fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Fighting Others War at the Cost of...

Nasim Zehra (VANTAGE POINT)
5 April 2009
Pakistans war against terror must be fought in its national interest and not in blind loyalty to the US
Another macabre event. This time, the terrorists struck the elite Manawan police academy in Lahore leaving 20 people dead and 90 injured. The ensuing rescue operation, lasting for around six hours, was successful in preventing further deaths and in getting the policemen holed up in the building released. Perhaps, the most significant aspect of this operation has been the arrest of terrorists. Reportedly, three terrorists have been captured. Never before in any terrorist attack on Pakistani territory have any terrorists been captured alive. There are great expectations that the government will now be able to find the real terror planners. The tragedy of the lives of Pakistani citizens lost in these terrorist attacks is a reality that is settling deep into the Pakistani mind. The people understand the problems, the complexity of the issues linked to terrorism but their sense of despair that surfaces with every terror attack is palpable.
However, two important developments have taken place alongside the tragedy that made people feel a degree more confident about the governments ability to at least, begin to tackle some dimension of the terrorism problem. These are the capturing of the terrorists and the swift response by the army and the Rangers that prevented the loss of further lives.
The governments focus on strengthening the capacity and the capabilities to confront terrorism both on the preventive and responsive front is crucial. The government has approached China and the United States, and other countries for financial, training and equipment support, especially for the police force. Clearly, in the context of unending terrorist attacks in the NWFP, Punjab and Balochistan, there is a national requirement to improve the efficiency of law-enforcement agencies. The task has to be done beyond political battling. While the government continues to be viewed by people as being incapable of effectively fighting terrorism, every terrorism attack typically throws up four different theories on the million-dollar question of who did it? One, its a result of the growing internal problem of extremism and terrorism adopted by armed Pakistani militias, but these are groups that sections of state institutions are not willing to take on seriously and effectively.
Two, there is an external dimension to this growing terrorism, which flows from Pakistans role in the US war on terror. The war on terror has wreaked havoc in Afghanistan and the brunt of the Afghan reaction is being borne by Pakistan, which is viewed by the Taleban and other groups as a facilitator and a collaborator of Washington in wreaking this havoc.
Three, these attacks are conducted by foreign intelligence agencies determined to destabilise Pakistan so as to take control of not only its nuclear programme, but also to gain a firmer foothold within Pakistans security apparatus. Such agencies work obviously through local allies.
Four, these attacks are conducted because sections of Pakistans security agencies do not follow a zero-tolerance policy against militia groups who they consider their allies. Pakistan is faced with a two-pronged situation on its eastern and Western borders on the Indian and Afghan fronts.
These are all opinions that circulate because of our historical baggage, because of suspicion, and above all because the problem of terrorism appears insolvable. Fighting terrorism is a process and cannot be treated as a task, yet the people need to be confident that the government has initiated a process that is viable and promises success. With no shortage of statements underscoring commitment to fight terrorism, the mystery of unending drone attacks remains very much there.
Perhaps the most problematic of all is Pakistans unqualified welcome of President Obamas policy on Afghanistan. The crux of the Obama policy is that Al Qaeda is strong inside Pakistan, the country is now the main theatre of war, and terrorism is the cancer that Pakistan needs to fight for its own sake.
This can be a recipe for greater destabilisation of Pakistan. For all that the US war on terror may have achieved specifically in weakening Al Qaeda, it has generated much greater resentment than accolades for itself. It has pursued a policy that has evidently failed in Afghanistan, it has contributed to the rise of greater anger and political extremism within the Muslim world, it has earned critics within Western countries amongst those who understand the processes of socio-political change, and those who understand the complexity of security challenges.
The US problems notwithstanding, Pakistan needs to do its own thinking on this crucial issue. If over 50 reports addressing the question of US policy towards Pakistan specifically, and against terrorism broadly, have been produced by numerous independent US think-tanks, how many such policy papers have been produced by Pakistani think-tanks or independent groups? Almost no comprehensive work has been done, but for discussion in seminars, talk shows and newspapers columns. It is time we did some serious, comprehensive work presenting realistic and logical arguments within the parameters of Pakistans national security and international concerns. Otherwise, we will continue with our haphazardly prepared, half-baked ideas as policy, and the US will dominate both the Pakistani discourse and policy against terrorism.
Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad-based 
national security strategist
http:///www.khaleejtimes.com
Nasim Zehra (VANTAGE POINT)
5 April 2009
Pakistans war against terror must be fought in its national interest and not in blind loyalty to the US
Another macabre event. This time, the terrorists struck the elite Manawan police academy in Lahore leaving 20 people dead and 90 injured. The ensuing rescue operation, lasting for around six hours, was successful in preventing further deaths and in getting the policemen holed up in the building released. Perhaps, the most significant aspect of this operation has been the arrest of terrorists. Reportedly, three terrorists have been captured. Never before in any terrorist attack on Pakistani territory have any terrorists been captured alive. There are great expectations that the government will now be able to find the real terror planners. The tragedy of the lives of Pakistani citizens lost in these terrorist attacks is a reality that is settling deep into the Pakistani mind. The people understand the problems, the complexity of the issues linked to terrorism but their sense of despair that surfaces with every terror attack is palpable.
However, two important developments have taken place alongside the tragedy that made people feel a degree more confident about the governments ability to at least, begin to tackle some dimension of the terrorism problem. These are the capturing of the terrorists and the swift response by the army and the Rangers that prevented the loss of further lives.
The governments focus on strengthening the capacity and the capabilities to confront terrorism both on the preventive and responsive front is crucial. The government has approached China and the United States, and other countries for financial, training and equipment support, especially for the police force. Clearly, in the context of unending terrorist attacks in the NWFP, Punjab and Balochistan, there is a national requirement to improve the efficiency of law-enforcement agencies. The task has to be done beyond political battling. While the government continues to be viewed by people as being incapable of effectively fighting terrorism, every terrorism attack typically throws up four different theories on the million-dollar question of who did it? One, its a result of the growing internal problem of extremism and terrorism adopted by armed Pakistani militias, but these are groups that sections of state institutions are not willing to take on seriously and effectively.
Two, there is an external dimension to this growing terrorism, which flows from Pakistans role in the US war on terror. The war on terror has wreaked havoc in Afghanistan and the brunt of the Afghan reaction is being borne by Pakistan, which is viewed by the Taleban and other groups as a facilitator and a collaborator of Washington in wreaking this havoc.
Three, these attacks are conducted by foreign intelligence agencies determined to destabilise Pakistan so as to take control of not only its nuclear programme, but also to gain a firmer foothold within Pakistans security apparatus. Such agencies work obviously through local allies.
Four, these attacks are conducted because sections of Pakistans security agencies do not follow a zero-tolerance policy against militia groups who they consider their allies. Pakistan is faced with a two-pronged situation on its eastern and Western borders on the Indian and Afghan fronts.
These are all opinions that circulate because of our historical baggage, because of suspicion, and above all because the problem of terrorism appears insolvable. Fighting terrorism is a process and cannot be treated as a task, yet the people need to be confident that the government has initiated a process that is viable and promises success. With no shortage of statements underscoring commitment to fight terrorism, the mystery of unending drone attacks remains very much there.
Perhaps the most problematic of all is Pakistans unqualified welcome of President Obamas policy on Afghanistan. The crux of the Obama policy is that Al Qaeda is strong inside Pakistan, the country is now the main theatre of war, and terrorism is the cancer that Pakistan needs to fight for its own sake.
This can be a recipe for greater destabilisation of Pakistan. For all that the US war on terror may have achieved specifically in weakening Al Qaeda, it has generated much greater resentment than accolades for itself. It has pursued a policy that has evidently failed in Afghanistan, it has contributed to the rise of greater anger and political extremism within the Muslim world, it has earned critics within Western countries amongst those who understand the processes of socio-political change, and those who understand the complexity of security challenges.
The US problems notwithstanding, Pakistan needs to do its own thinking on this crucial issue. If over 50 reports addressing the question of US policy towards Pakistan specifically, and against terrorism broadly, have been produced by numerous independent US think-tanks, how many such policy papers have been produced by Pakistani think-tanks or independent groups? Almost no comprehensive work has been done, but for discussion in seminars, talk shows and newspapers columns. It is time we did some serious, comprehensive work presenting realistic and logical arguments within the parameters of Pakistans national security and international concerns. Otherwise, we will continue with our haphazardly prepared, half-baked ideas as policy, and the US will dominate both the Pakistani discourse and policy against terrorism.
Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad-based 
national security strategist
http:///www.khaleejtimes.com
