third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Just read this in the Dawn. Thought provoking...
Time for a reality check
By Irfan Husain
ACCORDING to a press release, Gen Ashfaq Kayani has declared the army’s intention to fight any intrusion across our borders at “any cost”, and “against all odds”. This should reassure all Pakistanis who have been paying enormous amounts for the army to do just that.
But I would like to ask Gen Kayani why the army has not demonstrated the same degree of vigilance and sense of duty where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are concerned. After all, militants, extremists, terrorists, drug smugglers and gunrunners have been crossing the Durand Line that notionally divides Pakistan from Afghanistan for years without being challenged or hindered. Had the army been doing its job these last few years, Pakistan’s survival might not have been under threat as it is today.
However, when a squad of American Navy Seal commandos entered Pakistan to engage suspected militants recently, hawks in Pakistan went into paroxysms of patriotism. Don’t get me wrong: I am not arguing that the Americans are justified in attacking targets on Pakistani soil. But I am questioning the selective defence of our sovereignty. If we denounce the American cross-border attacks, should we not ask why the Taliban are allowed free access to our territory to target us and conduct raids into Afghanistan?
This month has also seen a number of missile attacks in the tribal areas that have killed a number of militants and innocent people. While we all deplore this indiscriminate use of force, should we not equally criticise those who sought shelter amongst innocent families? Knowing they are being hunted by the Americans, to use women and children as human shields is hardly a mark of courage.
The American raid has been followed by a lot of chest-thumping bravado in our media, but little cool analysis. The fact is that this recent escalation should not have come as a surprise: for the last couple of years, there has been a rising crescendo of charges in Washington that we weren’t ‘doing enough’ to combat a resurgent Taliban on our side of the border. The truth of this mantra was reflected in the rising tide of extremist terrorism within our borders.
As casualties among western forces in Afghanistan rise, there is increasing pressure on field commanders to find more effective ways to fight the Taliban. One obvious way is to deprive them of the sanctuary they have enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal areas these last seven years. But our forces have been unable or unwilling to deny the insurgents easy access to their local allies. To expect Nato and the Americans to endlessly turn the other cheek is to misunderstand the nature of power.
From the American perspective, they have shelled out good money to secure our army’s cooperation in their fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Apart from a massive debt write-off as well as economic assistance, they are also paying around $80m a month to underwrite the cost of deploying our troops in Fata. Since 9/11, the US has paid us around $12bn, and they probably figure this entitles them to a degree of cooperation. With our economy in freefall, these are sums of money not to be sneered at.
However, the Pentagon needs to realise the very real problems our army faces in this war. Firstly, Pakhtun tribes on both sides of the ill-defined border have been going back and forth for centuries, and they regard this as a right. Secondly, the Taliban are indistinguishable from other tribesmen as just about every Pakhtun male is bearded, armed and wears shalwar-kameez. Thirdly, these people are very much part of the fabric of Pakistani society, and so it is difficult to motivate militias and regular army units to fight them. Finally, the army does not want to completely alienate the Taliban whom it regards as future assets once western forces leave Afghanistan.
Even when the army has tried to crack down in the tribal areas, its record has been less than brilliant. It has lost hundreds of troops, apart from the soldiers who embarrassingly laid down their arms. So if our army can’t take on an irregular force like the tribal militants, what makes our generals so confident they can fight the Americans?
The sad fact is that years of interfering in politics have taken their toll on a professional army. Where the high command should have been watching the geopolitical environment for the rising threat from our northwest, it was dabbling in domestic politics. And when our troops should have been training to fight an asymmetrical war in Fata, they were being drilled in fighting yesterday’s battles against our traditional foe, India.
The only people enjoying the rising tension between Pakistan and the US are Osama Bin Laden and his supporters and admirers. Should our army actually kill a number of American troops, the resulting escalation could easily spin out of control very quickly. The Americans currently have two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf, with a third on its way. Their combined firepower could wipe out Pakistan many times over. So while it’s great fun to fulminate against the Americans before the cameras in TV studios, we do need to get real here.
However, the US needs Pakistan to be on its side if it is to have any chance of winning in Afghanistan. Apart from providing logistical support in the shape of fuel and munitions that are transported from Karachi to the Khyber Pass, Pakistan has cooperated in capturing or killing Al Qaeda operatives in significant numbers. We have also allowed US intelligence agencies to operate quite freely on our soil. Should there be any serious hostilities between the two countries, the democratic government would probably be toppled, thousands of young Pakistanis would join the battle, and many more would be further radicalised.
Clearly, then, both countries need each other, and neither can really afford to alienate the other. This mutual need raises the real possibility of working out an agreement that would satisfy Islamabad and Washington.
But the hawks on Pakistan’s TV talk shows who are stridently urging armed action to counter future intrusions should remember when, just days before the war began in 1971, thousands of Pakistanis drove their cars with ‘Crush India’ stickers. Once the bombs began to fall, their cars were seen hightailing it for distant parts. They also need to consider that whoever wins the American presidential election in November is likely to get much tougher with Pakistan than George Bush has been.
Time for a reality check
By Irfan Husain
ACCORDING to a press release, Gen Ashfaq Kayani has declared the army’s intention to fight any intrusion across our borders at “any cost”, and “against all odds”. This should reassure all Pakistanis who have been paying enormous amounts for the army to do just that.
But I would like to ask Gen Kayani why the army has not demonstrated the same degree of vigilance and sense of duty where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are concerned. After all, militants, extremists, terrorists, drug smugglers and gunrunners have been crossing the Durand Line that notionally divides Pakistan from Afghanistan for years without being challenged or hindered. Had the army been doing its job these last few years, Pakistan’s survival might not have been under threat as it is today.
However, when a squad of American Navy Seal commandos entered Pakistan to engage suspected militants recently, hawks in Pakistan went into paroxysms of patriotism. Don’t get me wrong: I am not arguing that the Americans are justified in attacking targets on Pakistani soil. But I am questioning the selective defence of our sovereignty. If we denounce the American cross-border attacks, should we not ask why the Taliban are allowed free access to our territory to target us and conduct raids into Afghanistan?
This month has also seen a number of missile attacks in the tribal areas that have killed a number of militants and innocent people. While we all deplore this indiscriminate use of force, should we not equally criticise those who sought shelter amongst innocent families? Knowing they are being hunted by the Americans, to use women and children as human shields is hardly a mark of courage.
The American raid has been followed by a lot of chest-thumping bravado in our media, but little cool analysis. The fact is that this recent escalation should not have come as a surprise: for the last couple of years, there has been a rising crescendo of charges in Washington that we weren’t ‘doing enough’ to combat a resurgent Taliban on our side of the border. The truth of this mantra was reflected in the rising tide of extremist terrorism within our borders.
As casualties among western forces in Afghanistan rise, there is increasing pressure on field commanders to find more effective ways to fight the Taliban. One obvious way is to deprive them of the sanctuary they have enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal areas these last seven years. But our forces have been unable or unwilling to deny the insurgents easy access to their local allies. To expect Nato and the Americans to endlessly turn the other cheek is to misunderstand the nature of power.
From the American perspective, they have shelled out good money to secure our army’s cooperation in their fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Apart from a massive debt write-off as well as economic assistance, they are also paying around $80m a month to underwrite the cost of deploying our troops in Fata. Since 9/11, the US has paid us around $12bn, and they probably figure this entitles them to a degree of cooperation. With our economy in freefall, these are sums of money not to be sneered at.
However, the Pentagon needs to realise the very real problems our army faces in this war. Firstly, Pakhtun tribes on both sides of the ill-defined border have been going back and forth for centuries, and they regard this as a right. Secondly, the Taliban are indistinguishable from other tribesmen as just about every Pakhtun male is bearded, armed and wears shalwar-kameez. Thirdly, these people are very much part of the fabric of Pakistani society, and so it is difficult to motivate militias and regular army units to fight them. Finally, the army does not want to completely alienate the Taliban whom it regards as future assets once western forces leave Afghanistan.
Even when the army has tried to crack down in the tribal areas, its record has been less than brilliant. It has lost hundreds of troops, apart from the soldiers who embarrassingly laid down their arms. So if our army can’t take on an irregular force like the tribal militants, what makes our generals so confident they can fight the Americans?
The sad fact is that years of interfering in politics have taken their toll on a professional army. Where the high command should have been watching the geopolitical environment for the rising threat from our northwest, it was dabbling in domestic politics. And when our troops should have been training to fight an asymmetrical war in Fata, they were being drilled in fighting yesterday’s battles against our traditional foe, India.
The only people enjoying the rising tension between Pakistan and the US are Osama Bin Laden and his supporters and admirers. Should our army actually kill a number of American troops, the resulting escalation could easily spin out of control very quickly. The Americans currently have two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf, with a third on its way. Their combined firepower could wipe out Pakistan many times over. So while it’s great fun to fulminate against the Americans before the cameras in TV studios, we do need to get real here.
However, the US needs Pakistan to be on its side if it is to have any chance of winning in Afghanistan. Apart from providing logistical support in the shape of fuel and munitions that are transported from Karachi to the Khyber Pass, Pakistan has cooperated in capturing or killing Al Qaeda operatives in significant numbers. We have also allowed US intelligence agencies to operate quite freely on our soil. Should there be any serious hostilities between the two countries, the democratic government would probably be toppled, thousands of young Pakistanis would join the battle, and many more would be further radicalised.
Clearly, then, both countries need each other, and neither can really afford to alienate the other. This mutual need raises the real possibility of working out an agreement that would satisfy Islamabad and Washington.
But the hawks on Pakistan’s TV talk shows who are stridently urging armed action to counter future intrusions should remember when, just days before the war began in 1971, thousands of Pakistanis drove their cars with ‘Crush India’ stickers. Once the bombs began to fall, their cars were seen hightailing it for distant parts. They also need to consider that whoever wins the American presidential election in November is likely to get much tougher with Pakistan than George Bush has been.
