Rawalpindi | Gentlemen, it’s time

[blain2]

There are three kinds of opinions floating here: those who support the army's action, those who don't and then the third category is one which is unsure or just doesn't know enough.

Why I think the army is doing it the wrong way — because they haven't done it the right way in the last seven years.

Such massive movement to consolidate the Frontier province is mind-boggling. How could we let 7,000 Taliban lay control of large swathes in the first place. Keeping in mind the spillover effect from the Waziristan agencies, Talibanisation has been a local phenomenon.

People want peace, that's it. Malakand division (comprising of Swat, Buner, Lower and Upper Dir, Chitral, Shangla and Malakand) is one of the poorest regions in the province. for those people day-to-day survival is the most of their problems. When they had to contend with 10-day long curfews, which were relaxed for a mere six hours, there patience was tested. Most of the division in any case relied on tourism, which has been badly affected.

One and all agree this action should have taken place earlier.

and yes, different views on the subject are bound to abound...

Nadja,

Better late than never. Secondly, no one around has run a clean COIN campaign. While it was going on, it was messy, dirty and lots of mistakes were made. Pakistan's case is no different. Mistakes will be made and then gains and then reverses etc...the cycle goes on.

The problem of Taliban exists because there is support for them amongst the local population as you rightly said. They come and stay and in many areas are allowed to stay because the local population is either too scared or shares certain affinity with these people.

Its really too easy and simple to blame the Army for these problems. In my opinion the main issue is with our national psyche. We really are unsure about where we are going. The nation is far from being on the same page and this results in indecisive decisions being taken.

 

[blain2]

A sobering perspective at the very end by Durrani.

As to the point about why Army did not take action 7 years ago, I think the point in bold clearly explains that. Army tried to put off doing that for a long time but the domestic and Int'l pressure had cornered both the GoP and the PA into doing what they are doing now. However nothing is without repercussions and ramifications.

US policies encourage ethnic rivalry
By Anwar Iqbal
Tuesday, 12 May, 2009 | 12:15 AM PST |
font-size small font-size largefont-sizeprintemail share
The US policies and the army action in Swat can lead Pakistan to an ethnic crisis which will be difficult to control: Selig S. Harrison.—AP
Karachi shuts down on May 12 anniversary
Cannes-09
Quentin Tarantino in focus

WASHINGTON: The US policies and the army action in Swat could lead Pakistan to an ethnic crisis which would be difficult to control, argues Selig S. Harrison, the author of a report, ‘Pakistan: The State of the Union.’

The report, based on a six-month study of ethnic tensions in Pakistan, makes six recommendations to the US administration: 1. Support Civilian Governance, 2. Promote Demilitarisation, 3. Encourage Respect for the Constitution, 4. “Pashtunise” the War against al Qaeda, 5. Earmark US Aid for Sind and Baluchistan.

The author former Washington Post bureau chief in South Asia who also has written five books on the region, notes that to American eyes the struggle raging in Pakistan with the Taliban is about religious fanaticism.

‘But in Pakistan it is about an explosive fusion of Islamist zeal and simmering ethnic tensions that have been exacerbated by US pressures for military action against the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies.’

Mr Harrison argues that understanding the ethnic dimension of the conflict is the key to a successful strategy for separating the Taliban from al Qaeda and stabilising multiethnic Pakistan politically.

Pushing for a major military operation into the Pashtun territory, Mr Harrison says, moves Pakistan ever closer to an ethnically defined civil war, strengthening Pashtun sentiment for an independent ‘Pashtunistan’ that would embrace 41 million people in big chunks of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

‘This is one of the main reasons the army initially favored a peace deal with a Taliban offshoot in the Swat Valley and has resisted US pressure to go all out against jihadist advances into neighboring districts.’

While the Pakistan army leaders, says the author, fear the long-term dangers of a Taliban link-up with Islamist forces in the heartland of Pakistan, ‘they are more worried about what they see as the looming danger of Pashtun separatism.’

