March of the Taliban By Kamran Shafi

[fatman17]

I have always liked this columnist. He does not cloud the issue, and is very frank and blunt with his views. They are mostly accurate. In this particular case - I wish he was wrong.

moot point - he's a she - and "she's got balls"!

 

[S-2]

...and said, "Hey babe, take a walk on the wiiiiilllld side...".

 

[fatman17]

I disagree.

It is more likely that an Iraq type scenario will develop. The local population will realize the miscreants pose a threat to their interests similar to how the Iraqis realized how disadvantageous their alliance with Al-Qaeda was. Currently a large section of people are sympathizers more than supporters and as knowledge of Taliban activities enters the public domain such as the lashing incident sympathies will dampen. In Iraq whereas the US military had decimated and then dissolved the Iraqi Army; the Pakistan Army is intact and much more potent. Denial is just the first step, but public opinion is turning in the right direction I believe. It is unlikely the Taliban will be as strong as you envisage as time passes.

more self-denial!
and whats the use of this potent and intact army when it is not being used to defend the country from this "internal threat". how much longer do we have to wait. Islamabad, Lahore are under attack, which city is next! - our FM talks of "red lines" for the americans, what about some "red lines" for the taliban, when?, i'll tell you when, when his beloved Multan and his hundreds of acres of fine agriculture land comes under direct threat from the taliban - then is when for our un-flappable FM!

wake up pakistanis - you are being duped by your blinkered media and your politicians - make up your own minds if you still have them!Pakistan comes first and foremost!

 

[niaz]

I have heard Haji Muslim Khan of Swat on TV declaring that TTP aim to create an Islamic Emirate comprising Afghanistan and Pakistan; implying end of Pakistan State. Both the JUI and JI are also anti Pakistan as evident from their pro Taliban stance. Besides, I cannot forgive JUI leadership for the comment after the fall of Dacca. (Mufti Mahmoud reputed to have said that they weren’t party to the sin of creation of Pakistan!)

I may be defying logic but I love Pakistan too much to contemplate fall of Pakistan state. Since I can’t do very much except to contribute with money to stop the march of Taliban; I have decided to support PPP. IMO despite all their faults, PPP leadership are for Pakistan. I don’t like Altaf Bhai; else I would contribute to MQM fund too.

The time has come where all those who have any love for Pakistan should stand up and be counted.

 

[Storm Lord]

more self-denial!
and whats the use of this potent and intact army when it is not being used to defend the country from this "internal threat".

Sir I believe you are being a bit unfair to me. There is nothing naive about me saying that the Pakistan Army is in a much more potent condition than the Iraqi Army was after the US was through with it. But I feel it is naive to insist that the Pakistan Army will never fight this menace the way it deserves to be fought, or that when they fight they will lose. The Pakistan Army is an instrument after all, when there is political will and acceptance of the Pakistan Army's costly but needed operations, then they will be unleashed. But right, as so many people here agree, the Pakistani people are in a state of denial and delusion that is being encouraged by our politicians and media. The clumsy and weak government will not take any risk that it might deem 'avoidable', even at the cost of the long term well being of the nation. I am not one of those 'self-denial' people, but I certainly do believe that the Army is still capable of finishing this.

Thank you for that interesting and probably sensational article Muse. No doubt bribing local officials contributed to the Awakening, but I maintain that the true motive for so many fighters, their families and tribes was more deeper and basic like the fact that Al-Qaeda was being economically and socially too assertive even for their conservative life-styles. Also the NYT article is more an instance of the US forces, undermanned as they are, trying to establish a bulwark against growing Taliban influence as opposed to unseating a form of Taliban control or authority, like in 2001. Whatever the situation in Afghanistan is these days is mainly due to misgovernance of the Karzi regime, and not some wide-spread popularity of Taliban rule or of their ideology.

 

[fatman17]

Sir I believe you are being a bit unfair to me.
agreed and pls accept my apology! the jist of my "anger" however is quite justified as we see our country "whither"

 

[fatman17]

....and folks here is the "piece de resistance". politicians who are going to "Save our Country"

Second Editorial: Foreign policy and ‘wishes of the people’

The 17-member Parliamentary Committee on National Security has asked the Zardari government in its report to the National Assembly on Monday to make its policies independently “in accordance with the wishes of the people, keeping the national interest supreme”. After 16 meetings, the Committee has produced the following wisdom on how the world should be made to understand Pakistan’s attitude towards terrorism: “the threat of terrorism can be effectively addressed by resolving the issues confronting the Muslim world”.

The Committee is caught in some kind of time warp when it belatedly tells the government “to take steps to ensure that the Pakistani soil is not used for any kind of attacks on other countries; and all foreign fighters, if found, should be expelled from Pakistan”. The “if found” phrase perhaps indicates the view of those parliamentarians who insist that there are no foreigners in the tribal areas. If you ask the federal minister for science, Mr Azam Khan Swati, he will probably tell you that Jews and Indians are swarming the “Pakistani soil”, that is, if he has time free from constantly ridiculing the policies of his government.

The Committee was certainly thinking of the Americans when it put this formulation in its report: “the government needs to adopt an uncompromising attitude to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan”. Elsewhere, it recommends using forceful diplomacy in dissuading the US from carrying out its drone attacks. In this rather vague phrasing, it seems to be hinting at taking physical counter-measures to stop the drones from flying over Pakistan, including asking the air force to go up and intercept. It will not, of course, recommend what action to take if this escalation leads to any of our aircraft being shot down.

The only useful recommendation was allowed by the Committee towards the end, but not without violating an earlier recommendation about doing in foreign policy what the people want: “Pakistan’s strategic interests should be protected by developing stakes in regional peace and trade by developing trade ties with neighbouring and regional countries”. No word is allowed about how this “normalisation” with the neighbours is possible if the people-propelled, referendum-type, isolationist but “independent” foreign policy is followed by Islamabad.

Democratic governance has evolved on some familiar lines over the centuries. While Gallup polls will always be a device of pressure on the representative government, democracy has become more and more “indirect” since the days of the Athenian city state. In fact there is a lot of literature available today critical of the idea of direct democracy in which the people decide every policy. The praise for indirect and representative democracy stems mostly from the fact that the interest of the state is determined in an expert fashion by those who have been elected by the people instead of directly by the people. Referendums are not favoured in truly democratic constitutions. America doesn’t allow referendums; the European Union has only bitter experience flowing from the recent referendums on its further unification.

When the state is strong it has a wide margin for deciding its own foreign policy. But when the state is weak, this margin for “independence” becomes narrow. The pursuit of national interest therefore takes place within the limits and constraints of its power to influence the world. Foreign policy “independence” is therefore achieved in three categories: the superpower category with the capacity to make other states obey; the middle power capacity to withstand the persuasion of big powers while not being in a position to persuade the lesser powers; and those powers that are amenable to external pressure without being able to persuade the lesser states.

Events have shown that not even a superpower can have an “independent” foreign policy. The “Gallup poll-driven” Iraq policy of President Bush was finally found not to be in America’s interest. In the same manner, the advice to Islamabad to have an “independent” foreign policy is in fact a recipe — backed no doubt by the people — for isolationism. What the people want is a “heroic and defiant” foreign policy which an economically troubled Pakistan simply cannot afford. An insistence on an “independent” as opposed to “flexible” foreign policy presumes going to war with states that thwart it. That is not an option Pakistan has.

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security has projected itself as “internally blind” because it has ignored the fact that a lot of the “soil” it is trying to protect through an independent foreign policy is not in Pakistan’s control. It forgets that foreign policy is based on a consideration of internal developments.


http:///www.dailytimes.com.pk

 

[roadrunner]

You are mistaken, as you seem to have forgotten that Al Sadr is Shia Cleric and his influence is unlikely to have much effect on the Sunis. It was mainly the Sunnis who constituted the bulk and concentration of the violent insurgency and they were pacified through the

I followed Iraq reasonably closely. The Sunnis had a consistent resistance inside the "sunni triangle" that caused a basic level of damage to coalition forces. But it was when Al-Sadr got a tummy rumble that the biggest damages were inflicted.

That's not to say the Sunnis were insignificant in this though.

Awakening which basically happened because the tribal chieftains and local leaders realized that Al-Qaeda ideology was unacceptable to their way of life and their own long term interests.

It really was a matter of deals in Iraq.

You underestimate the intelligence of the average Iraqi. They are not stupid people (neither are the FATA tribals, in fact). Many of them were quite well educated from the 1980s when Iraq was a country to rival some European ones in terms of technology. They knew Al Qaeda's ideology well before any reduction in violence. Their problem was that they wanted some reassurances given, and the coalition finally gave it them. That caused it to go away (and perhaps Al Q to be less favourable in the area).

