What Obama Wants Pakistan To Do: Implications
By amicus • Apr 11th, 2009 • Category: Politics, Worth A Second Look • 15 CommentsUnveiling the new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on 27 March 2009, President Barak Obama stated that Al-Qaeda and its allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks - were in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
According to him, “multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.” He described Pakistan’s border region with Afghanistan as the most dangerous place in the world for the American people.
Obama stated that it was not simply an American problem, rather an international security challenge. Referring to the instances of terrorism in different parts of the world, he warned: “If there is a major attack on an Asian, European or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”
He declared that a clear and focused goal of the United States was “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”
Obama cautioned: “Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.”
In the multi-pronged US strategy to counter ‘terrorism’ which Obama defined, Pakistan is required to play a crucial role.
Recognizing the fact that the tribal region is vast, rugged and often ungoverned, the United States is to focus on tools; training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists.
Instead of providing a ‘blank’ check, the United States is to observe Pakistan’s performance on the ground. “Pakistan must,” stated Obama, “demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al-Qaeda and the violent extremists within its border.”
In a welcome paradigm shift at tactical level, the United States’ relationship with Pakistan is to be grounded in its “support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people.”
The United States has undertaken to enhance its economic aid to Pakistan to promote the welfare of Pakistani people. It has announced to work with the World Bank, the IMF and other sources to ease Pakistan’s economic difficulties.
Obama called upon the Congress to approve the Kerry-Lugar bill for an annual $1.5 billion aid to Pakistan for civilian purposes over a period of five years with more aid to follow specifically for the development of the tribal belt.
The United States is to pursue ‘constructive diplomacy’ to reduce tension between the nuclear armed India and Pakistan. This is to ensure that Pakistan is able to concentrate on its western borders and Pakhtun majority areas.
Let us examine the implications of Obama’s ‘new strategy’ for Pakistan:
In the first place there is a wide gap between the perceptions of the American establishment and the Pakistani people. Seven years down the road, there is no consensus in Pakistan that the ‘American war on terror’ is Pakistan’s war.
9/11 happened in the United States and not in Pakistan nor from. Al-Qaeda was not a threat to Pakistan that it has become. The US and NATO forces occupied Afghanistan and if the Taliban have launched a war of national liberation or what they call jihad, it is primarily the responsibility of the United States and its NATO allies to deal with the situation.
The Pakhtuns live on both sides of the border and if there are cross border incursions into Afghanistan from Pakistan’s tribal belt, to which Obama has referred, it is but a natural response. Due to their religious and ethnic affinities, the Pakistani Pushtun considers themselves under moral obligations to assist their brethren across the border.
If the al-Qaeda elements are embedded with the Taliban, Pakistani state is already contributing more than its due share to prevent them from using Pakistani territory.
Pakistan is tolerating drone attacks that target al-Qaeda hide-outs, although they constitute a clear violation of its sovereignty. Pakistan has apprehended scores of al-Qaeda operatives and handed them over to the United States.
It is for the American- led coalition forces to strengthen the border security on the Afghanistan side.
Although there is strong disapproval of the Taliban’s tribal customs, their version of shariah and suicide attacks inside Pakistan, even the detractors have vehemently spoken out against Taliban. However, the majority of Pakistanis have reservations about Obama’s views that “the terrorists within Pakistan’s borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan.”
The people of Pakistan differentiate between foreign militants and the Taliban, and feel that it was Pakistan government’s policy to hit the Taliban from the rear that made the Taliban respond in the same coin, and if this policy is reversed the Taliban will definitely show restraint.
Contrary to what Obama claims, the popular perception in Pakistan is that, instead of the Taliban, the United States poses the principal threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity and its nuclear program, surpassing even India. Over the years, an extremely negative image of the United States has got ingrained in the Pakistani mind and not without reasons.
The role of the United States in creating and protecting Israel, its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, threats to Iran and Syria, the duplicity of its policies on the Kashmir and Palestinian issues and attitude towards Pakistan’s nuclear program have made the United States a perennial villain in the eyes of common Pakistanis. Obama needs to concentrate on this aspect of relationship if he is really for a long term strategic partnership between Pakistan and the United States.
Obama has spoken about isolating “al-Qaeda from the Pakistani people.” Excepting those who might be in contact with the foreign militants in FATA and NWFP, the Pakistani people have a very vague idea of al-Qaeda or its structure or its operational capabilities. Those who believe in the existence of al-Qaeda mostly consider its ‘jihad’ to vacate infidel occupation of Muslim lands or counter infidel aggression as legitimate.
Others have such an extreme distrust of the United States and Israel that they regard al-Qaeda as a bogey that was deliberately created to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama must understand that it is a question of trust deficit, (with people of Pakistan), for which successive US administrations are responsible.
Nearly all Pakistanis concur that a sinister campaign is going on against their country to declare it a rogue, or failed state and the epicenter of international terrorism. The way Pakistan’s ISI, the defensive mechanism of Pakistani state, is being maligned is not swallowed by any.
