Editorial:‘Strategic death’?

[fatman17]

Editorial:‘Strategic death’?

Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez
Kayani, in a rare press briefing, said, “We want a strategic depth in Afghanistan but do not want to control it.” These words underlie the fact that the Pakistan Army has still not given up on the idea of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan — a policy that has proved to be disastrous for Pakistan in the past few decades. If one reads between the lines, General Kayani’s statement is also indicative that though Pakistan may not want to control Afghanistan, it wants a government of its own choice in place to control the war-torn country. While General Kayani boasted that the successful military operations in the tribal areas have led to a substantial decline in cross-border attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan, militants in Peshawar blew up a tanker carrying fuel for the Nato forces on Monday. This is not to say that the general was wrong in his assumptions; of course there have been fewer incidents of this sort in the recent past as the militants were engaged in heavy fighting with the Pakistan military. It has finally dawned on the military that to tackle this rising militancy, it has to crush the terrorist network. General Kayani’s remark that “a peaceful and friendly Afghanistan can provide Pakistan a strategic depth” speaks of a realisation that we can ill-afford a volatile neighbour at a time when there is already a tenuous security situation within our own borders.

In view of the various international conferences recently held on resolving the Afghan conundrum, General Kayani has offered Pakistan’s services in the training of the Afghan National Army. India has already implemented a similar offer and in view of the burgeoning trust deficit between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the balance of favour may tilt towards India. Inevitably, Pakistan will not be too happy about it if this continues. But we have to realise that Pakistan should have offered to help the Afghan army a long time ago instead of waiting for India to make the first move and then jump belatedly onto the bandwagon. A proxy war developing between India and Pakistan on Afghan soil is no secret any more; the army chief’s ‘concerns’ about the Afghan army developing a potential to take on Pakistan come in the wake of India’s entry into the Afghanistan imbroglio. Both India and Pakistan must stop trying to outdo each other, as it will only further destabilise the region. A peaceful Afghanistan will translate into a peaceful South Asia.

After the London conference, efforts to reconcile with ‘soft’ elements in the Taliban are underway. The Taliban leadership has declined this olive branch as it has gained strongholds in many important areas of Afghanistan and sees itself coming back to power once the US-led Nato forces leave the country. Some observers are of the view that the reconciliation drive will not bear any fruit due to the persistent intra-tribe and factional tussles in Afghanistan. Insiders in Afghanistan say that the Taliban will not give up their stance against the international forces and cannot be bought. President Karzai is trying to get Saudi help in mediating between Kabul and the Taliban.

Scepticism over the reconciliatory efforts has a lot of weight, as the foreign forces now seem inclined to cut their losses and withdraw. If the US-led forces leave Afghanistan in a quagmire this time around, the world will have to pay an even heavier price than last time. As for Pakistan, our military should be very cautious in supporting the Afghan Taliban. What if the Afghan Taliban, after coming to power in Kabul, support the Pakistani Taliban? After all, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a bigger prize than even Afghanistan. GHQ should revisit the infection in the armed services of jihadi sympathisers. A nightmare scenario is looming if we do not give up the idea of ‘strategic depth’, which may eventually turn out to be ‘strategic death’.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[fatman17]

Kayani speaks

Dawn Editorial

Wednesday, 03 Feb, 2010

Gen Kayani called on the US and Nato to come out with a clear strategy on Afghanistan; we can only hope he has told his Pakistani strategists the same thing.

US Gen Ashfaq Kayani has reiterated the army’s position on Afghanistan: Pakistan wants a “peaceful, friendly and stable” Afghanistan; strategic depth isn’t about “controlling” Afghanistan but about ensuring Pakistan doesn’t have a long-term security problem on its western border; India’s role in Afghanistan is “unhelpful”; and Pakistan wants Afghan state institutions, including the army and the police force, to be fashioned in a manner that they don’t pose a threat to our “strategic interests”.

The report in this newspaper highlighted how strongly the army feels on the issue: “He [Gen Kayani] warned that an environment hostile to Pakistan could strain its battle against militancy and extremism.” Translation: address our concerns regarding India, or else don’t expect us to cooperate as vigorously in the war against militancy. But this appeared a contradiction of sorts as Gen Kayani himself pointed out that Pakistan is fighting ‘our’ war, not America’s. For its part, the US has often given the impression that it has little influence or the inclination to convince India to reduce its role in Afghanistan. (India in any case argues its role is focused on development, though it has been eager to ramp up its training of the Afghan army and police.)

It is significant that the army chief’s statement comes against the backdrop of calls from Washington and other western capitals for the Pakistan Army to move against militant bastions in North Waziristan. This is where the US and its allies believe the Haqqani network and Al Qaeda have their main bases. However, Pakistan’s military appears to be saying that such action is unlikely unless some of its concerns are addressed. We hope that the army’s response is part of a well-calibrated response for there are many other powers jockeying for some say in the future of Afghanistan (Russia and the Central Asian Republics, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, America, etc).

