Editorial: Two-pronged policy against Taliban

[fatman17]

Editorial: Two-pronged policy against Taliban

Pakistan’s Taliban policy in Swat is now clearly two-pronged: it is confronting the militants in the Malakand Division, having effectively blocked their advance in Lower Dir and Buner; and it is talking to the TNSM’s Sufi Muhammad for the establishment of qazi courts in Swat and other districts in exchange for the laying down of arms by the Taliban. For many the policy is understandably risky. But it is different from the earlier policy of letting the Taliban of Fazlullah take territory in violation of agreements while the government implemented the sharia in cooperation with Sufi Muhammad.

The qazi courts approach failed, as predicted by many when it was embarked upon, but its failure brought with it a public disenchantment with Sufi Muhammad’s ability or intent to deliver on his promises. The country was divided over the qazi courts between the conservative opinion that didn’t mind the sharia courts and thought they would bring quick and cheap justice to the people; and liberals who thought there was a barely concealed negation of the state of Pakistan and its sharia laws in Nizam-e-Adl which otherwise looked harmless in its text. When Sufi Muhammad began to talk about Pakistan’s legal system as a kind of gloss to what he was envisaging for Swat, he lost a lot of support and helped bridge the conservative-liberal divide in the country.

That’s when the army moved in. Given the new opinion environment, it was able to share more of its information about warlord Fazlullah without fearing a negative backlash: it made public that Fazlullah was caught talking on the phone planning a violation of the Sufi Muhammad accord on the Taliban quitting Buner. The shock produced by the fact that the Taliban were actually planning to stay on in Buner after they had announced their departure, broke the tendency among Pakistanis to take the Taliban on trust. (This will help taking more realistically the deceitful battlefield statements made by the warlord Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan.) On the other hand, the disclosure raised the credibility of the Pakistan army despite a steadily eroding belief among the victim populations that it will come to their help and then stay on.

The gradually dominant presence of the army in parts of Malakand has affected the unfolding of the process of qazi courts. Before the army decided to move in, this process was going on under the diktat of Sufi Muhammad who developed the habit of issuing a steady stream of adverse commentary on how the NWFP government was handling the job. He had made it clear that the qazis unacceptable to him on a personal basis would not be acceptable in Malakand.

Sufi Muhammad also supplied legal interpretations of Darul Qaza (Appeals Court) and Darul Darul Qaza (Higher Appeals Court) when he said that they would be separated from the constitutionally empowered judiciary of Pakistan. He lost support even among the heretofore supportive clergy in Pakistan when he termed democracy un-Islamic. It now develops after the military action that the NWFP government is quite assertive in setting up Darul Qaza with its constitutional linkages and will insist on selecting the qazis under its jurisdiction.

One lesson that has emerged from the operation in Swat is that the army has to move in an environment of civilian consensus or it will risk internal lack of cohesion as it fights “its own people”. (Once it was in Dir and Buner, it was able to reveal that not all the Taliban were our “own people” and that there were aliens busy fighting the war of dispossessing Pakistan of its territory.) Once it has taken root, terrorism is not easy to dislodge.

The state needs to pay heed to the relationship of coercion which the terrorist develops with the victim population on the basis of intimidation. The army therefore goes in among people who will not show loyalty to it in the initial phase. The logic of military action will succeed only if the army stays on and doesn’t retreat from the theatre of war. It cannot allow the civilian government to negotiate with the terrorists in a military vacuum and then assume that it has given primacy to “political solutions”.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Elmo]

Nice piece but why not highlight the last two sentences as well: "The logic of military action will succeed only if the army stays on and doesn’t retreat from the theatre of war. It cannot allow the civilian government to negotiate with the terrorists in a military vacuum and then assume that it has given primacy to “political solutions”.

Is the author trying to justify or stress military intervention...

 

[muse]

Nice piece but why not highlight the last two sentences as well: "The logic of military action will succeed only if the army stays on and doesn’t retreat from the theatre of war. It cannot allow the civilian government to negotiate with the terrorists in a military vacuum and then assume that it has given primacy to “political solutions”.

Is the author trying to justify or stress military intervention...

"Military intervention" is a misrepresenation - the army has to perform it's DUTY - it's (the army's) duty is protect Pakistan against all enemies - when the army refuses or is seen as less than willing to confront the enemies of Pakistan in a decisive manner, it allows for the creation of space for politicians to imagine they can offer political solutions to military problems --(planting corn and claiming come harvest, it will be wheat that will be harvested) -- whereas what the editorial is suggesting is had the army performed it's duty, it would have created conditions on the ground that would have allowed the civilian government to offer Pakistan enemies the realization that they have lost momentum and whatever political solution being offered now was the best as tomorrow would bring more defeat and situation on the ground which would not allow for political support of Pakistan's enemies.

Apologists of Army inaction have been arguing thagt the time is
not right, unfortunately it is just this line of argument that has allowed the obscuritanist movement to go from strength to strength.

 

[fatman17]

Nice piece but why not highlight the last two sentences as well: "The logic of military action will succeed only if the army stays on and doesn’t retreat from the theatre of war. It cannot allow the civilian government to negotiate with the terrorists in a military vacuum and then assume that it has given primacy to “political solutions”.

Is the author trying to justify or stress military intervention...

One lesson that has emerged from the operation in Swat is that the army has to move in an environment of civilian consensus or it will risk internal lack of cohesion as it fights “its own people”.

this is why and this comes first before "the army cannot allow the civilian govt to negotiate"

 

[muse]

IN which case, it is no longer a professional army but something else.
When army cannot see what it's duty is as the homeland itself is under attack, reasonable people will agree that the army's internal cohesion comes not from DISCIPLINE and DUTY, but political, social and, wait for it, religious, sentiment

Even if this is the truth, we must not dwell long on it, it is an abyss - Consensus then is "catalyst" --

The issue therefore is how, what has been the nature of, Army's contribution to the manufacturing of consensus. Should in your deliberation, you arrive at any answer which may suggest that such a consensus was manufactured by sacrificing innocent Pakistanis to the Talib, would you not have to ask some basic questions about the nature of the army and the quality of it's leadership?

 

[fatman17]

IN which case, it is no longer a professional army but something else.
When army cannot see what it's duty is as the homeland itself is under attack, reasonable people will agree that the army's internal cohesion comes not from DISCIPLINE and DUTY, but political, social and, wait for it, religious, sentiment

Even if this is the truth, we must not dwell long on it, it is an abyss - Consensus then is "catalyst" --

The issue therefore is how, what has been the nature of, Army's contribution to the manufacturing of consensus. Should in your deliberation, you arrive at any answer which may suggest that such a consensus was manufactured by sacrificing innocent Pakistanis to the Talib, would you not have to ask some basic questions about the nature of the army and the quality of it's leadership?

the army knows what its duty is and whether we like it or not, it has to take its orders from the civilian dispensation - after all we have a democratically elected govt and the army is under its "control". i am quite sure that the army gives its "advise" on matters pertaining to security issues, but if the govt. feels that it wants to "negotiate" with the talibs/militants and has the "time & space" to do it, then thats it. (whether I personally agree with this arrangement is not the issue here).

the nature of the army, its professionalism and its quality of leadership is fine IMHO!

 

[muse]

the army knows what its duty

We all wish that were factual. Unfortunately, it is not. Pointing to the civilian AKA democractic government as the partty responsbile for bringing the honor, discipline and understanding of DUTY of the army into question is not persuasive.

We all know, have always known, that in it's entire history, other than the Quaid and the Shaheed e millat, there has never been a "civilian" government that viewed Pakistan as a nation state and not a legacy, a cash cow of the politicians, their families and friends.

The same was true of the army, the army was the guardian of Pakistan, now we must ask how it is that 11% of Pakistan's territory is lost to militants who do not have night vission goggles, do not have helicopters, and have not APC, nor Air Force.

those asking such questions must now accept that the army "obeys" the civiliaqn government and if one is looking for battle field success it ought to look to the civilian governent. How reassuring is that - let reasonable people decide. And then see if responsibility can be evaded.

 

[fatman17]

We all wish that were factual. Unfortunately, it is not. Pointing to the civilian AKA democractic government as the partty responsbile for bringing the honor, discipline and understanding of DUTY of the army into question is not persuasive.

We all know, have always known, that in it's entire history, other than the Quaid and the Shaheed e millat, there has never been a "civilian" government that viewed Pakistan as a nation state and not a legacy, a cash cow of the politicians, their families and friends.

