What's new

Pakistan's War: Now is The Time or Forever Hold Your Peace

Came across an excellent article in the Dawn of today. Please forgive me if the same has already been posted.

Ownership of the warBy Ahsan Butt | From the Newspaper

YesterdayTERRORISM is a complex problem in Pakistan, but not if you believe Imran Khan`s Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf, its followers, or like-minded citizens.

People of their ilk believe that terrorism, and its solution, is exceedingly simple: rather than being autochthonous, militant violence against Pakistani citizens is almost entirely due to the US presence in the region.

The argument goes that until the US invaded Afghanistan, there was no terrorism in Pakistan; ergo, terrorism in Pakistan is solely a response to the US. Furthermore, the use of drones in the tribal agencies — explicitly sanctioned by Pakistani military and civilian authorities — exacerbates the problem. The primary cause of terrorism is, by this logic, located outside the bounds of the state. Consequently the prescription for terrorism to be eradicated from Pakistan is also simple: the US should abandon drone strikes, and the region on the whole. Once that happens, suicide bombings in markets, shrines and mosques will cease.

Empirically, this argument is nonsensical. Terrorism did not erupt in Pakistan after 2001. To the contrary, sectarian attacks, violence against minorities and ethnic conflict was pervasive before 9/11, and will continue to be with us well after the Americans draw down forces in Afghanistan. Moreover, the argument conveniently ignores the complicity of the Pakistani state in nurturing, supporting and countenancing militant violence over a period of three decades.

That said, the notion that Pakistan stands a better chance of defeating militancy once the US`s regional footprint becomes lighter is probably accurate. This is because it will allow Pakistanis, and the state that ostensibly represents them, to take greater ownership of the war against militant groups.

Until now, our body politic has been consumed by the irrational question of whether this is `our war` — as if a war in which 35,000 Pakistanis have died could be anything but. Nevertheless, the view claiming this isn`t our war is so ubiquitous that we ignore it at our peril.

The fact is that large segments of our population simply cannot accept an alliance with the US, despite the two states` goals sometimes overlapping, if not aligning. There is a great mistrust of western powers in our country. The crimes that the US has committed against the Pakistani people and state — backing military dictators with aid, abandoning us in our times of greatest need, acting only in its national strategic interest — are actions other major patrons, most notably China and Saudi Arabia, regularly partake in. And yet the latter two are more popular than the US by an order of magnitude amongst citizens and state elites.

This suggests that the material aspects of the relationship with the US — who has done what and when — matter less than the collective interpretations of those material considerations. These interpretations are generally rooted in a nation`s collective identity; how it sees itself in the wider world. Decades of effort by the state in the form of changes in the penal code, a rewriting of history textbooks, and the promotion of Islam (and Urdu) to unify a state rife with ethnic and class divisions have borne fruit. A recent poll showed that 59 per cent of Pakistanis consider themselves Muslims first, Pakistanis second. We are, for better or worse, more Islamic Republic than Pakistan.

National myths built upon perceptions of one`s identity often impose a linear understanding of events and relationships that do not easily fit those narratives. Thus the US is perceived as an enemy and a threat, and China as an all-weather friend, even though the two behave in similar ways with Pakistan. The key difference between the two is their respective dealings with the rest of the Muslim world; China has not launched repeated wars of aggression and threatened yet others in the Middle East in the last decade.This means that material factors, such as Kerry-Lugar aid or the scores of civilians dying in attacks conducted by homegrown terrorists, are unlikely to change minds. To be sure, public opinion today does consider the Taliban and their ilk more of a threat than, say, three years ago. But when asked to prioritise security threats, the median voter may not consider militants a serious one vis-Ã -vis India or the United States.

In essence, the broader public finds it difficult to support a war in which we are allied with a purported enemy. In that sense, the military and civilian aid the US provides makes the problem worse, because it reinforces the belief that we are only fighting this conflict on the Americans` behalf, and thus need to be monetarily coaxed into doing so.

But if and when the US is no longer a meaningful presence in the region, it may make it easier for the average citizen to conceive of homegrown militants as a real threat, and thus lead to greater ownership of this war. In turn, broader public support will change the incentives that political parties and the military face.

It is almost assuredly true that terrorism will remain a serious problem in Pakistan, with or without the US around. But once the US exits Afghanistan, and bombings and gun attacks continue, the Imran Khans of the world will, conceivably, be forced to consider that terrorism in Pakistan is mostly a Pakistani problem with mostly a Pakistani solution.

One must not overstate the extent to which public opinion matters. Factors such as our military`s long-term follies, an inability to synchronise and coordinate action amongst the army, police and courts; a lack of decisive strategy from either GHQ or the interior ministry — each of these is more crucial to the terrorism fight than what the so-called masses think about the issue.

But public opinion does matter insofar as it provides political parties and the military leadership stronger incentives to take the threat seriously, and fashion an appropriate response. Though cynicism is often warranted when it comes to our military and political elite, the better-than-expected response to the 2010 floods, amongst other examples, demonstrates the capabilities of the state when push comes to shove. Encouraging those capabilities by the public will only be possible when the war is fundamentally perceived as ours.

