Khajur
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 0
Predictably, some analysts have immediately put the blame on India. While at this stage no possibility can be ruled out, the fact remains that the responsibility for providing security to the Sri Lankan team was ours and we failed on that count
The only surprising factor in the Tuesday terror attack in Lahore is that the authorities did not anticipate it.
The security with the convoy was not geared towards responding to an ambush. In fact, the convoy was also vulnerable to other types of terrorist attacks a possible IED (improvised explosive device) attack or even two suicide bombers strategically placed to ram explosives-laden vehicles into the convoy.
What does this tell us? The Lahore attack was a huge security failure at all levels from poor intelligence to poor local protection for the convoy all along the route from the hotel to the stadium.
On the other hand, the attackers, according to what has been reported so far, were fully prepared. They struck on the morning of the third day of the Test, which means they had reconnoitred the route, surveilled the convoy, selected the point of attack, decided on the numbers they required and positioned themselves in a way that would allow them to fire at the convoy from multiple directions.
The point of attack, the Liberty roundabout, offered at least three advantages: the convoy would have to slowdown; the area is open and allows multiple positioning and open arcs of fire; and, the attackers could extricate in all directions after mounting the attack.
If the report that one of them first fired an RPG but missed is correct, then we should be thankful. The RPG hit would have left a different story behind it. But leaving aside what is known and is being constantly reported on TV channels, the question is simpler: Why this security lapse?
Pakistan has been trying its best, and for legitimate reasons, to convince cricket teams to come and play in Pakistan even as the terrorist threat in the country has steadily increased. Some teams have refused to play in Pakistan; Sri Lanka decided it would. Given how much we need teams to come and play here, given also the clear threat of terror attacks, the Sri Lankan team should have been provided the highest level of security at every point.
The team was most vulnerable while travelling between the hotel and the stadium. This means securing the route against all possibilities: suicide bombers, IEDs, snipers, ambush etc. Not only should all possible points of attack have been identified, those points should also have been secured. There should have been aerial patrolling, which was done after the attack had been mounted.
These are standard operating procedures in situations that call for high security. That situation, unless we want to deny it, now obtains in Pakistan. There is also the element of what kind of target the terrorist would want to take out. International concern and condemnation as also the objective of isolating Pakistan and showing the state to be weak-kneed are obvious objectives.
The Sri Lankan team thus made an ideal target and the authorities should have realised that. But they didnt and nothing was done to secure the route on the ground or from the air ahead of the teams movement.
We can now be sure that the International Cricket Council, which has called for a review of the status of the 2011 World Cup, would be averse to allowing Pakistan to host it. Thats another huge blow to us.
This is, of course, one aspect of this episode. But there is another which is even more troubling, namely whodunit.
Predictably, some analysts have immediately put the blame on India. While at this stage no possibility can be ruled out, the fact remains that the responsibility for providing security to the Sri Lankan team was ours and we failed on that count. Even very high security may not be enough at times to prevent a terrorist attack. But precisely for that reason security measures should be as sophisticated as possible and try to stay ahead of improvisations by the terrorist outfits.
President Zardaris praise for the courage of the policemen who died in the attack is an appropriate gesture but does not take away the fact in fact highlights it that proper security measures would have helped avoid the attack and save lives as well as Pakistans already battered image.
Second, if India is indeed behind this, its intelligence agencies should be commended for getting recruits from within Pakistan to mount an attack on the Sri Lankan team. Given how late the Sri Lankan team decided to play the Test in Lahore and the logistics and other requirements for mounting such an operation, the Indians didnt have much time to put this together in which case, if these analysts are to be believed, India seems to have done an impressive job.
The worst thing that can happen to a state is to go into denial. How long will we deny that we have groups that have run amok and whose obvious agenda involves destroying Pakistan as a nation-state? These are ideologically motivated millenarians, ahistorical in their approach and literalist in their outlook. They are trained, and societal attitudes transformed over three decades allow them to find recruits with alarming ease.
To point to India (khufia haath hidden hand) without bothering to look at other evidence for which we now have a long trajectory, is not simply ignorance; it is deliberate perfidy.
While improving intelligence gathering for pre-emption and security procedures for tackling a threat are issues that need to be immediately addressed in terms of increasing capacity, the broader issue is linked to our societal attitudes. This is an area where the role of the media becomes crucial.
So far there has been no debate on this within the media, at least not in any structured manner. There are channels, anchors and a select group of analysts always at hand that, in conjunction, reinforce existing biases through obvious distortions, weaving a tapestry of conspiracies. What should be done about them?
Heres the question: Should they be allowed to spread this poison on the basis of freedom of speech? Would this not be akin to allowing someone with a gun to start shooting on the basis of freedom of action?
Carl Schmitt, the controversial German philosopher and jurist, writing during the twilight of the Weimer Republic, was arguing that parties and entities opposed to the principles enshrined in the Constitution should not be allowed to operate. The liberals were opposed to his viewpoint. But that misplaced liberalism resulted in a transformation that led Germany into a period from which the Germans are still trying to recover.
Would we like to go that way or should we begin to ask ourselves some hard and tough questions regarding what it is that we want as a nation? It doesnt seem to me that we are even clear on the issue of whether we are a nation-state in the modern sense. That requires self-reflection, not pointing fingers at others and distorting facts.
The attack has done its damage. But if something positive can come out of it, there may be less sense of waste, after all.
Ejaz Haider is Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times and Consulting Editor of The Friday Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk
The only surprising factor in the Tuesday terror attack in Lahore is that the authorities did not anticipate it.
The security with the convoy was not geared towards responding to an ambush. In fact, the convoy was also vulnerable to other types of terrorist attacks a possible IED (improvised explosive device) attack or even two suicide bombers strategically placed to ram explosives-laden vehicles into the convoy.
What does this tell us? The Lahore attack was a huge security failure at all levels from poor intelligence to poor local protection for the convoy all along the route from the hotel to the stadium.
On the other hand, the attackers, according to what has been reported so far, were fully prepared. They struck on the morning of the third day of the Test, which means they had reconnoitred the route, surveilled the convoy, selected the point of attack, decided on the numbers they required and positioned themselves in a way that would allow them to fire at the convoy from multiple directions.
The point of attack, the Liberty roundabout, offered at least three advantages: the convoy would have to slowdown; the area is open and allows multiple positioning and open arcs of fire; and, the attackers could extricate in all directions after mounting the attack.
If the report that one of them first fired an RPG but missed is correct, then we should be thankful. The RPG hit would have left a different story behind it. But leaving aside what is known and is being constantly reported on TV channels, the question is simpler: Why this security lapse?
Pakistan has been trying its best, and for legitimate reasons, to convince cricket teams to come and play in Pakistan even as the terrorist threat in the country has steadily increased. Some teams have refused to play in Pakistan; Sri Lanka decided it would. Given how much we need teams to come and play here, given also the clear threat of terror attacks, the Sri Lankan team should have been provided the highest level of security at every point.
The team was most vulnerable while travelling between the hotel and the stadium. This means securing the route against all possibilities: suicide bombers, IEDs, snipers, ambush etc. Not only should all possible points of attack have been identified, those points should also have been secured. There should have been aerial patrolling, which was done after the attack had been mounted.
These are standard operating procedures in situations that call for high security. That situation, unless we want to deny it, now obtains in Pakistan. There is also the element of what kind of target the terrorist would want to take out. International concern and condemnation as also the objective of isolating Pakistan and showing the state to be weak-kneed are obvious objectives.
The Sri Lankan team thus made an ideal target and the authorities should have realised that. But they didnt and nothing was done to secure the route on the ground or from the air ahead of the teams movement.
We can now be sure that the International Cricket Council, which has called for a review of the status of the 2011 World Cup, would be averse to allowing Pakistan to host it. Thats another huge blow to us.
This is, of course, one aspect of this episode. But there is another which is even more troubling, namely whodunit.
Predictably, some analysts have immediately put the blame on India. While at this stage no possibility can be ruled out, the fact remains that the responsibility for providing security to the Sri Lankan team was ours and we failed on that count. Even very high security may not be enough at times to prevent a terrorist attack. But precisely for that reason security measures should be as sophisticated as possible and try to stay ahead of improvisations by the terrorist outfits.
President Zardaris praise for the courage of the policemen who died in the attack is an appropriate gesture but does not take away the fact in fact highlights it that proper security measures would have helped avoid the attack and save lives as well as Pakistans already battered image.
Second, if India is indeed behind this, its intelligence agencies should be commended for getting recruits from within Pakistan to mount an attack on the Sri Lankan team. Given how late the Sri Lankan team decided to play the Test in Lahore and the logistics and other requirements for mounting such an operation, the Indians didnt have much time to put this together in which case, if these analysts are to be believed, India seems to have done an impressive job.
The worst thing that can happen to a state is to go into denial. How long will we deny that we have groups that have run amok and whose obvious agenda involves destroying Pakistan as a nation-state? These are ideologically motivated millenarians, ahistorical in their approach and literalist in their outlook. They are trained, and societal attitudes transformed over three decades allow them to find recruits with alarming ease.
To point to India (khufia haath hidden hand) without bothering to look at other evidence for which we now have a long trajectory, is not simply ignorance; it is deliberate perfidy.
While improving intelligence gathering for pre-emption and security procedures for tackling a threat are issues that need to be immediately addressed in terms of increasing capacity, the broader issue is linked to our societal attitudes. This is an area where the role of the media becomes crucial.
So far there has been no debate on this within the media, at least not in any structured manner. There are channels, anchors and a select group of analysts always at hand that, in conjunction, reinforce existing biases through obvious distortions, weaving a tapestry of conspiracies. What should be done about them?
Heres the question: Should they be allowed to spread this poison on the basis of freedom of speech? Would this not be akin to allowing someone with a gun to start shooting on the basis of freedom of action?
Carl Schmitt, the controversial German philosopher and jurist, writing during the twilight of the Weimer Republic, was arguing that parties and entities opposed to the principles enshrined in the Constitution should not be allowed to operate. The liberals were opposed to his viewpoint. But that misplaced liberalism resulted in a transformation that led Germany into a period from which the Germans are still trying to recover.
Would we like to go that way or should we begin to ask ourselves some hard and tough questions regarding what it is that we want as a nation? It doesnt seem to me that we are even clear on the issue of whether we are a nation-state in the modern sense. That requires self-reflection, not pointing fingers at others and distorting facts.
The attack has done its damage. But if something positive can come out of it, there may be less sense of waste, after all.
Ejaz Haider is Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times and Consulting Editor of The Friday Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk
