The Echidna of terrorism | Part one-Operation Sunrise

[Slav Defence]

The Echidna of Terrorism: Part 1: Operation Sunrise


Written By:Slav Defence


While I was making report on counter-terrorism policy, while researching, I analyzed the Lal masjid siege, and counter-response strategy applied by government, before I sum up and suggest postulates and points for current counter terrorism strategy, I have decided to represent the full research report and analysis, so that we can understand and place postulates and diagnose flaws and lapses while keeping the past incident in our mind.
There are generally two points of view regarding with Operation Sunrise carried by Pakistan army in the sight of various ministers, journalists and general public:
-Those mindsets who favors the operation Sunrise
-Those mindsets who consider it as crime.
Before we continue our debate, I will represent my neutral analysis in this regard

Contents:

- Lal Masjid siege
-Factors Behind Operation Sunrise
-The Counter-response: Operation Sunrise
-Analysis,lapses
-Solution

1) Lal Masjid siege:

Before discussing Lal-Masjid siege, we will highlight the point of convergence which resulted into such catastrophe:

-History of Lal Masjid:

Founded by Maulana Qari Abdullah in 1965, was a place where radical Islam was taught. He taught radical Islam and preached Jihad during Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. The Lal Masjid was frequented by leaders of Pakistani military, most prominently by General Zia, as claimed by source.

Location:

The Lal Masjid was located near federal security and Intelligence agency (ISI).
Near Lal Masjid Jamia Hafsa was a madrassa located for women . It was the largest Islamic religious institution for women in the world, with more than 6,000 students. It was constructed by Maulana Qari Abdullah in 1992.


The beginning:

After the end of soviet war in Afghanistan, in 1989, the mosques continue to serve as centre of teaching of radical Islam. The situation worsen when Maulana Qari Abdullah was assassinated, on his death, Maulana Abdul Rashid were given the responsibility of entire complex. The brothers when arrested admitted to have regular relationships with Al-Qaida, Osama Bin Laden.
The first collapse:
After the 9/11 incident, Former President General Pervez Musharraf announced of full support for US government in war of terror. This was the basic point, due to which the conceptual collapse took place, as they were still following the pattern of Maulana Qari Abdullah, so according to the teachings they inherited, US was now assumed in the place of Russia, they identified united states of America as Russia, and according to their concept, US as an invader must be treated like Russia, as they are failed to recognized the change that country who supported them once is now doing same due to attack on their territory, unlike Russia, whose main objective were to capture water reservoirs and strategic dominancy.
Now the argument that what were the hidden objectives of US invasion, which is indeed other side of coin is a separate story, I am only describing the hype which US succeed to create throughout the world, so successfully, that even Mr. Bush’s term ‘Crusade’ for Operation Enduring Freedom did not destroyed the hype of 9/11 catastrophe nor decreased world wide pressure to support US for Pakistan sadly.

Opposing Attempts:

The Maulana brothers strongly oppose Musharraf’s foreign policy, and unconditional support, besides Musharraf their vigorous attitude was also against serving same military intelligence and even LEA forces including Islamabad Capital territory police and paramilitary agencies including rangers, one speech was lead by Maulana Masood Azher, who was later on held responsible for failed attempts in killing Musharraf.

The siege:

The students of mosque, at the beginning of 2007 violated several laws, by arresting prostitutes, burning films and Chinese run massage who is accused of being brothel. Their activities become more violent when government authorities worked against those mosques which were constructed illegally, thus after that campaigns launched against government which was accused of being un Islamic attitude.


The Abduction:

Thus Jamia Hafsa women abducted three women who were accused of being brothel, and two policemen were seized, and claimed on television that those women has illegal relationship with Sheikh Rasheed.Later on, Maulana Established Sharia court with parallel to judiciary and warned of several thousand suicide attack, where as they also keep on abducting officials etc with various accusations.


On july 3,2007 a fight took place between jamia Hafsa students and security forces who were replaced by paramilitary forces due to worse conditions, they stole weapons and radio sets. Later on about 150 students who attacked ministry of environment, setting fire to several vehicles of that area, due to which 150 were injured including four mosques students, cameraman, pedestrian etc.
Thus after that proper battle broke between Lal masjid students lead by Maulana brothers and army, negotiations also took place due to which various surrendered and thus after failure of negotiations, operation sunrise take place, in which SSG commandoes finally succeed to take over the entire area.

Now I will ask question to those who are against the Janilya Hafsa Operation:

-Isn’t abduction was contrary to sharia and Islam?
-Isn’t it contrary to Islam to built mosques in illegally captured areas? Why they run campaigns in this regard? Just because authorities have demolished illegally constructed mosque?
-Establishing your own sharia court and warning of suicide bombings in case of denial, what type of justice is this?

-Burning ministry office, and killing various innocent civilians and harming public property, how can we consider this as Islamic way of jihad? What is the definition of jihad then according to you?

According to ISPR, weapons were recovered Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa complexes, were as follows:

Russian and Chinese variant RPG rockets, anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, suicide bombing belts, three to five .22-caliber rifles, RPD, RPK and RPK-74 light machine guns, Dragunov sniper rifles, SKS rifles, AK-47s, pistols, night vision equipment, and more than 50,000 rounds of various caliber ammunition, where as Lesser sophisticated items and weaponry recovered from the complex included three crates of gasoline bombs prepared in green soft drink bottles, gas masks, recoilless rifles, two-way radios, large plastic buckets containing homemade bombs the size of tennis balls, as well as knives—
Thus how could be such equipment be discovered from innocent civilians and students?

-If they were innocent civilians with no weapons why, it took 36 hours to fully secure the complex and remove the booby traps?how they were mastered to create such traps?

Now for those who favored Operation Sunrise:

-Do you disagree that government shouldn't have launched attack after assurance of further negotiations? Why?

The Lapses:

The main question is isn't that what happened during or after operation sunrise was launched, what right question according to me is:
What were the causes due to which such catastrophe resulted?
Why our federal agencies didn't responded when it seemed clear from their actions that they may initiate state within state?
Why after end of Soviet Union invasion, agencies didn't work on to stop the preaching of jihad, when objective was over?

The main Lapse:

Clearly, from above analysis, it is cleared that agencies should have stopped those training, and those who were trained, must be diverted towards constructive activities, which was not done, due to which we observe of monstrous reaction of talibans.
Now here another point arise, since we ourselves were responsible to raise those ‘mujahids’ against Soviet Invasion and along with US and Saudi we funded and nourished them with our own hands, therefore at situation, our policy makers were in a state of confusion, we failed to change our policies.
Again let me make this clear to you all that I am not describing the situation after 2 or 3 years on 9/11 but lapses right after Musharraf’s unconditional support to US policy, yes experts will immediately say that Musharraf wasn't doing as he was projecting, yet still I will say that Mr.Musharraf’s immediate attempt to crack down and destroy those Taliban was a major mistake, no matter after that how much agencies will try to settle up the situation with pro-Pakistan Taliban agencies, yet still we were failed to calm rest due to which the monstrous TTP was born.
We will discuss the infrastructure of terrorist’s organization in details, in part 2 of the report, Inshallah.

The response of government and media:


The government later on settled commission which blamed Mr.Musharraf’s regime,
Personally, I find this blame game as immature action, according me it wasn't regime’s fault, entire army sector’s, but the lapse was of false policy after soviet invasion, I ask you, what do you think? Who should be blamed?

According to dawn’s analysis on commission:

Its recently released report on the 2007 showdown between the state and militants holed up inside an Islamabad mosque, the Lal Masjid commission has absolved the army of responsibility for the debacle. Instead, blame has been placed on the shoulders of Gen Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz and members of the cabinet at the time. But before the state files murder charges — as recommended by the one-judge commission — we must ask whether these recommendations are in consonance with some aspects of the affair that need greater critical appraisal. In other words, the sensitive nature of such an investigation should have entailed far broader terms of reference for the commission than merely affixing blame and focusing on compensation issues.
There are three crucial aspects of the Lal Masjid operation that can be considered independently of the report: a) the military operation that resulted in clearing the mosque of militants and the death of many civilians was an institutional decision, not solely that of Gen Musharraf, who was then army chief; b) the situation in the capital had been allowed to come to such a pass that a military operation became necessary; c) the operation was badly mishandled, resulting in the death of all those who were inside the complex, not just the militants. True, there was justification for the operation. The Lal Masjid militants had challenged the writ of the state in the heart of Islamabad. Aside from the seminary students’ moral policing in the capital, Sharia ‘courts’ were set up inside the mosque and there were a number of fire-fights with the police, paramilitary and army even before the military launched its operation. Heavy weaponry was stashed inside the place of worship — and later used by militants during the siege.
While the details of the siege itself were covered extensively by the media, very little is known about the identity of the armed militants who were in control of the mosque complex and their agenda. Here is where a bigger probe is needed; and also to answer what went on inside the complex during the operation and what prompted the military to act in a way that there was no survivor to give an alternative version of events. It can only be hoped that a wider probe will also summon army officials. Fact and fiction must be separated before blame is affixed on those responsible for carrying out a flawed operation and those whose terrorizing tactics were getting out of hand.
Again I believe that the commission is working on wrong direction, the priority should be the study of factors which lead to Operation Sunrise, not aftermath of it,or what happened during Operation.

Solution:

Better safe than sorry, thus I will suggest first that we must resolve those points due to which such incident took place, so that this could be avoided in future. To prevent such incidents of Lal Masjid in future I suggest.
-Past arrested militants must be rehabilitated; Pakistani military is working on this situation currently right now.
-Second, those who lost their loved ones during such war must be granted support so that they won’t fall in the hands of Taliban’
-Media must launch campaign against these monstrous militants now and must avoid showing analysis against Operation Sunrise.
-The elected authorities must check Maulanas in the mosques located in their sectors; they must be checked, and then issued a license which will indicate of their eligibility and permission to run a mosque.
-Massive crackdown is needed against those mosques that are constructed illegally.
-We demand another committee whose main focus will be on studying the confusion of policy rather than end result: Operation Sunrise

To be continued…..Inshallah, we will discuss in detail in next part about infrastructure of terrorist organization, a glimpse to Musharraf’s further counter terror policies and then solution, whatever addition you will demand, I will try to include in my second part too, Inshallah


Best Regards,
The Pakistan Defence Team

 

[Slav Defence]

@Last Hope @Luftwaffe @Irfan Baloch @Aeronaut @nuclearpak @Awesome @WebMaster @Jazzbot @Icarus @Xeric @RescueRanger @Oscar @Secur and others......

You can consider this in-depth analysis and systematic approach while seeing the suggested postulates in part two.

Yours Sincerely.

 

[Sliver]

one of the best reads in recent times in the forum. I truly appreciate the time and effort put in to get such a detailed report/analysis. Can you also state your references wherever you have used them?

 

[[Bregs]]

Well wrote article narrating all possible causes n reality

 

[Sliver]

What is already known but not put in word is this:

The goal for USA was to limit influence of Communism in afghanistan.
The goal for Taliban was to limit the influence of non-muslims in afghanistan.

During the soviet occupation, both of those goals coincided for a marriage of convenience.
Now the goals are opposite.

the best way forward is to get to common goals. For that, one way is to separate terrorism from religion and portray that terrorists are bad for everyone while Islam is no enemy for anyone.

What I see is USA always being portrayed as an aggressor against Islam. you can simply look at the fact that a large population of Muslims live and enjoy equal rights as any others in USA.

Most Hardline Islamists usually do not toe this line. Now we need to take a decision. Do these "hardliners" fall under the category of Terrorists? (In my opinion, they "may" be sympathizers but not terrorists themselves - but not everyone has the same opinion). How do we deal with the sympathizers?

 

[Saleem]

What is already known but not put in word is this:

The goal for USA was to limit influence of Communism in afghanistan.
The goal for Taliban was to limit the influence of non-muslims in afghanistan.

During the soviet occupation, both of those goals coincided for a marriage of convenience.
Now the goals are opposite.

the best way forward is to get to common goals. For that, one way is to separate terrorism from religion and portray that terrorists are bad for everyone while Islam is no enemy for anyone.

What I see is USA always being portrayed as an aggressor against Islam. you can simply look at the fact that a large population of Muslims live and enjoy equal rights as any others in USA.

Most Hardline Islamists usually do not toe this line. Now we need to take a decision. Do these "hardliners" fall under the category of Terrorists? (In my opinion, they "may" be sympathizers but not terrorists themselves - but not everyone has the same opinion). How do we deal with the sympathizers?

US needs to support democracy in pakistan.....

 

[Anotherangle]

@Slav Defence, a good effort despite it has many flaws from an academic point of view including that it does not show the other side of the coin: victims relatives' questions, facts and opinions. However, I would request you please to include the a third perspective in your next write up i.e. the humanitarian crisis and its consequences.
And when you are writing on Musharaf's anti-terrorist policies, please keep the fact in mind that the terrorism increased during his time, not decreased and he left us in the worst of all times. Both Taliban, and Humanitarian crisis actually started because of his dysfunctional approach and management.

 

[Anotherangle]

What is already .........................
(In my opinion, they "may" be sympathizers but not terrorists themselves - but not everyone has the same opinion). How do we deal with the sympathizers?

