artillery, soon you shall end up alienating the population as employment of such weapons will invariably lead to loss of civil life and property.

While the common citizen in that case will not be in a position to blame Taliban (Talibs dont care anyways) he/she shall be in a position to blame the GoP and PA and this situation will be assuredly exploited by Talibs to garner anti government support in the region. This I speak from seeing IA experiences in the early 90s when overwhelming response would end up in heavy collateral damage which is very effectively exploited till date as part of Indian atrocity. This aspect of warfare will be a very crucial one as this will decide what level of sustenance and support does Taliban derive from the region in order to successfully run operations against the PA.

Another factor that is worrisome is the sleeper cells in major Pakistani cities. They may get activated and any strike in a major city like Lahore/Islamabad etc may lead to a very harsh response by army which may further complicate the matters. Lets see how things go now.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I fail to understand the scorched earth strategy adopted in Bajaur. It violated all norms of warfare and ended up destroying the very people it was supposed to protect.

PA has to get rid of its artillery and get down and dirty with the talibs, that's the only way to defeat them. Its dangerous and the casualty rate for troops is very high, but that's how the Indians have been doing it in Kashmir for the last couple of decades.

The PA could offer compensation to those people whose houses and properties have been destroyed, offer to educate their children military-run schools, etc. etc.

So many ways and means could be adopted if the PA could simply decide to take on the Taliban.

 

[Hellfire]

I fail to understand the scorched earth strategy adopted in Bajaur. It violated all norms of warfare and ended up destroying the very people it was supposed to protect.

PA has to get rid of its artillery and get down and dirty with the talibs, that's the only way to defeat them. Its dangerous and the casualty rate for troops is very high, but that's how the Indians have been doing it in Kashmir for the last couple of decades.

The PA could offer compensation to those people whose houses and properties have been destroyed, offer to educate their children military-run schools, etc. etc.

So many ways and means could be adopted if the PA could simply decide to take on the Taliban.

PA is at the bottom of the learning curve ..... IA has very acceptable casualty rate now in CI mode, they too will learn. Takes time.

 

[Contrarian]

Then on a deception---india places half a million troops on pak border---on the pretext of a fake attack on indian parliament. Pak millitary should have closed ranks then and there right away circled the wagons and realized what india was planning to do---then in turn, turned around and assaulted the al qaeda and its cohorts with a renewed vengeance and gotten rid of the menace with a massive strike force.

Mastan, while i agree with your views. I strongly disagree with this line of yours.

The attack on the Parliament was not fake. And if you think that an attack on the Parliament is a small thing like other acts of terrorism elsewhere in India, then you are wrong. The Parliament represents everything here. The Parliament is the symbol of India. It represents what India stands for. An attack there was a slap on the face of India, and action should and would be taken for such a dastardly act.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Who benefitted from that action---the attack on the indian parliament---not pakistan.

 

[Hellfire]

Hi,

Who benefitted from that action---the attack on the indian parliament---not pakistan.

here also you started with your conspiracy theory on attack? told ya, served to highlight kashmir again.

now enough with this

 

[RabzonKhan]

Wake-up call

Editorial
Wednesday, 29 Apr, 2009

IS the tide of public opinion finally swinging against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and the so-called ‘good offices’ of Sufi Mohammad, chief of the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi? The challenge they present to the writ of established law and the state have been obvious for some time. But it has taken the Taliban’s increasingly atrocious crimes and the expansionist tendencies displayed recently to set off alarm bells in many quarters. Now, the Pakistan Army claims renewed resolve and promises to ‘seriously’ tackle the militants. The citizenry may legitimately ask why matters were allowed to worsen until the gauntlet thrown down by the Taliban became a direct challenge to the authority and resources commanded by the state. Nevertheless, the army’s ‘renewed resolve’ must be greeted with relief. Troops have reportedly regained control of some key areas, including portions of Lower Dir and the Maidan Valley. Yet major challenges still lie ahead. While no doubt the Taliban must be routed in the areas they have usurped, their ideological moorings that allowed them to become such a danger must also be undermined so that neither they nor other groups of their seditious ilk can rise in a similar fashion to challenge the state’s writ.

In this context, the Tableeghi Jamaat leaders’ rejection of the enforcement of Sharia at gunpoint at one of the group’s major gatherings takes on great significance. An apolitical organisation with considerable influence in society, the Jamaat has always opposed the Taliban’s violent ways in the propagation of religious values, focusing instead on a peaceful mode of preaching. Until now, the passive acceptance of the demands of any group packaging its bid for power under a religious label was a factor that lent the Taliban a perceived moral upper hand. The Jamaat’s denunciation may well shake some of the Taliban’s ideological moorings.

It is time for other religious and right-wing groups and political parties to also take a stand against the imposition of any ideal or ideology through violent means. There have been some quiet murmurs but to have any effect these must become a resounding rejection of the tactics of repression and fear and of seditious activities — regardless of how beguilingly packaged. There is no issue with peacefully spreading the message of Islam; but a fine line divides preaching from indoctrination. In a largely illiterate population awash with arms, such indoctrination can threaten state institutions and the country’s established, constitutional law. The country’s experience with the Taliban must serve as a wake-up call if the present insurgency is to be quelled and future ones avoided.

 

[Contrarian]

Hi,

Who benefitted from that action---the attack on the indian parliament---not pakistan.

Tell me then, who has benefitted till now from the hundred of attacks on India(without including Kashmir)?
Yet we find time and again, Pakistan helping the infiltrators cross the LoC. These terrorists blow themselves up all over India, not just Kashmir, so how has Pakistan benefitted from that as well?
Does that mean Pakistan has not been involved? NO. Pakistan was actively involved in such asymmetric war on India for over a decade and a half.

And ofcourse Pakistan did not benefit from the attack on the Parliament as India responded with threats. Musharraf was MADE to publicly disown these groups and promised to crack down on them. He also put the accused under house arrest-which he ironically set free exactly a year after the attacks.

So the logic of Pakistan not benefitting by an attack on Indian Parliament does not hold. Pakistan has done a hundred other things which apparently dont benefit it, but Pakistan has done so nonetheless.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

PA is at the bottom of the learning curve ..... IA has very acceptable casualty rate now in CI mode, they too will learn. Takes time.

The IA definitely has significant experience in COIN, but you have to look at the lower casualty rates in the context of very, very low numbers of insurgents and minimal cross-LoC infiltration and provision of supplies.

While the IA puts the total number of insurgents in Kashmir at between 300 to 800, we had around 500 Taliban in Buner alone, all supplied with excellent communications equipment, mortars, RPG's and other weapons.

The operation in Bajaur alone resulted in 1500 militants killed, and there was a significant number of reinforcements from across the border in support of the Bajaur Taliban (estimates suggest over a thousand) in just that short operation span.

The dynamics in Kashmir and FATA are significantly different, which is why I have always been leery of direct comparisons between the two.

 

[Contrarian]

The IA definitely has significant experience in COIN, but you have to look at the lower casualty rates in the context of very, very low numbers of insurgents and minimal cross-LoC infiltration and provision of supplies.

While the IA puts the total number of insurgents in Kashmir at between 300 to 800, we had around 500 Taliban in Buner alone, all supplied with excellent communications equipment, mortars, RPG's and other weapons.

The operation in Bajaur alone resulted in 1500 militants killed, and there was a significant number of reinforcements from across the border in support of the Bajaur Taliban (estimates suggest over a thousand) in just that short operation span.

The dynamics in Kashmir and FATA are significantly different, which is why I have always been leery of direct comparisons between the two.

The situation was pretty much the same in terms of numbers and support from across the border till 2002 for IA in Kashmir.