The writer is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Chicago, and blogs at Five Rupees.

Ownership of the war | Opinion | DAWN.COM
 
Came across an excellent article in the Dawn of today. Please forgive me if the same has already been posted.



The argument goes that until the US invaded Afghanistan, there was no terrorism in Pakistan; ergo, terrorism in Pakistan is solely a response to the US. Furthermore, the use of drones in the tribal agencies — explicitly sanctioned by Pakistani military and civilian authorities — exacerbates the problem. The primary cause of terrorism is, by this logic, located outside the bounds of the state. Consequently the prescription for terrorism to be eradicated from Pakistan is also simple: the US should abandon drone strikes, and the region on the whole. Once that happens, suicide bombings in markets, shrines and mosques will cease.

The writer is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Chicago, and blogs at Five Rupees.Ownership of the war | Opinion | DAWN.COM

Need I say more!!!!!

Think Tanks are aloud of this Rupee bullcrap now on this forum!!!!!!!!!!
 
Need I say more!!!!!

Think Tanks are aloud of this Rupee bullcrap now on this forum!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t worry,
The article is beyond the comprehension of a typical troll and you are no exception
 
Pakistan’s commitment to the war
Posted on June 8, 2011

By S.m. Hali

Despite Pakistan having suffered a loss of over 35,000 precious lives, a major chunk of the tourism, sports and entertainment industry as well as foreign investment, there are doubting Thomas’ abroad and within the country about its commitment to the ongoing war on terror. It has been a decade since 9/11 and the US led attack on Afghanistan, which brought the war on terror to the doorsteps of the Pakistanis. Earlier, average Pakistanis kept denying that this was our war. Their grouse was with General (retd) Pervez Musharraf that he blindly became a US ally. However, with the raging war having taken a serious toll of the lives of innocent Pakistanis, the war can no longer be brushed under the carpet as “not being our war.” The people need to realise that it is now the war of our survival.
In April 2011, terror struck full blooded blows, especially on the military and law enforcing agencies of Pakistan. Three buses conveying naval personnel were attacked, resulting in the death of half a dozen officers and sailors. May has been the bloodiest month so far. Following the attack on Osama bin Laden’s alleged hideout in Abbottabad and his slaying, there were tit-for-tat retaliatory attacks by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which have taken a heavy toll. The latest casualty was the naval aviation base, PNS Mehran, where reportedly six terrorists held the entire might of Karachi at bay for more than 16 hours. Two of the navy’s most prized asset, the P-3C Orion were burnt and charred to ashes and 13 naval personnel sacrificed their lives. The worst casualty was the esteem, confidence and good name of the armed forces. The bin Laden episode brought ignominy to the army and air force, but the navy’s morale suffered a major dent because of the Mehran attack that shattered its self-esteem.
Externally, the West made a mockery of Pakistan after the bin Laden episode and ridiculed us that Osama had managed to reside unrecognised and incognito for many years in a cantonment city at a stone’s throw from the Pakistan Military Academy Kakul. The US went to the extent of stating that Pakistan was either complicit or incompetent. It is indeed callous and heartless to blame Pakistan and doubt its commitment. On the other hand, Pakistan too needs to put its own house in order and evolve a strategy and plan to defeat terror. The world will perhaps take to us more kindly, if we have a credible strategy, evolved by Parliament after debate and consultations with all major stakeholders and political parties. There would hardly be a Pakistani family, which has been left unscathed or unaffected by the ongoing spate of violence. Nearly every household has lost a family member or suffered the trauma of terror attacks. Thirty-five thousand casualties is a large number to sacrifice. During the Second World War, this was the number of casualties suffered by many countries. Here Pakistan has lost so many people and more importantly, allocated resources including the deployment of nearly 150,000 troops to combat terror. Nearly 600 Al-Qaeda and Taliban have been rounded up and handed over to international agencies seeking them. At the end of the day, if Pakistan’s intentions are doubted that it is playing double games and protecting some assets, then it is most unfair.
Besides formulating a cogent plan to tackle terrorism like the US did following 9/11 or Britain did after 7/7, Pakistan needs to execute the plan with audacity and courage. In order to take the bull by the horns, Pakistan also needs to revamp its institutions engaged in the war and make sure that everyone is on the same page.
In this context, the policy on religious institutions requires serious implementation. The registration of all the madrassahs must be carried out on war footing. This essential step must be followed by a close of all major disciplines in the syllabi being taught by these so-called religious institutions. Making them cognisant of science, technology, computer literacy and modern subjects of social sciences will broaden the horizon of the students of the madrassahs and make them less prone to indoctrination by terror mongers to join the gang of suicide bombers, with the lollypop of going to paradise as a martyr. These steps should stem the rot and prove Pakistan’s commitment to fight the war.
- The writer is a political and defence analyst
 
Don’t worry,
The article is beyond the comprehension of a typical troll and you are no exception

So you are saying that terrorism should not exist in Pakistan, but in Afganistan and other countries??????

And this word "Comprehension," Use words wisely next time think tank!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom