What's new

Swat Peace Deal - The Aftermath

Status
Not open for further replies.
Editorial: Swat muddle over sharia

March 31, 2009

The Chief of Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi (TNSM), Sufi Muhammad, has warned of unrest in the Swat Valley if President Asif Zardari does not approve the Nizam-e Adl Regulation of 2009. The businessmen and shopkeepers of Malakand have also protested at the delay in the signing on to the deal made by the NWFP government with the warlike Sufi. Attracted by the return of “normal conditions” in Swat, the refugees from Bajaur in the Jallozai camp are also demanding sharia of the same sort in their agency so that they too can return home.

The President is understandably hesitant to sign the Nizam-e Adl law because of the way the sharia in Swat has been envisaged. First of all, the Sufi and his son-in-law warlord Fazlullah refuse to allow the provincial administration to serve as the executive authority behind the sharia. The Sufi wants to personally oversee the selection of the judges who would serve as qazis in the new judicial order. He rejects the appearance of lawyers in these courts and will not subject the local Taliban led by Fazlullah to the jurisdiction of these courts.

The other “truth” that one must recognise is the consequences of negotiating peace with the terrorists from a position of weakness. The NWFP government did not engage in talks with Sufi Muhammad because it was keen to abandon Swat to him; it was compelled to do so because of the target-killing of ANP leaders and the failure of the security forces to stem the growing power of the TTP in the region. In fact, ANP leaders have been quite outspoken about why they were compelled to talk peace with their killers.

This is a deadlock grown out of the joint parliamentary resolution earlier this year asking the army to vacate and the government to seek negotiations with the terrorists. Swat is just one example of what will happen if the state decides to seek peace with the Taliban-Al Qaeda combine from a position of weakness. The next step in Swat looks almost unavoidable unless the army goes in and changes the status quo.
 
BTW, i really think ANP is all talk and no game.
They used to talk a lot about dealing with TTP but once in power have fallen flat.

In the peace deal they have claimed that it is for the people only but is it?
They talk about sacrifices made but at the end they are chickening out when threatened by TTP.
I am not saying that i despise people who run for their lives (i am not a fearless person by far) but a leader is not just any person and his running away would jeopardize a lot of things.
Without elected reps to lead the way what form of confidence building can be achieved in the local populace?

It is very easy in peace time to be a leader and enjoy the perks but when a crisis comes and leaders feel threatened they compromise the security of Pakistan to save their behinds...that is not on.

One attack and the great critic of Taliban Mr. Asfandyar Wali Khan disappears from the map and is found in USA.
That is really pathetic since he is the leader of the party in power in the most critical province and this is his personal example.
It is easy to criticize Army and ISI and give anti Taliban statements but what has he done to inspire the local masses?

This kind of attitude needs to change and if any leader worth his salt steps forward and takes a stand, god willing this nation shall support him and he shall be like a second founding father to Pakistan.
Sadly no one has shown the will so far.
 
The NWFP government did not engage in talks with Sufi Muhammad because it was keen to abandon Swat to him

They should definitely have not stopped the military operation after they came to power then.

That halt in military operations is what allowed the TTP-S to stage a comeback, bolstered with recruits and militants from the rest of FATA, Afghanistan and the CAR's.
 
So what is the next step?

I believe the brigades that were deployed to the East after the Mumbai attacks were taken from Swat- that coincided with an uptick in the violence by the TTP-S and the ineffective operation that preceded the peace deal.

If the ANP and Zardari are committed to their principles, of a moderate society with equal rights for women and minorities, then they will not succumb to the demands of Sufi Mohammed in turning Swat into his personal fiefdom - that was not the 'peace deal' that I supported.

If the Indo-Pak environment can be changed enough to allow for the forces taken out of Swat to be redeployed in case of a collapse of the Peace Deal over these issues, that might strengthen the hands of the Government.
 
If the Indo-Pak environment can be changed enough to allow for the forces taken out of Swat to be redeployed in case of a collapse of the Peace Deal over these issues, that might strengthen the hands of the Government.
The thing is, it was the domestic Pakistani environment that resulted in the re-deployment - the need to appear strong to cover up the loss of face of the GoP's demonstrated weakness in Swat and embarrassment at being implicated in the Mumbai Massacre. After all, those fighter jets making a show in Lahore's skies weren't there to shoot down Indian planes, they were there to impress Pakistanis. ("See, we're a powerful government because we can deploy such powerful weapons! Don't even think of Pakistan falling apart, or that the government is acting out of weakness!")

If my analysis is correct, then the GoP cannot re-deploy those forces again without India making some concession, real or not. Do you agree?
 
The thing is, it was the domestic Pakistani environment that resulted in the re-deployment - the need to appear strong to cover up the loss of face of the GoP's demonstrated weakness in Swat and embarrassment at being implicated in the Mumbai Massacre. After all, those fighter jets making a show in Lahore's skies weren't there to shoot down Indian planes, they were there to impress Pakistanis. ("See, we're a powerful government because we can deploy such powerful weapons! Don't even think of Pakistan falling apart, or that the government is acting out of weakness!")

We fundamentally disagree on your interpretation of the events.

I believe there was a very real and present danger of the Indians striking across the border or LoC had Pakistan not responded.

Whether the Indians ever intended to do so or not is besides the point, the language out of Delhi was pretty inflammatory and hostile, as were some of the military actions they took (canceling leave, deployments closer to the IB etc.), in conjunction with the public pressure and hysteria whipped up in the Indian media, especially this close to election time.

No country in their right mind would just sit and twiddle their thumbs hoping the other side just happens to not act against you. Very visible, and necessary,steps were taken by the GoP and Pak. Mil. to both send a message to Delhi and reassure the Pakistani people.
If my analysis is correct, then the GoP cannot re-deploy those forces again without India making some concession, real or not. Do you agree?

My opinion is that the 'concessions' being looked at in terms of going back to the pre-Mumbai position are not significant. Mutual reduction of forces along the IB/LoC, assuaging Pakistan's concerns over Indian activity in Afghanistan as it relates to covert activity in Baluchistan and elsewhere.

In the long run, if we are to see a significant redeployment to the West, I am uncertain of what assurances Pakistan would need - Kashmir seems the obvious one, but unlikely given the protracted nature of the dispute.

Pakistan does not have any misconceptions about how stubbornly the Indians have refused to resolve the issue. Officially, the GoP has asked the Obama Administration to not make a public issue out of Kashmir given how such efforts and statements get India's panties in a bunch and end up being counterproductive.
 
Last edited:
There were many articles in the news about Pakistan redeploying its troops and canceling leave, but I could find nothing substantial about India. What India did was to say it reserves the right to respond in force, and speculation centered on precision bombing of LeT targets. An anti-terrorist strike is a measured and supportive response, not a war, but Pakistan used the prospect of such as an excuse to break off its anti-Terror campaign. Since it appears India did not re-deploy or even raise the alert level of its forces, I conclude that the Pakistani response was based entirely upon hype and domestic political necessity.
 
Solomon2,

There was very little in the actions publicized by the media of the two countries that was verified by the respective governments. The official position on both sides continued to be that 'conflict was unlikely'. However, the precedent here was Operation Parakram, and India's 'Cold Start Doctrine', that ostensibly was devised to overcome the shortcomings seen in Operation Parakram.
it reserves the right to respond in force,
Does not matter what you call it - it would be an act of aggression against Pakistan, against its sovereignty, against targets that India unilaterally determined, unacceptable and an act of war.

Statements like these, and historical precedence, quite clearly demonstrate that the Pakistani response was based on legitimate concerns, and not 'hype'.

In any case, this is heading off topic. The issue is whether Sufi Mohammed will get his way, and if the Peace Deal will collapse otherwise, and whether the environment on the border/LoC can be changed enough to facilitate a redeployment and strengthen the hands of the GoP.
 
Last edited:
The peace deal will probably collapse in time if Sufi Mohammad thinks that he can deal with his brother in law than he is wrong.How long will it last i can't say but it will not last too long and the Taliban will and alredy have started terrorising pakistan and like you said the government will have to redeploy the troops from the east back to the valley but can they?
 
the government will have to redeploy the troops from the east back to the valley but can they?

Its that or a massive infusion of funding into, and acceleration of, the capacity building of the FC+ the 80,000 strong COIN/ATF that GoP announced it wants to set up.
 
Its that or a massive infusion of funding into, and acceleration of, the capacity building of the FC+ the 80,000 strong COIN/ATF that GoP announced it wants to set up.

Massive infuion of funding doesn't sound too good with an economy like ours.
but the troops in the east might not be coming back either.
 
Massive infuion of funding doesn't sound too good with an economy like ours.
but the troops in the east might not be coming back either.
A lot of that will likely be from the COIN related military AID the US is thinking of providing.

The GoP is reportedly seeking up to a billion from the FoP for the proposed 80,000 strong COIN/AT Force.
 
Militants forcefully occupy Muqam’s bungalow
PESHAWAR April 01 (APP): The militants believed to be local Taliban Wednesday forcefully occupied the Bangalow, summer guest house of President of PML (Q) and former Federal Minister Amir Muqam at scenic Bahrain valley in Swat District, police said. The officials at Madyan Police Station told APP that some 50 armed militants stormed the guest house of the PML(Q) leader and occupied it forcefully after evicting the lone Security Guard. No damage was done to teh bungalow, police said.

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - Militants forcefully occupy Muqam’s bungalow

I feel the peace agreement was a mistake, now who is going to evict them and who is going to try them, Quazis appointed by themselves? The way to deal with the problem is not to agree to their demands but to Kill all the Taliban! :sniper:
 
Militants forcefully occupy Muqam’s bungalow
PESHAWAR April 01 (APP): The militants believed to be local Taliban Wednesday forcefully occupied the Bangalow, summer guest house of President of PML (Q) and former Federal Minister Amir Muqam at scenic Bahrain valley in Swat District, police said. The officials at Madyan Police Station told APP that some 50 armed militants stormed the guest house of the PML(Q) leader and occupied it forcefully after evicting the lone Security Guard. No damage was done to teh bungalow, police said.

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - Militants forcefully occupy Muqam’s bungalow

I feel the peace agreement was a mistake, now who is going to evict them and who is going to try them, Quazis appointed by themselves? The way to deal with the problem is not to agree to their demands but to Kill all the Taliban! :sniper:
These motherfuckers should be massacred and If PA Can't do then yes Drones should do it.******* Bastards.They are destroying Pakistan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom