War on terror, Layman’s guide!

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

War on terror, Layman’s guide! — I

Friendly Fire
Khalid Saleem

Foreword: Spare a thought for the wretched man-in-the-street for he knows not whether he is coming or going. He has been fed so many lies and half-truths that he finds himself at a complete loss as to what to latch on to for dear life. Having been force-fed with an unpalatable diet of statistics for a decade and more, he is now being asked to swallow so many different versions of the ‘progress’ of the War on Terror that he (or she) is in imminent danger of ending up with an addled mind. The ‘Layman’s Guide’ that follows is a feeble attempt to lay at rest the queasy feeling at the pit of his stomach that has constantly been bothering him ever since the infamous U-turn. Whether or not this concoction will have an ameliorating effect will depend on extraneous factors, several of them variables and, consequently, intractable.

Having taken on this labour of love, the question that presents itself begging for an answer is: where does one begin? Wise men have averred that when in doubt it is always advisable to begin at the beginning. The only matter that remains to be decided is what – or where – is the beginning? Just to be on the safe side, how about taking up the myths first? So here goes! Myth 1: Bush is the author of the War on Terror. Though President George W. Bush had the dubious distinction of formally declaring the War on Terror, he was in no way its author. The ‘war’ in question was being contemplated and planned years ahead of its actual launching. The real authors were the shadowy figures in the ‘think tanks’ and members of what is euphemistically referred to as the ‘establishment – both in the rarefied atmosphere of Washington D.C.

Here one would take the liberty of quoting from an article published in The News international, dated 23 July 1992(*). “The subject of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ has become the favorite theme of treatise writers in the West. One has no dispute whatsoever with the principle of research. By all means, let the scholars delve into the intricacies of this or for that matter any other phenomenon and come up with their learned analysis. What strikes one as bizarre though is that there is a certain ring of orchestration about the whole thing. It is as if a specter was being conjured out of a hat to serve a certain definite purpose. This is what to a lay observer appears ominous”.

A couple of further quotes from the same article may not be out of place: “Looking at the whole matter in a wider perspective, and putting the jigsaw puzzle together, one may be excused for arriving at a rather improbable but manifest conclusion that our American friends are in search of a fresh enemy, following the demise of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and appear to be zeroing in on the so-called ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’.” Then again: “Come to think of it, the American nation does appear to have gone through its entire history valiantly fighting against some enemy or the other. The Americans have been constantly portrayed as waging a never ending struggle to protect what they conveniently summed up as the “American Way of Life’…”

It is to be noted that this article was published much before the election of President George W. Bush and certainly prior to the events of nine/eleven. Myth 2: War on Terror was spawned by events of Nine/Eleven. It may be argued and with reason that the War on Terror was triggered off by the events of nine/eleven. Alternatively it can also be argued – and again with reason – that, though nine/eleven did provide the immediate (and convenient) pretext for the precipitate declaration of the War on Terror, the ground work for the campaign had been laid well ahead of the advent. Opinions may understandably differ in emphasis but facts cannot, and should not, be ignored. Myth 3: War on Terror was envisaged as a war against “Taliban”. This myth came into circulation not immediately but a considerable time after the “War” unfolded. The aim and objective of the WOT on declaration was the elimination of the terrorist network of what was called “Al-Qaeda”. The Taliban leadership in Afghanistan was declared guilty of having given shelter to “Al-Qaeda” leadership and was, consequently to be ‘punished’ for it. Sometime down the line it was unilaterally decided by the powers that be that a “northern alliance” regime was to be put in place in Kabul. This move proved to be highly unpopular in Afghanistan and was resisted among others by the ‘Taliban. It was then decided to lump the “Al-Qaeda” and the “Taliban” together. Thus, what began as a (limited) action to root out “Al-Qaeda” – and punish the Taliban leadership, degenerated in due course into a full scale war aimed at physical elimination of the Taliban (all of them?).

Several thousand Afghan fighters sought sanctuary on Pakistan’s soil, thereby sucking this country into the vortex. The complexion of the War on Terror today bears little resemblance to that that at the time of its onset, Pakistan having been drawn into the quagmire willy nilly! The Taliban, meanwhile, have continued to defy being pinned down to a precise definition. Several genres have emerged each having its own godfathers and sponsors. The so-called Pakistani Taliban, for instance have a totally different agenda and objectives compared to their Afghan ‘counterparts’.

War on terror, Layman’s guide! — I

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

War on terror, Layman’s guide! — II
Friendly Fire
Khalid Saleem

Myth 4: “Taliban” are responsible for the sorry state of Afghanistan today. With all their faults, the Afghan Taliban must not be held responsible for the situation in which Afghanistan finds itself. It would not be fair to deny the Afghan Taliban credit for having run a fairly viable and stable administration in Afghanistan when they were in power. Perhaps for the first time in the history of that land, Kabul’s writ was acknowledged all over, even by the warlords. The countryside had been almost entirely ‘de-weaponised’; that in a society where carrying a gun was virtually regarded as a sign of manhood.

The cultivation of poppy had been successfully outlawed. Though women were discouraged from moving freely in public, there were very few reports of molestation – and that in a virtual combat situation. This said, it may be argued, with reason, that the collapse of order in Afghanistan can be timed precisely to the entry into the equation of the US-NATO factor. Hostilities appear to have intensified following the ham-handed efforts of the external forces to install an unpopular regime in Kabul. Rightly or wrongly, the Afghan people have never taken kindly to external ‘occupation’ of their land. Let it be recognized that those resisting the US-NATO juggernaut today are not only ‘Taliban’ but also a fair sprinkling of the Afghan populace that, incidentally, had also participated in the jihad against the erstwhile Soviet Union. The ‘external forces’ in Afghanistan appear to have achieved little success in winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan in general. Weapons are back on the streets; warlords have created , and are lording over, their own little fiefdoms and the cultivation of poppy is going on as if with a vengeance! Myth 5: The “War on Terror” is “our own war”.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The WOT is by no stretch of imagination ‘our war’, even though we may have been left holding the baby. It is necessary to delve a bit deeper into the issue. Who, for one thing, was responsible for disturbing the “hornets’ nest” in the first place? It was definitely not ‘us’. Serious consideration has to be given to the fact that deterioration of the situation in our border region was by no means a natural phenomenon, but one created as a result of post facto manipulation by interested elements both at home and from across our frontiers. Possibility cannot be entirely discounted that ‘elements’ in Afghanistan are being deliberately infiltrated across the frontier to foment a state of flux on Pakistan’s soil – with the aim of keeping the pot on the boil, as it were. Then again, who is to say that groups of militants are not being pushed into our territory in an effort to save lives of the coalition forces in Afghanistan? There are cynics who aver that our young soldiers may be dying in order that the coalition forces in Afghanistan can be spared the casualties. The battles that our valiant forces are fighting in the tribal areas should not be confused with the so-called “War on Terror”. It is a truism that those who volunteer to take others’ irons out of the fire run the dire risk of burning their own fingers. Recent developments are not very reassuring. We appear to have allowed ourselves to be pushed into – what our American friends are fond of calling – a catch 22 situation!

To ‘shine’ as a “Frontline State” in the War on Terror – a situation that appears tempting to many – is a short-sighted and self defeating exercise. Fighting against ‘terrorists’ in our motherland is one thing and becoming a cog in the international juggernaut waging the “War on Terror’ is quite another. While the former may be an imperative; the latter can become a millstone around the nation’s collective neck. Myth 6: The tribal belt of Pakistan is the ‘epicenter of terrorism’. Nothing short of a calumny, this is the product of the sick minds of those that do not wish for peace to return to this disturbed region. These are the very same forces that that have resisted attempts to pin cogent definitions to the terms: “terrorism” and “state terrorism” in international forums. The tribal belt of Pakistan is by no means the only region in the world where terrorism has reared its ugly head. Terrorism has no religion, nor is it confined to one state or region. Europe has seen its share of terrorism in the not too distant past; so have several regions of other continents. Our friend Sri Lanka has recently emerged from a longish struggle against terrorism. Our big neighbour, India, harbors several terrorist outfits that it is constantly trying to subdue. It is a different matter that India takes care to highlight only such episodes in which it sees an opportunity to exploit the bugbear of Pakistan’s ‘involvement’. Other terrorist attacks, of which there have been many, are conveniently swept under the proverbial rug.

In many ways, Pakistan is singularly unlucky, because circumstances have conspired to drive it against the wall. Not circumstances alone, though, because they have been given a leg-up by interested parties that need not be named here. Recent developments point to a concerted effort to first create ‘situations’ and then to peddle the idea abroad that Pakistan is to blame. This is not to state that this campaign has not received sustenance from within Pakistan itself. Suffice it to say that several influential persons have exhibited a regrettable penchant to turn cartwheels at the behest of powers-that-be in far off lands. It is evident that the order of priorities in this blessed land has gone awry that this ‘order’ has little or no conformity with the demands of national interest.

War on terror, Layman’s guide! — II

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

War on terror, Layman’s guide! — III
Friendly Fire
Khalid Saleem

Myth 7: Pakistan is a ‘failing State’. This could well qualify for the Guinness Book of Records as the joke of the century. Pakistan is neither a ‘failed state’, nor is it moving towards that denouement. There is nothing wrong with this blessed land that cannot be set right just by re-ordering our set of priorities to conform to the demands of national interest. The future of a country lies in the hands of its people, not in those of a few misguided individuals; and certainly not with members of murky think-tanks in the rarefied atmosphere of far-off lands. A country is what its people make of it. The people of Pakistan, therefore, carry a heavy responsibility.

A country of some hundred and seventy million souls endowed with fertile lands, abundant water and natural resources, can never ‘fail’ unless its people give in to hostile forces beyond its borders. The common man – the backbone of this land – remains sound. All that is needed is good governance, good guidance and sound planning for the country to go places. Barring the few black-sheep, who have the propensity to gather their ill-gotten wealth and take off for greener pastures at the drop of a hat, the civil society has shown that it is capable of rising to the occasion. Myth 8: India is an “innocent victim of cross-border terrorism”.

It is about time that both India and Pakistan got out of the blame-game syndrome. The two countries are destined to be neighbours for all times to come. India’s concerted campaign to point the finger at Pakistan for all its ills may sell well in the West, but will be self-defeating in the long run. One would have thought that after the infamous U-turn of the Commando/President, things would take a turn for the better; but they did not. The time for scoring debating points – or garnering brownie points – at each other’s expense – is now past. This no time or occasion to apportion blame; suffice it to say that fair and equitable settlement of contentious issues between India and Pakistan can lead to an era of peace and good neighborliness that the peoples of the two countries and, indeed, of the whole region crave. Wither the War on Terror? As things stand today, the War on Terror appears to be an open-ended campaign with nary a denouement in sight. Most wars are fought with definite objectives in mind; the hostilities coming to an end when either these objectives are achieved or when the perpetrators decide that these are no longer worth fighting for. The ‘War on Terror’ appears to be a war apart, in that its precise objectives have yet to be defined. For instance, would the allies declare victory and cease hostilities if the ‘Al-Qaeda” outfit were to be rooted out of the area? With the benefit of hindsight, this appears highly unlikely. As the recent NY Times Square episode indicates, search appears to be on for newer and newer adversaries. Will it ever end?

We, of the so-called ‘front-line state’ would very much wish to know the extent and scope of our commitment, since future peace in the region depends on this So long as US and its allies continue to wage war in Afghanistan, its environs will continue to suffer from the fallout. Pakistan’s tribal belt will continue to serve as hinterland of the hostilities in Afghanistan whether we like it or not. What is needed is that the powers-that-be should not hasten to move the goal posts every time there is a silver-lining visible on the horizon. Each of the two World Wars lasted no more than six years. The War on Terror is well past this ‘limit’ and yet there is no denouement in sight.

The aforesaid notwithstanding, it needs must be recognized that extremism and terrorism are threats to humankind and need to be tackled. This is easier said than done. One thing is clear though; terrorism cannot be defeated through what may be called a ‘terroristic response’. What the coalition forces are doing in Afghanistan is to fight the battle on the terrorists’ terms. After all what does a terrorist aim to do: to create panic and thereby destroy the established order? Isn’t this precisely what the War on Terror is all about, thus doing the terrorists’ work for them? The only way to tackle the twin menaces is to attack the problem at its roots, which lie in the sense of deprivation and poverty of the overwhelming mass of humanity in these areas. Last Word. We need to wake up to the realities of the situation facing us. Unless we re-order our priorities, the future looks bleak. The criminal neglect of the common man resident in our western tribal areas has made that region a fertile ground for recruitment of youth for anti-people and anti-state activities. Ham-handed actions like the drone attacks hardly help matters. Pakistan needs to tackle betimes the economic and social issues facing the common man of the region. Will the Friends of Democratic Pakistan step into the breach?

Looking at the broader canvas, the role of the international community in tackling extremism and terrorism can hardly be over-emphasized. Firstly, international forums had better get down to devising internationally acceptable definitions of these two terms. For one thing, there has been a regrettable tendency among states to use these epithets to decry genuine freedom movements. International Humanitarian Law does lay down the ground rules; yet influential states indulge with impunity in the unsavory practice of moving the goal posts to suit their vested interests.

Is there a way out? One possible course of action would be to set up an “International Council of Elders” to deliberate upon such matters and come up with viable options. There are several Nobel laureates of outstanding merit who could constitute the core of such a Council. The name of former US President and Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter readily comes to mind as the convener. This Council, if set up, could act as an independent watchdog body to devise plans as well as to oversee their implementation.—Concluded

War on terror, Layman’s guide! — III