The same was true of the army, the army was the guardian of Pakistan, now we must ask how it is that 11% of Pakistan's territory is lost to militants who do not have night vission goggles, do not have helicopters, and have not APC, nor Air Force.

those asking such questions must now accept that the army "obeys" the civiliaqn government and if one is looking for battle field success it ought to look to the civilian governent. How reassuring is that - let reasonable people decide. And then see if responsibility can be evaded.

ok - so we want the army to operate independent of the democratic government - then why have this charade of democracy at all! lets just have a dictatorship come high or hell whatever!

 

[muse]

You seem upset - Are you sure why ? what you are upset about? I'm going to bet it's not about the civilian AKA democractic govenment being a net loss (when has a civilian govt ever done Pakistan right) -- See, I will bet, like me and others, you know the army has left itself open to this criticism, it brought this on itlself by it's action(inaction).

Success against Talib instead of surrender, would have offered the civilian govt and the political supportes of the islamists, a very different set of options - and now when these things are brought into question, by pointing at the civilian government, we can be sure we will not get answers which the public and the army itself need adressed.

And all for what? exactly? more Swat? more Wazirstan?

 

[fatman17]

You seem upset - Are you sure why ? what you are upset about? I'm going to bet it's not about the civilian AKA democractic govenment being a net loss (when has a civilian govt ever done Pakistan right) -- See, I will bet, like me and others, you know the army has left itself open to this criticism, it brought this on itlself by it's action(inaction).

Success against Talib instead of surrender, would have offered the civilian govt and the political supportes of the islamists, a very different set of options - and now when these things are brought into question, by pointing at the civilian government, we can be sure we will not get answers which the public and the army itself need adressed.

And all for what? exactly? more Swat? more Wazirstan?

if u say so - and if i say what has the army ever done pakistan right - i'm not going to hold my breadth as you and others join in my villification!

 

[Elmo]

@ fatman17: "i say what has the army ever done pakistan right"

Thank you!

 

[araz]

Muse.
Whether you like it or not the Army according to the constitution of the country is subservient to the Government that exists.in your hurry to criticize the Army and the present Government(of which i am no fan either) You seem to have forgotten 2 important facts.
1. The initial army actions have not been successful inspite of loss of significant numbers of lives on their part. One of the main reasons was the lack of support of the local populace.
2. By allying itself with a political settlement it has allowed the true nature of these deceptive and shameless people who do not think for a moment in using Islam as a reason(howsoever unjust) for their actions. What the political setup has done, by agreeingto their demand of a so called islamic Judicial system is taken the wind out of their sails. Now if they persevere in nefarious activities, the army has ample justification to wipe the slate off of them. So all in all, although it has taken time you have to give credit to the politicians to have maneouvered the Army into a position from where their subsequent actions will carry due credibility among the local populace.
Things have clearly not been, nor are ideal, but we have at least taken a step in the right direction
My 2 paisas worth
Araz

 

[Elmo]

@Muse: I had thought about refuting your points, but what fatman17 and especially araz have said sums up what I was going to say vis-a-vis why the army needs to lay low and let the civilian government be in charge. It is subservient to the govt. and any adventurism on the part of the army is unjustifiable.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The army should be subservient to the civilian government. BUT the army also has not been successful in even the most elemental things, like taking out FM transmitters. So, one could fairly conclude that the Army is actually hiding it's incompetence behind the incompetence of the civilian GoP. The only other conclusion is that the Army knows that it cannot defeat the Talibs because it's jawans are too sympathetic to them. I.e. the Army is AFRAID that it will disintegrate if it pushes this fight to the point of success. The sad state of affairs is that the Army has not lived up to its primary mission, the defense of the Pakistani people.

 

[fatman17]

The army should be subservient to the civilian government. BUT the army also has not been successful in even the most elemental things, like taking out FM transmitters. So, one could fairly conclude that the Army is actually hiding it's incompetence behind the incompetence of the civilian GoP. The only other conclusion is that the Army knows that it cannot defeat the Talibs because it's jawans are too sympathetic to them. I.e. the Army is AFRAID that it will disintegrate if it pushes this fight to the point of success. The sad state of affairs is that the Army has not lived up to its primary mission, the defense of the Pakistani people.

absolutely, positively dosnt deserve a response!