There is one simple approach "any illegal action should be dealt with prompt legal action". No crime should go unpunished. Saudia Arabia has probably the largest percentage of The sympathizers, yet no law and order problem. It is because they have not allowed VIP culture; before their officers (police or military) introduce themselves, the ordinary constable has already embarked on the official legal proceedings, contrary to Pakistan where police officers wait to listen or ask themselves who is the honorable person or rather criminal involved. The problem here is that certain powerful people are considered above the law, so it leaves a gap for inaction of police- a gap that lets Bin Laden live near Military academy. The system is evolved in a way that police remains inactive unless there are explicit orders to do something. This situation benefits the criminals in general.
To restore law and order, a prerequisite is that we rip the privileged class off its privileges, especially in the matter of law and order.

 

[Sliver]

There is one simple approach "any illegal action should be dealt with prompt legal action". No crime should go unpunished. Saudia Arabia has probably the largest percentage of The sympathizers, yet no law and order problem. It is because they have not allowed VIP culture; before their officers (police or military) introduce themselves, the ordinary constable has already embarked on the official legal proceedings, contrary to Pakistan where police officers wait to listen or ask themselves who is the honorable person or rather criminal involved. The problem here is that certain powerful people are considered above the law, so it leaves a gap for inaction of police- a gap that lets Bin Laden live near Military academy. The system is evolved in a way that police remains inactive unless there are explicit orders to do something. This situation benefits the criminals in general.
To restore law and order, a prerequisite is that we rip the privileged class off its privileges, especially in the matter of law and order.

so you are saying the sympathizers are to be treated as terrorists? That is not very easy legally in a democratic set up because people can and will have different views and some of them extreme, as long as they don't indulge in violence.

 

[Slav Defence]

@Slav Defence, a good effort despite it has many flaws from an academic point of view including that it does not show the other side of the coin: victims relatives' questions, facts and opinions. However, I would request you please to include the a third perspective in your next write up i.e. the humanitarian crisis and its consequences.
And when you are writing on Musharaf's anti-terrorist policies, please keep the fact in mind that the terrorism increased during his time, not decreased and he left us in the worst of all times. Both Taliban, and Humanitarian crisis actually started because of his dysfunctional approach and management.

They are not the flaws but space left for you all to ponder upon.
My main point is,that how can we get out of this mess,the focus on actual basic policy rather then blaming Musharraf's regime for everything..Musharraf didn't raised Taliban...General Zia did...I focused on that basic point of view..that is why Musharraf was left with no other choice rather then to select any one of his allies of previous form,either Mujaheddin or United States.

 

[Anotherangle]

so you are saying the sympathizers are to be treated as terrorists? That is not very easy legally in a democratic set up because people can and will have different views and some of them extreme, as long as they don't indulge in violence.

NO! NO! Sir, I did not say or mean any such thing; probably it was Saudi reference or my poor language that made you think like that. It should be repeated what I said ""any illegal action should be dealt with prompt legal action", let me put it in other words "any crime that is a crime in the book of law should be dealt with immediately and without delay in a way that is legal and appropriate in itself."
I wanted to make three points:
1. The crime in the book of law is always physical and tangible; Any type of sympathy is not a crime in all the justice systems of the world I think, but when sympathy turns into speeches that will result into violence, then the law should interfere in the larger interest of the community, 2. and the law should do so immediately without delay. Unfortunately this is not the case in Pakistan, that's why I gave the example of Saudi Arabia - a Muslim country; for example, consider the time when baton carrying girls of Hafsa School abducted some one; that was the time the police should have interfered immediately and strong action should have been taken- why did not they do so? because they did not know what the high ups wanted. Had the same situation started to develop in Saudi Arabia, the would have responded with full force, not within hours, but in minutes.
Third point is that the action taken by the legal authorities should be within the limits of the law, not extra judicial. Thanks.
I see the second point as the most important one and one of the major causes of police inefficiency in Pakistan.

 

[Sliver]

NO! NO! Sir, I did not say or mean any such thing; probably it was Saudi reference or my poor language that made you think like that. It should be repeated what I said ""any illegal action should be dealt with prompt legal action", let me put it in other words "any crime that is a crime in the book of law should be dealt with immediately and without delay in a way that is legal and appropriate in itself."
I wanted to make three points:
1. The crime in the book of law is always physical and tangible; Any type of sympathy is not a crime in all the justice systems of the world I think, but when sympathy turns into speeches that will result into violence, then the law should interfere in the larger interest of the community, 2. and the law should do so immediately without delay. Unfortunately this is not the case in Pakistan, that's why I gave the example of Saudi Arabia - a Muslim country; for example, consider the time when baton carrying girls of Hafsa School abducted some one; that was the time the police should have interfered immediately and strong action should have been taken- why did not they do so? because they did not know what the high ups wanted. Had the same situation started to develop in Saudi Arabia, the would have responded with full force, not within hours, but in minutes.
Third point is that the action taken by the legal authorities should be within the limits of the law, not extra judicial. Thanks.
I see the second point as the most important one and one of the major causes of police inefficiency in Pakistan.

I agree with your statement that police should have intervened when the Hafsa students kidnapped other students. This is illegal.

But how do you "punish" sympathizers or desist them from having sympathy for such a cause? In one way even the talks that show sympathy will be hard to prove in a court of law. The biggest problem is, the moment someone takes the shelter of religion and hides his acts behind it, the government (or any one for that matter) does not want to touch it because of fear of repercussion.

The bottom line is, the govt or anyone should not have any fear of repercussions to punish someone for an anti-national act regardless of religion. The problem again is, there are several different "interpretations" of the Quran which gives several different interpretations of one's actions. This gives rise to confusion and sectarian support for almost every form of "interpretation".

 

[Anotherangle]

@ silver You do not punish sympathizer; You create environment where they will understand when sympathy turns into an illegal action. The speeches that encourage direct violence within the community (or against a community) are considered illegal in almost all legal systems including Pakistan. The Quran or Islam has nothing to do with this! All Islamic scholars clearly state " No violence against civilians." Those involved in terrorism are almost all drop out of Islamic Schools, they failed in madaras'sah first and became violent later; There are some scholars who try to stretch the idea of Jihad to include terrorism. First of all, they are in minority second,they are not the top scholars. There is no hurdle for government to take action against them. If the government says that it cannot, it is presenting a lame excuse.

I would like to elaborate on the point of scholars speeches. I will give here the example of two different statements/ narratives on the same subject JIhad:

Example A: Jihad is a holy duty of Muslims Ummah together to protect their rights. It is not among the five basic pillars of Islam, yet it is an important aspect of Islam that allows the state to oversee its interest against enemies. {A standard position of almost all well-known scholars of antiquity}

Example B: Jihad is obligation on every one of you now on this place/ or against the particular people, and even if the government against it, you have to do your duty {a subjective position which specify place, time and occasion, it might result in blood shed, because it specifies particular time and place}

While Example A states a theoretical position, the example B presents a controversial position that many will not agree with.

There is difference and Saudis understand this difference very well and probably as a result they have controlled the terrorism.

 

[Anotherangle]

They are not the flaws but space left for you all to ponder upon.
My main point is,that how can we get out of this mess,the focus on actual basic policy rather then blaming Musharraf's regime for everything..Musharraf didn't raised Taliban...General Zia did...I focused on that basic point of view..that is why Musharraf was left with no other choice rather then to select any one of his allies of previous form,either Mujaheddin or United States.

I will not insist about flaws, but can you explain how Ziaul Haq raised Taliban, considering the following facts
Death of General Zia-ul Haq, 1988?
Emergence of Taliban 1993 approx.
EDIT: We are concerned about TTP, and that surfaced around 2004? how Musharaf is not responsible and Zia-ul-haq is?!?! The love for musharaf?

Osama Bin laden was a CIA agent in Zia's time.

Taliban (or if you mean Islamic Jihad movement) are not the legacy of Zia-ul-haque, They are the legacy of US role in Pakistan in our region.
ZiaulHaq or Pakistan did not create them; They were already there, Pakistan used these mujaheddin in 1947/8 in Kashmir: US just found them and used them with the help of Pakistan.
You and I should cry 'Shame on Un-thankful turncoats'

 

[Slav Defence]

I will not insist about flaws, but can you explain how Ziaul Haq raised Taliban, considering the following facts
Death of General Zia-ul Haq, 1988?
Emergence of Taliban 1993 approx.
EDIT: We are concerned about TTP, and that surfaced around 2004? how Musharaf is not responsible and Zia-ul-haq is?!?! The love for musharaf?

Osama Bin laden was a CIA agent in Zia's time.

Taliban (or if you mean Islamic Jihad movement) are not the legacy of Zia-ul-haque, They are the legacy of US role in Pakistan in our region.
ZiaulHaq or Pakistan did not create them; They were already there, Pakistan used these mujaheddin in 1947/8 in Kashmir: US just found them and used them with the help of Pakistan.
You and I should cry 'Shame on Un-thankful turncoats'

My dear when I have already mentioned everything you are questioning in my above report then why are you asking it again and again..and I blamed General Zia...this is your misinterpretation of my report...
My context and approach is simple..and it reflects from my report...
Instead of blaming Mr.Musharraf for everything..what I believe that we must work on solutions..and even if you analyse my report you will understand the central idea very clearly that I have pointed out Mr.Musharraf's flaws as well.

You are adding what I have already mentioned in part two of my report..Have you read it?