The author argues that fears of Pashtunistan led Pakistan to support jihadist surrogates in the Afghan resistance during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and, later, to build up the Taliban.

‘Ironically, during its rule in Kabul the Taliban refused to endorse the Durand Line despite pressure from Islamabad. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has also resisted, calling it ‘a line of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers.’

How should the Obama administration proceed?
The author urges the United States to lower its military profile by ending airstrikes. He points out that by arousing a Pashtun sense of victimisation at the hands of outside forces, the conduct of the ‘war on terror’ in Fata has strengthened the jihadist groups the US seeks to defeat.

Politically, US policy should be revised to demonstrate that ‘America supports the Pashtun desire for a stronger position in relation to the government in Islamabad.’

The United States should support Pashtun demands to merge the NWFP and Fata, followed by the consolidation of those areas and Pashtun enclaves in Baluchistan and the Punjab into a single unified ‘Pashtunkhwa’ province that enjoys the autonomy envisaged in the inoperative 1973 Pakistan constitution.

In the meantime, instead of permitting Islamabad to administer the huge sums of US aid going into Fata, the Obama administration should condition the aid's continuance on most of it being dispensed in conjunction with the NWFP provincial government.

The United States should welcome any new peace initiatives by the secular Pashtun leaders of the Awami National Party designed to separate Taliban and Taliban-allied Islamist factions from al Qaeda. As in Swat, military force should be a last resort.

The author notes that on March 1, 2007, former Pakistani ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani, said at a seminar at the Pakistan Embassy, ‘I hope the Taliban and Pashtun nationalism don't merge. If that happens, we've had it, and we're on the verge of that.’

 

[Elmo]

Well, maybe because if we don't our children and nation won't have a future and all that we know will descend into chaos, anarchy, violence and war.............At the end of the day, it is your decision and no one here is offended by your views. Most of us think that our nation’s security should not be jeopardized because our leaders are indecisive and cowardly when it comes to making hard decisions. We believe that the TTP and others are a bad enough threat to merit just decisions, you obviously don’t. The very ideals of ‘non-violence’ and ‘peace’ that you use to condemn the Army’s attempts to establish order and justice within the borders of our country are obviously not shared by those who initiated this civil war because of their hunger for conquest in the first place. These ideals of ‘law’ and ‘order’ and ‘justice’ need to be protected, even if it requires the use of force which is an inevitable aspect of human nature. Islam and International Law give the respective Armed Forces of sovereign states that authority and responsibility because we live in a far from utopian world where not everyone prefers to be a peaceful, self-less, constructive contribution to society.

Whenever the Army has been compelled to overthrow a civilian dictatorship, we have Pakistani ‘liberals’ ranting themselves hoarse about concepts like ‘law’ and ‘constitution’ and ‘democracy’ but ironically now that the Army is fighting and dying for the very same ideals, the same liberals can be found falling over each other’s feet to make an exception for the terrorists. Why? Just because it is the ‘hated’ Army that is trying to oppose them. Some people will be unhappy with everything, it is their opportunistic nature and thus they are nothing but a thankless burden on society.

A clarification: I do not support the use of force. But now that the military is using it, can't the people be taken into confidence. Chaos, violence and anarchy — they are already there. I'll agree with the civilian government bit, but would add that the TTP and TNSM are part and parcel of the same organisation and should have been reigned in (please do read Blain2's response, it clarifies some of the issues you raised vis-avis the GOP).

Lastly, I am a liberal. I admittedly cried hoarse during general Musharraf's military rule and am still hoarse on the use of force. I also know of many liberals who like me haven't made an exception to their ideals in either instance.

On a lighter note, I'll quote an Indian author here on the need for divergent views: "If your soul hungers for the true faith, there's a flip side — your dealings with the infidel. There would be no faith if there were no infidels. The Kafirs are as essential to Islam as the unbeliever is to the followers of Christ. Infidels are not a nuisance. How else would you pride yourself in the true faith, if there were no false gods.
Infidels also give you an excuse to kick them hard on their backsides. What more could you ask for."

Nadja,

Better late than never. Secondly, no one around has run a clean COIN campaign. While it was going on, it was messy, dirty and lots of mistakes were made. Pakistan's case is no different. Mistakes will be made and then gains and then reverses etc...the cycle goes on.

The problem of Taliban exists because there is support for them amongst the local population as you rightly said. They come and stay and in many areas are allowed to stay because the local population is either too scared or shares certain affinity with these people.

Its really too easy and simple to blame the Army for these problems. In my opinion the main issue is with our national psyche. We really are unsure about where we are going. The nation is far from being on the same page and this results in indecisive decisions being taken.

With a population of 170 million and more than four dominant ethnicities, wishing for a collective approach seems idealism on your part

We haven't been able to agree on anything since the March 23 resolution in 1943.

My criticism to army action is that how many cycles will it go through before it gets it right? No lessons learnt from Fata whatsoever?

 

[fatman17]

Just for the record, I am not anti-army

now is that the joke of the year!

 

[All-Green]

My criticism to army action is that how many cycles will it go through before it gets it right? No lessons learnt from Fata whatsoever?

What lessons should the Army have learned from FATA?

PA is not supposed to be the provincial police...when there are known occupation of houses etc. the police and constabulary should act and if the provincial apparatus failed to curb the threat then the NWFP government should have called Army to act.
How could Army bypass the democratically elected government without breach of constitution and against the wishes of most of Pakistani people who have had it with Army rule.

FATA was still under direct federal administration but Swat is a different ballgame altogether.

If you believe that Army was late in acting then would not the old axiom of better late than never hold true in this case?
...especially since we know TTP would only have spread outward from SWAT due to their bloated egos in face of a diplomatic GOP stance.
Actually TTP outbreak towards Buner etc. woke up many Pakistanis who thought TTP can be reasoned with.

Remember how most political parties thought Army action was to please US, now when they themselves came into power and dealt with TTP firsthand, most are quick to support army action.

Maybe PA wanted a national consensus before starting war in the region and this was part of their lessons learnt in FATA...too bad that despite of TTP's breach of the peace pact and a political will behind this Army action, we are seeing criticism of PA alone...as if it was the sole entity responsible for everything that lead to this state.

Anyhow, i am curious to know what specific lessons should Army have learned from FATA.

 

[fatman17]

What lessons should the Army have learned from FATA?

PA is not supposed to be the provincial police...when there are known occupation of houses etc. the police and constabulary should act and if the provincial apparatus failed to curb the threat then the NWFP government should have called Army to act.
How could Army bypass the democratically elected government without breach of constitution and against the wishes of most of Pakistani people who have had it with Army rule.

FATA was still under direct federal administration but Swat is a different ballgame altogether.

If you believe that Army was late in acting then would not the old axiom of better late than never hold true in this case?
...especially since we know TTP would only have spread outward from SWAT due to their bloated egos in face of a diplomatic GOP stance.
Actually TTP outbreak towards Buner etc. woke up many Pakistanis who thought TTP can be reasoned with.

Remember how most political parties thought Army action was to please US, now when they themselves came into power and dealt with TTP firsthand, most are quick to support army action.

Maybe PA wanted a national consensus before starting war in the region and this was part of their lessons learnt in FATA...too bad that despite of TTP's breach of the peace pact and a political will behind this Army action, we are seeing criticism of PA alone...as if it was the sole entity responsible for everything that lead to this state.

Anyhow, i am curious to know what specific lessons should Army have learned from FATA.

All-Green - Nadja jee can only ask questions - not provide solutions - she's not up to it!

 

[S-2]

"No lessons learnt from Fata whatsoever?"

I think that there's a case made by All-Green about the civilian climate post 9/11 in FATA. I'll extend it throughout your nation.

Until recently, we've seen RIGHT HERE the myriad apologists. So how, in retrospect, can we (including this American) have expected anything but the reception received by the taliban post 9/11 in FATA and the eagerness to accept treaty after treaty later on?

You had to have, as a country, the hard sense beaten into you about what these men stand for. It has, in the interim, cost the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, SWAT, Buner, and (I think) eastern Baluchistan and the N.A. You and I know that Chitral is GONE, correct?

The cost has been high as you've needed to convince yourselves. I think there's little doubt now and, further, helps make clear to Pakistanis why the taliban cannot be acceptable in Afghanistan either.

I welcome this. The veil, I think, has been lifted on these men once and for all but it'll be a long journey to Quetta is my guess.

 

[Kasrkin]

"A clarification: I do not support the use of force. But now that the military is using it, can't the people be taken into confidence. Chaos, violence and anarchy — they are already there...."

You are incapable of seeing that the chaos, anarchy and violence we see today is nothing compared to what will happen if the Taliban or other criminal elements are allowed free reign. Like I said, look at the relative figures of the populations involved in and experiencing the present upheaval then consider what will happen to the 170 million people if Pakistan becomes a failed state where terrorists and law breakers are excused for their crimes while the country’s institutions are hated for trying to hold the country together.

"I'll agree with the civilian government bit, but would add that the TTP and TNSM are part and parcel of the same organisation and should have been reigned in.."

That is a very crude assumption and has no bearing on the fact that ANP is in the government and the TTP is not. Neither can be excused away because they are 'our people'. Its like saying that the murderer and the murdered should both be considered the same just because they're related or because they’re 'our people'. If 'our people' are fond of chopping the heads of national servants and hanging the bodies of their political rivals on poles then there is something very wrong with the said people who need to be taken to account. You keep making excuses for them all you want, but like you just admitted...you weren’t this understanding and forgiving when it comes to matters that you consider to be the Army's 'infractions' in regards to their place in the national-power dispensation. There was no talk of them being ‘our own people’ then; then we had opportunists screaming ‘bloody murderers’ at the top of their voices, ranting about how the Army is ‘choking’ our great country and enslaving the population.

The Army never came in through a bloody coup, they are a state institution that held/hold the best of intentions and Musharraf certainly left peacefully too when he was obliged to by civilians who gained power under his rule. Contrast this with the militants who score the opposite in every mentioned category. It is unfortunate that your ideals about the perfect western state structure are gone out the window now when they are needed the most. There is no place for tribes and the likes of Taliban in a modern democratic society. Remember how it was so bloody unacceptable that the President holds the post of Army chief as well, this little technicality was an ‘affront’ to Pakistan, yes? People still call for Musharraf’s trial and even hanging don’t they?

But now that the Army is doing its job by protecting the majority of Pakistanis from the really bad people: people who unlike the Army won’t listen when ‘liberals’ accuse them of treason; people who won’t walk away when they feel they are unwanted and have tried their best, essentially glorified criminals who obviously care NOTHING about the country. No for them we prefer to say ‘they are part and parcel of this country so who are we to do anything about it’. Hypocritical? Very. Dangerous and damaging? Even more… Because when someone tries to help this country, we become ridiculously idealist and viciously oppose it in the name of some higher theoretical ideal, but now when we have smack-in-your-face law and order issues with body mutilating internationally outlawed foreign terrorists running around trying to snatch the governance of Pakistani territories from the hands of a Pakistani democracy…they become ‘our people’ and therefore immune to accountability, isn’t that right?

You are not adverse to the use of force, you are adverse to the use of force for national interests because the militants and their talents for mayhem don’t seem to merit addressing in your view. Remember the Army came through a bloodless coup, but the militants havent been this nice, no doubt hundreds of slain political leaders and headless bodies will attest to that. So much for your 'hoarse on the use of force'.... Blain's right, people who have such hypocritical views just confuse and weaken the structure of our society and this is our inherit shortcoming in this war.

 

[All-Green]

Spot on Kasrkin...as well put an explanation as any of the current mess we are in.

 

[niaz]

I posted on 10/5/09 in this thread

Quote

I am worried is that like all previous PA adventures, GOP will bow to the pressure of people such as Imran Khan and call off the action before the objectives of complete elimination of Taliban from the Swat Valley has been achieved? Does the current PPP leadership have spine to withstand this pressure? We shall have to wait and see.

Unquote

There have been a few articles published the Jang and in the News of today which are very ominous. It appears that there is a possibility that PA offensive COULD be called off prematurely due to so called public pressure.

If this happens, that would surely spell disaster and domination of Taliban in Pakistan. Urdu columnists in particular start with "I don't agree with Taliban" then go on to say how much misery this action is causing.

There comes a time in life when one has to chose between lesser of the two evils. One simply can't have the cake and eat it too. As a nation we just dont seem have the spine to accept the cosequences of standing up for what we think is right.

Links to the articles is noted below:

History repeats itself -- at great cost to our nation
A discordant note
Jang Group Online

 

[Elmo]

There have been a few articles published the Jang and in the News of today which are very ominous. It appears that there is a possibility that PA offensive COULD be called off prematurely due to so called public pressure.

If this happens, that would surely spell disaster and domination of Taliban in Pakistan. Urdu columnists in particular start with "I don't agree with Taliban" then go on to say how much misery this action is causing.

There comes a time in life when one has to chose between lesser of the two evils. One simply can't have the cake and eat it too. As a nation we just dont seem have the spine to accept the cosequences of standing up for what we think is right.

Firstly, the only reason the government of Pakistan or any other government for that matter would call off a counter-insurgency offensive is when it is not achieving its target. So if the Pakistan Army’s action is displacing large numbers of people and alongside only displacing the Taliban and its sympathisers — nothing is achieved then. The militants will disperse now but will consolidate later. You have history right in front of you: the Uzebks, Arabs and other Afghan Taliban found a haven in Waziristan post-2002.

Secondly, my issue with the offensive is that we don’t have ground intelligence to buttress it. The situation is akin to shooting arrows in the dark.

The choice to choose the lesser evil is there and one would opt for it but certainly not without reasoning.

 

[Elmo]

You are incapable of seeing that the chaos, anarchy and violence we see today is nothing compared to what will happen if the Taliban or other criminal elements are allowed free reign. Like I said, look at the relative figures of the populations involved in and experiencing the present upheaval then consider what will happen to the 170 million people if Pakistan becomes a failed state where terrorists and law breakers are excused for their crimes while the country’s institutions are hated for trying to hold the country together.

Karskin, I might not have experienced the chaos and anarchy but I do watch TV and follow news online. I have seen the beheadings, the floggings, the assaults, the ransackings, the shootings, the persecution, the fear and the hopelessness of people there.

As for the rest of the country, they have already made inroads into the Punjab: the attack on the police training centre and the Sri Lankan teams are examples.

Bottom line: improve intelligence.

"I'll agree with the civilian government bit, but would add that the TTP and TNSM are part and parcel of the same organisation and should have been reigned in.."

That is a very crude assumption and has no bearing on the fact that ANP is in the government and the TTP is not.

You misunderstood me. I wasn’t classifying TNSM and TTP along with ANP. I consider TNSM and TTP to be militant organisations, their ideology deeply rooted in the Salafi school of thought. They are no different to me, even if the TNSM has been around in Swat since the 1980s and had successfully called for the implementation of its brand of Sharia in the 1990s.

Neither can be excused away because they are 'our people'. Its like saying that the murderer and the murdered should both be considered the same just because they're related or because they’re 'our people'. If 'our people' are fond of chopping the heads of national servants and hanging the bodies of their political rivals on poles then there is something very wrong with the said people who need to be taken to account. You keep making excuses for them all you want, but like you just admitted...you weren’t this understanding and forgiving when it comes to matters that you consider to be the Army's 'infractions' in regards to their place in the national-power dispensation. There was no talk of them being ‘our own people’ then; then we had opportunists screaming ‘bloody murderers’ at the top of their voices, ranting about how the Army is ‘choking’ our great country and enslaving the population.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with your viewpoint doesn’t make them opportunists or hypocrites. They are entitled to their opinions — counter their arguments all you want but be impersonal.

I am not making excuses: facts stand as they are. Yes, they are “our” people who were allowed to be brainwashed. You want to take care of them, then do so but with a well-sketched strategy.

The Army never came in through a bloody coup, they are a state institution that held/hold the best of intentions and Musharraf certainly left peacefully too when he was obliged to by civilians who gained power under his rule. Contrast this with the militants who score the opposite in every mentioned category. It is unfortunate that your ideals about the perfect western state structure are gone out the window now when they are needed the most. There is no place for tribes and the likes of Taliban in a modern democratic society. Remember how it was so bloody unacceptable that the President holds the post of Army chief as well, this little technicality was an ‘affront’ to Pakistan, yes? People still call for Musharraf’s trial and even hanging don’t they?

If we all let go of our principles then what examples are we setting for the future generations. I like my ideals and all other idealists. And as for Musharraf’s bloodless coup — it’s not a mean feat. He didn’t do an ehsaan on me or the nation. The same people who were despised (read BB and Zaradri) were given a safe-passage into the country courtesy his NRO. At the end of the day he was as political and power-thirsty as any “civilian” politician/bureaucrat will be.

But now that the Army is doing its job by protecting the majority of Pakistanis from the really bad people: people who unlike the Army won’t listen when ‘liberals’ accuse them of treason; people who won’t walk away when they feel they are unwanted and have tried their best, essentially glorified criminals who obviously care NOTHING about the country. No for them we prefer to say ‘they are part and parcel of this country so who are we to do anything about it’. Hypocritical? Very. Dangerous and damaging? Even more… Because when someone tries to help this country, we become ridiculously idealist and viciously oppose it in the name of some higher theoretical ideal, but now when we have smack-in-your-face law and order issues with body mutilating internationally outlawed foreign terrorists running around trying to snatch the governance of Pakistani territories from the hands of a Pakistani democracy…they become ‘our people’ and therefore immune to accountability, isn’t that right?

Really is the army is doing its job now — you seem to have forgotten the operations conducted in Swat last year. Was the army not doing its job then that we have to see a repeat performance at a larger scale this time!

My scepticism and distrust arises from such precedents.

You are not adverse to the use of force, you are adverse to the use of force for national interests because the militants and their talents for mayhem don’t seem to merit addressing in your view. Remember the Army came through a bloodless coup, but the militants havent been this nice, no doubt hundreds of slain political leaders and headless bodies will attest to that. So much for your 'hoarse on the use of force'.... Blain's right, people who have such hypocritical views just confuse and weaken the structure of our society and this is our inherit shortcoming in this war.

The militants and mayhem need to be addressed: what made you think I didn’t agree with that. I am against use of force that goes in futility! This seems to be the case here.

 

[Elmo]

All-Green - Nadja jee can only ask questions - not provide solutions - she's not up to it!

Just for the record, I am not anti-army

now is that the joke of the year!

Kal lain jo bhi kalna hai



Case Closed.

 

[All-Green]

I posted on 10/5/09 in this thread

Quote

I am worried is that like all previous PA adventures, GOP will bow to the pressure of people such as Imran Khan and call off the action before the objectives of complete elimination of Taliban from the Swat Valley has been achieved? Does the current PPP leadership have spine to withstand this pressure? We shall have to wait and see.

Unquote

There have been a few articles published the Jang and in the News of today which are very ominous. It appears that there is a possibility that PA offensive COULD be called off prematurely due to so called public pressure.

If this happens, that would surely spell disaster and domination of Taliban in Pakistan. Urdu columnists in particular start with "I don't agree with Taliban" then go on to say how much misery this action is causing.

There comes a time in life when one has to chose between lesser of the two evils. One simply can't have the cake and eat it too. As a nation we just dont seem have the spine to accept the cosequences of standing up for what we think is right.

Links to the articles is noted below:

History repeats itself -- at great cost to our nation
A discordant note
Jang Group Online

This is the sorry state of affairs in our country.
Our media played the exact role in Lal Masjid Affair...one would have thought they would have learnt their lesson but i guess they are past masters at projecting idealistic nonsense when what is needed at the hour is hard and cold logic.

Going by this very way of thinking there is no reason for any man to fight in his beliefs if there is a risk to himself or his family...had this been the case we would not have seen many of the greatest heroes and leaders in the world today.
Going by this pacifist point of view there is no reason for any Army to wage war to defend its land since of course in any war there will be loss of life and property, be it an internal or external conflict.

How to you deal with a militant or a terrorist who holds a gun and lets it do the talking?
Do you utter sweet words of love and peace in front of such a person who threatens your very life at even a small matter of personal choice like keeping a beard or keeping your shalwar above your ankles....men were slapped, beaten and even killed for defying these stupid and nonsensical orders, this is a fact and happened at the hands of the very TTP against which our soldiers now fight and die.
The Taliban used to check the vehicles at their posts and in case a stereo was found in the car a small urchin who barely reached puberty would smash the stereo and slap the owner under the caring tutelage of the TTP elders standing by...this is one the most minor embarrassments which the people of these areas were subjected to...bombing of schools, barber shops etc. were all being perpetrated against the civilians by TTP.

Now we shift the focus on the civilians and their hardship as a consequence of Army action but we deliberately forget TTP...what were the TTP doing to the civilians?

Is the Army really chasing ghosts?
Ghosts who are very much there and bombing us to kingdom come but immediately vanish from our radar when Army starts an operation.
We all question why Army does not take on TTP and when it does we question why it could not do sooner and when there is collateral we say that this is not the solution to the problem

The solution which Army is providing is the solution to break the strength of the TTP and to reclaim the lost territories
It is certainly not a miracle cure to all that ails our country...such a solution is beyond the scope of Army and that is why most of the people agree that Army rule is not a solution to the problems of the nation...democracy is.

Why then this persisting expectation, contrary to the popularly accepted opinion regarding the role of Army in affairs of the state?
Is this not the biggest hypocrisy our nation engages itself in time and again?

In brief, this Army action is not the solution to all our problems and will not be the solution to what caused the Talibanization...such a comprehensive solution has to come from the government through the elected reps of the democratic people of Pakistan!

For now we need to support our troops who are taking bullets so that we can enjoy our freedom of action and speech, we should thank god that our disciplined and professional soldiers are not paying heed to such beliefs because who would be willing to shed their blood for such thankless people?

 

[Elmo]

Well gentlemen, here are some questions, please enlighten...

1. Since we can't conjure a coherent picture, can anyone please elaborate that since the army is engaged in Malakand division, why isn't there a simultaneous assault in Waziristan which serves as the base for TTP's amir Baitullah Mehsud. A press notification issued by the ISPR puts the date of an expected attack somewhere in June, any reason as to why then.

2. Can't the offensive have the involvement of local law-enforcement personnel... so that once the army moves on or moves back to its barracks, law and order isn't disrupted. Surely we cannot kill 7,000 Taliban — the hydra will rear its head. Some of these areas, where the assaults are being carried off are low-density and would not justify the same, what will be the alternative then? What should be the plan of action? Also will the local lashkars matter in this context?