Societies as a whole accept and reject ideologies and trends, the long term implications of Taliban/Al-Qaeda rule make it unsustainable. This is what the Sunni Iraqis, despite the unwelcome American presence, concluded. This fact can further be attested by the surprising ease with which the Taliban were evicted from Afghanistan in 2001 as well.

I don't quite get what you're saying here.

You're saying that when the Taliban were driven out of power in Afghanistan, it was because their ideology was rejected? In that case, the answer is no. The Taliban simply melted away. In this case it does not support what you're saying. If the Taliban ideology was rejected, they should not have been allowed to simply melt away into the population. They should have been handed over.

I doubt the realization that dawned on the locals depended solely on the number of television sets they possessed. The Iraqi Sunni tribes in many ways are not so different from our own. Also it would be wrong to assume that whatever happened in Iraq can never recur anywhere, especially since so many factors are the same.

I'll disagree with that. The tribes are very different.

 

[roadrunner]

Well certain debates are like the chicken or the egg came first ! The Americans and the drone attacks are here to stay but whether they were the catalyst to the Swat deal capitulation can never be co-related. The PA had a chance to neutralise BM and that should have been done long ago. Now he is multi headed hydra Pakistan has to live with.

Regards

Isn't everything under such discussions conjecture? Or have you come up with some neutral theory of political certainties now?

It is possible to co-relate the drone strikes, and the increasing Talibanization of Pakistan, it's quantifying it that is difficult.

 

[All-Green]

Enough is enough...

It is not about how well trained an Army is...It is all about the will to wage war on the enemies of the state...to deal with any enemy (internal or external) with extreme prejudice!!!

All our tanks, planes, military tradition, honor will mean squat if we do not fight for Pakistan...

The police is sleeping, and their lack of presence in rural areas will ensure that even as i type some additional village/town will be infested with Taliban.
The distribution of police in the rural areas mean that they will never ever be in enough numbers to even think about tackling a 10-20 man party of Taliban. The presence of twisted Mullahs and madrassass with dodgy intentions will ensure that TTP will have at least informants if not overt cooperation in the rural areas.
The information of when, where and most importantly whom to strike is the one which will make rural areas collapse like a deck of cards and i see such informers aplenty who will collaborate when seduced by the self proclaimed holy mission of Taliban.

If we need to protect all the rural areas with Army help then it shall be a long long war and our Army will be spread thin and away from the borders, which is also not strategically feasible.

It does not take a genius to figure out the military and long term solution.

There is only one strategic option and that is to concentrate the Army in and especially around the strongholds of Taliban and fight a pitched battle to exterminate as many rebels as possible, break their morale into little pieces and liberate the people of Pakistan.
This will give Army sufficient numbers to tackle the Taliban without compromising much on external security...even if the compromise is significant we do not have a choice quite frankly...we can deploy our missiles to the east in case we suspect any misadventure but we do need to put more boots on the Taliban grounds and provide enough firepower to shake their very will to fight.

As long as we do not take the fight to Taliban in their strongholds we shall sadly not prevail...that is my candid analysis.

we are at a defining moment in our history...i can predict nothing but i will say this...this is not time for waiting patiently or political maneuvering...it is criminal not to act now when despite the shariah act...TTP is showing no sign to lay down arms.

Rub this hypocrisy in their faces and drive a mailed fist through their teeth...

 

[roadrunner]

Enough is enough...

It is not about how well trained an Army is...It is all about the will to wage war on the enemies of the state...to deal with any enemy (internal or external) with extreme prejudice!!!

All our tanks, planes, military tradition, honor will mean squat if we do not fight for Pakistan...

The police is sleeping, and their lack of presence in rural areas will ensure that even as i type some additional village/town will be infested with Taliban.
The distribution of police in the rural areas mean that they will never ever be in enough numbers to even think about tackling a 10-20 man party of Taliban. The presence of twisted Mullahs and madrassass with dodgy intentions will ensure that TTP will have at least informants if not overt cooperation in the rural areas.
The information of when, where and most importantly whom to strike is the one which will make rural areas collapse like a deck of cards and i see such informers aplenty who will collaborate when seduced by the self proclaimed holy mission of Taliban.

If we need to protect all the rural areas with Army help then it shall be a long long war and our Army will be spread thin and away from the borders, which is also not strategically feasible.

It does not take a genius to figure out the military and long term solution.

There is only one strategic option and that is to concentrate the Army in and especially around the strongholds of Taliban and fight a pitched battle to exterminate as many rebels as possible, break their morale into little pieces and liberate the people of Pakistan.
This will give Army sufficient numbers to tackle the Taliban without compromising much on external security...even if the compromise is significant we do not have a choice quite frankly...we can deploy our missiles to the east in case we suspect any misadventure but we do need to put more boots on the Taliban grounds and provide enough firepower to shake their very will to fight.

As long as we do not take the fight to Taliban in their strongholds we shall sadly not prevail...that is my candid analysis.

we are at a defining moment in our history...i can predict nothing but i will say this...this is not time for waiting patiently or political maneuvering...it is criminal not to act now when despite the shariah act...TTP is showing no sign to lay down arms.

Rub this hypocrisy in their faces and drive a mailed fist through their teeth...

There's reasons the British gave provincial autonomy to the tribals.

Pakistan, not even its armed forces, can go against more than 100 years of natural selection and evolution.

 

[All-Green]

There's reasons the British gave provincial autonomy to the tribals.

Pakistan, not even its armed forces, can go against more than 100 years of natural selection and evolution.

roadrunner, Swat and such areas are not exactly FATA.
We should never ever have lost control in Swat, it has given TTP a whole new dimension in the eyes of the people.

The cancer has spread even till DG Khan.
Had a friend in Taunsa who has moved on to Canada in view of what he had to tell me about the Taliban presence there.

My point is very simple, if you do not punish a hostile act you only encourage such acts...a very basic philosophy which is ringing true here.

Taliban will only expand and so far TTP is not called a terrorist organization by our clerics or what people call the original Taliban.
They are all different faces of the same movement and it is time we accept that bitter truth. To them the TTP struggle is just and the cost of lives is unfortunate but all in a just cause...

Our logic and reasoning will never halt their advance into Pakistan proper, only force will counter them and check their advance.

The war is not against the Tribals, it is against the TTP who have killed many tribal elders, maliks, jirgas and have as hostages many influential families and will systematically eliminate all their opponents.

Is it not time that we start thinking like a nation?

 

[fatman17]

Time has come to kick some TTP Butt and the Time is NOW!!!

 

[All-Green]

Time has come to kick some TTP Butt and the Time is NOW!!!

fatman17 Sir,

Please do a sweep of your current location, maybe 2-3 TTP insurgents are hiding behind the Harvest.

I sincerely hope we rally as a nation and people like you are in every family...

 

[roadrunner]

roadrunner, Swat and such areas are not exactly FATA.

We should never ever have lost control in Swat, it has given TTP a whole new dimension in the eyes of the people.

This isn't true. The people did not oppose the ideology of the TTP in Swat. They more so took it on board. These are Swat Pakistanis who have taken on the ideology of the TTP. The way forward is to first stem the flow, then invest in education and development. Violence against ones own countrymen will only escalate a situation. Diplomacy is the important word.

The cancer has spread even till DG Khan.
Had a friend in Taunsa who has moved on to Canada in view of what he had to tell me about the Taliban presence there.

It's an ideology that is spreading.

My point is very simple, if you do not punish a hostile act you only encourage such acts...a very basic philosophy which is ringing true here.

You encourage further growth if you punish people unfairly.

Taliban will only expand and so far TTP is not called a terrorist organization by our clerics or what people call the original Taliban.
They are all different faces of the same movement and it is time we accept that bitter truth. To them the TTP struggle is just and the cost of lives is unfortunate but all in a just cause...

The TTP are a terrorist movement, but they are Pakistani, and their ideology is spreading. Violence solves very little. It's covert ops that is needed, surgical ops, occasionally, with a heavy dose of re-education and regional development.

Also, a sealing or better monitoring of the Western border. Thise weapons the TTP and militants use are not ordinary weapons is my opinion. They're supported by foreign powers. It's a difficult situation for Pakistan, but I'm sure if the Pakistani government gave them their attention for education and development as much as they could, the folks in Swat or even the tribals would not be able to be bought of by any foreign powers.

Our logic and reasoning will never halt their advance into Pakistan proper, only force will counter them and check their advance.

It's an ideology that is spreading. The TTP are not reproducing like frogs spawn all of a sudden and marching. Don't cloud the issue.

The war is not against the Tribals, it is against the TTP who have killed many tribal elders, maliks, jirgas and have as hostages many influential families and will systematically eliminate all their opponents.

Is it not time that we start thinking like a nation?

The war is against an ideology. These are Pakistanis who have this ideology. To defeat an ideology you have to change people's minds. Violence only works if you can genocide an ideology. That is not a good idea in this case.