The India-centric approach may cause Pakistan to become net losers in a wider struggle that it may not be paying full attention to. Then there is the question of a future power-sharing agreement among Afghanistan’s internal players. Here, too, what the Pakistan Army can achieve appears to be limited. Pakistan is hugely disliked by the non-Taliban, non-Pakhtun forces in Afghanistan, while its ability to influence the Taliban and the broader Pakhtun community may be in question. What, then, are Pakistan’s options? Gen Kayani called on the US and Nato to come out with a clear strategy on Afghanistan; we can only hope he has told his Pakistani strategists the same thing

 

[fatman17]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2010


Jane's Defence Weekly

Pakistan signals support for nascent US Afghan army

Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent - Islamabad

Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, has signalled that the army will support the US in building a new Afghan National Army (ANA), indicating the army's willingness to join international efforts aimed at stabilising the central Asian country.

Gen Kiyani's remarks, delivered at a 1 February briefing at the army's headquarters in Rawalpindi - a city adjoining the capital city of Islamabad - also highlighted the Pakistan Army's increasing confidence in being seen as a vital player for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

"If we get more involved with the ANA there's more interaction and better understanding," Gen Kiyani said. "We have opened all doors. It's a win-win for Afghanistan, the United States, ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] and Pakistan," he added.

Gen Kiyani said he believed it would take at least four years to achieve the target of creating an Afghan military force with a strength of about 140,000 capable of taking over security responsibilities in the country.

Pakistan's army has long been alleged by critics of holding a soft corner for the Taliban and other militants dedicated to hardline causes. This approach has flowed mainly from Pakistan's 63-year history, which has included a drawn out conflict with India over the partition of the predominantly Muslim Himalayan state of Kashmir.

Two-thirds of Kashmir is under Indian control while Pakistan administers the rest. For the past two decades, the Indian part of Kashmir has seen a continued armed uprising, claimed by India to be fuelled mainly by militants supported by the Pakistan Army. Pakistan denies the charge and says that the movement in Kashmir is indigenous.

In regards to Afghanistan, Pakistan emerged as the only outside power in the second half of the 1990s that recognised the Taliban regime and simultaneously maintained a full-time embassy in Kabul. In the past the Pakistan Army has been accused of seeking 'strategic depth' by practically seizing control of Afghanistan.

'Strategic depth' refers to a concept whereby the Pakistan Army is seen to look upon Afghanistan as a territory to which some of its troops could retreat and fight back in the event of a conflict with India.

However, Gen Kiyani said: "Strategic depth does not imply controlling Afghanistan," adding that "if Afghanistan is peaceful, stable and friendly we have our strategic depth because our western border is secure".

 

[fatman17]

analysis: Zaid Hamid and strategic depth —Farhat Taj

What are we first of all: Muslim or Pakistani? Is our ultimate commitment with Pakistani citizenship or a global Muslim brotherhood? What kind of Pakistan should we aim at: a progressive multi-ethnic social democracy or some kind of medieval caliphate?

FATA continues to be
used and abused as a strategic space by the security establishment of Pakistan in violent pursuit of strategic depth in Afghanistan. In short, strategic depth means Pakistan must have a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan by any and all means. People of FATA have suffered more than people in any other part of Pakistan due to this policy. They dread and hate ‘strategic depth’.

Some people of FATA drew my attention towards Zaid Hamid, who, they said, is a new charm offensive of the military establishment to popularise the notion of strategic depth among the youth from affluent families in the big cities of Pakistan. He is frequently given air time by the electronic media, also an evidence that the media, especially the Urdu media, is not free and has to toe the establishment’s line in security matters. Show biz celebrities have joined him. Those who oppose the strategic depth, especially the Pakhtun, who are the biggest casualty of it, are never given so much media attention.

The main concern of the people of FATA vis-a-vis Zaid Hamid is his use of a particularly narrow interpretation of Islam that proposes a belligerent agenda for the Pakistan Army and drawing on controversial Islamic literature. Thus the authenticity of the hadiths — sayings of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) — on Ghazwa-e-Hind that he often refers to in terms of the ultimate defeat of the Indians at the hands of the Pakistan Army is highly questionable.

Zaid Hamid claims in his speeches to young people that God determines the destiny of Pakistan. Pakistan will become a grand Caliphate. Pakistan army will cut India down to the size of Sri Lanka. Pakistan will lead the entire Muslim world and its army will be deployed in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Afghanistan. The corrupt judicial system, consisting of the lawyers and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, will be replaced by an Islamic judicial system that would ensure — Taliban style — speedy and cheap justice. He claims that the current elected set up in Pakistan is implanted by the CIA and prophesies that the current rulers in Pakistan will have their dead bodies hanging on poles in Islamabad, an indirect appreciation of what the Taliban did in Afghanistan with the dead body of Dr Najibullah, the then Afghan president. He openly threatens the nationalists, especially the Pakhtun and Baloch nationalists, for their aspirations. The Taliban government in Afghanistan, he declares, was Pakistan-friendly and condemns its removal by the US in the post-9/11 attack on the country. He glorifies the biggest mass murderer of the Pakhtun — General Zia, the former dictator of Pakistan.

Judging by the obscurantist message that he communicates, Zaid Hamid does not seem to be a new invention of the establishment. He is an addition to the long list of people who have been handpicked to promote an anti-people agenda in the name of religion and hate of India, like the people from the Jamaat-e-Islami. What seems to be new is his apparent ‘tolerance’ of the ‘un-Islamic’ lifestyle of the urban youth and in this context there are some interesting discussions about Zaid Hamid on some blogs and mailing lists. One blogger writes that Zaid Hamid is using a new strategy to communicate the same old conspiracy theories to young people. The strategy is that unlike classical Islamic scholars, joining Zaid Hamid’s group does not necessarily require the youth to shed their sophisticated lifestyle and adjust to hijab, a ban on music and gender segregation. The only thing they have to do is to glorify the Pakistan Army, including its pursuit of strategic depth, and hate Jews, Americans and Indians.

A writer on one of the mailing lists argues that Zaid Hamid is a Pied Piper for our youth from the prosperous sections of Punjab who have no dreams to be proud of. Zaid Hamid sells the dreams of conquering the world, though they are nonsense, yet still work for the youth who are now caught up in an identity crisis, continues the writer. The writer understands that the fault lies with the leftist intellectuals who have lost direction by joining NGOs and leaving the anti-imperialist struggle open for people like Zaid Hamid or Imran Khan.

Zaid Hamid, in his show, sets a dangerous agenda for the youth of Pakistan; the very same youth who are living a comfortable life in poverty-stricken Pakistan. They lack any ambitions in life to give it some purpose. This lack of goals is rooted in the identity crisis being faced by the Pakistani youth. The crisis is expressed in questions like these: what are we first of all: Muslim or Pakistani? Is our ultimate commitment with Pakistani citizenship or a global Muslim brotherhood? What kind of Pakistan should we aim at: a progressive multi-ethnic social democracy or some kind of medieval caliphate?

Secondly, one has to strive very hard for ideals. If the ideal is the former (multi-ethnic social democratic Pakistan), the youth from affluent families will have to share their riches with the poor, downtrodden fellow citizens. This is very hard for this class of people, otherwise I would at least have seen them working for bringing normalcy in the shattered lives of the people of FATA, who have been living in deplorable conditions in refugee camps for over two years now. In the latter case (caliphate) they can placate their conscience by attaching themselves with the higher ideal without having to give up something from their comfortable lives. The only thing they have to do is to support the belligerent agenda of the military establishment and their poor fellow Pakistanis can go to hell. Zaid Hamid’s campaign is like opium for the young that makes them run away from reality, i.e. Pakistan is a class-based multi-ethnic society that cannot be held together with mere Islamic rhetoric and military ambitions.

What is even more dangerous is the fact that Zaid Hamid is glorifying the same Taliban that the people of FATA hold responsible for their massacre at the behest of the military establishment of Pakistan. Case in point, Jalaluddin Haqqani who occupies North Waziristan. I would invite the young fans of Zaid Hamid to take a tour of FATA, or at least FATA IDP camps in various parts of the NWFP, to observe firsthand what the Taliban and the military did to these people. I would remind the youth that people all over FATA hold the generals of the Pakistan Army more than the Taliban responsible for the death and destruction in their area. They view the Taliban — all Taliban, good, bad, Afghan or Pakistani — as a creation of the intelligence agencies of our country. How much more do the people of FATA need to sacrifice for strategic depth in Afghanistan? The never-ending human sufferings in the area could transform into widespread anti-state sentiments. The youth around Zaid Hamid must know that the current pursuit of strategic depth may turn into — as rightly described in this paper’s editorial ‘Strategic death’? (Daily Times, February 3, 2010) –’strategic death’ for Pakistan rather than securing a friendly Afghanistan.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo, and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. She can be reached at bergen34@yahoo.co

 

[ambidex]

Presence of India in Afghanistan is many folds effectual than USA and allies to change Pakistan's typical approach for Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a open book now, we know how things work here. What strategic depth Pakistan may achieve will be interesting to see. Only Pakistan can gamble for if India being passive and benign for its influence. Otherwise proactive adventure in case of presence of any foreign nation including India will be a staggering task to overcome.
At the end of the day one must think about economics first and penitence to wait. In contemporary circumstance ''strategic depth'' is not the appropriate word of choice.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Just chase taliban into Afghanistan and take over the country 100% call it a new province , and curb taliban control and weapons supply

End of story

Setup a base for chinese into gawadar port - for good measures

 

[Ababeel]

Afghan Taliban never interferred in internal affairs of Pakistan when in power. Every thing from TTP to BLA started during the period of present Afghan govt under US, NATO and Indian influence. Afghan Taliban don't have any global ambitions. Their fault is that as a staunch and pious muslim they did not bow infront of US the so called superpower of the world. Otherwise they were even ready to solve the issue of Osama bin Laden with US, but they were not ready to accept US hooliganism to handover Osama without any evidance.
So General Kiyani is right in his point of view for Afghan strategic depth.