The statements of US Generals, about the ISI those followed Obama’s seemingly conciliatory address, cast aspersions on the American motives. The stories about ISI’s links with the terrorists - the Pakistani people are constrained to think - have one aim: to incapacitate the most vital agency of Pakistan, and render Pakistan an easy prey to potential aggressor/s.
Obama has said: “There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who’ve taken up arms because of coercion.” The question is how many Taliban have taken up arms under coercion.
The Taliban took upon themselves the anger and ferocity of the United States but did not surrender Osama bin Laden. It seems idiotic, but they believed they were bound by the Muslim and Pakhtun tribal traditions and values, not to hand him over. Now they have committed themselves to undo the occupation of Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world.
After the United States –led coalition forces occupied Afghanistan in late 2001; it seemed that the Taliban had evaporated in thin air and that the American dollars had purchased the loyalties of tribal chieftains. Today, Talibanization is present and creeping into more and more areas. This could not have happened without willful support and cooperation of a sizable segment of the people.
Perhaps it is not coercion on the part of al-Qaeda or the hard core Taliban, but frustration, anger and resentment against the US-led coalition troops and its allies in Pakistan that has given impetus to Talibanization.
The doctrine of jihad and idealism of establishing ‘Islamic system’ have united the Pashtuns, rendering it extremely difficult to exploit their inter-tribal rivalries. Any attempt to create fissures between different groups of Taliban is fraught with danger of igniting civil war in FATA, NWFP and northern Balochistan.
Talibanization is a trans-tribal phenomenon. By joining the ranks of Taliban the poor and downtrodden acquire a sense of importance and opportunity to hold power.
The anachronistic system of tribal maliks or corrupt western style administrative set up has failed to provide them justice or share in decision-making. The Taliban offer them equality of status in this world and promise eternal bliss hereafter.
If the United States fails to capture the heart and mind of the Pakhtuns, the ranks of the Taliban are likely to swell.
Obama considers the issue of militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan as inseparable. In doing so he is, deliberately or inadvertently, promoting the idea that the whole Pakhtun region is a unit, notwithstanding the fact that it is shared by two separate political entities.
The concept of a single Pakhtun region transcending national boundaries and up in arms with an ‘Islamic agenda’ may prove to be precursor of an ‘Islamic Emirate’ With the concept of ‘Greater Balochistan’ already on cards, the idea of ‘Islamic Emirate’ smacks of some scenario to reduce Pakistan to the status of an innocuous, denuclearized, buffer state comprising Punjab and Sindh.
Obama has called for involving other stake-holders to resolve the Afghanistan imbroglio, particularly Iran and India. Iran has sympathy for the Tajiks and Hazaras due to sectarian reasons besides, geopolitical and Economic Interests.
India is operating an espionage and sabotage network from its consulates and front offices in Afghanistan to foment trouble inside Pakistan.
Instead of Iran or India, it is more important that the Taliban are engaged in negotiation as the real stake-holders in Afghanistan.
If Pakistan reorients its defense posture from eastern to western border as desired by Obama, India will be in a position to take military advantage at the hour of its choice. See the posturing after Mumbai Attacks.
The apprehension is, if somehow the Pakistan armed forces are able to soften the Taliban through military action, the United States-led coalition forces may walk into FATA, NWFP and Balochistan on some flimsy pretext to bisect Pakistan as feared by many in the country.
The Pakistani troops are not mentally and psychologically prepared or trained for any war against their co-religionists. They have been indoctrinated to fight the enemies of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
If any major military action against the Taliban, with its own brothers in faith and Nation, is ordered at the behest of the United States, the Pakistani troops will fight under great strain and stress. Such decision may be at the peril of even defections and desertions.
Pakistan’s military doctrine and preparedness has remained India specific. The security of its western borders hardly figured except when Afghanistan was under the Soviet military occupation. Now Obama wants to impart training to the Pakistan army to fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban in a rugged and difficult terrain. It cannot be an easy task.
History is witness that the British and Russians failed in Afghanistan, the United States is losing there, and Obama has announced a surge of 21,000 troops and trainers to arrest the trend.
What chances are there of Pakistan army winning under similar conditions? Why should then Pakistan army get sucked into a costly, protracted and nerve-wrecking war that is ultimately to be lost?
Have the Pakistan armed forces forgotten the lessons of East Pakistan? Do they yearn for another abject surrender? If and when this war is lost will the country remain united?
The military action against the Taliban is likely to promote sectarian rift in the country. Apparently, look at the rise inhuman attacks targeting our Shia brothers in faith. The society and state institutions need to be protected against the menace of this creeping sectarianism at all cost.
In the Taliban theology, war against even Muslims is permissible who obstruct jihad against the infidels and its supporters, whomsoever. They will play havoc in Punjab and Sindh, if Pakistan opts for all out war against them. They have their own concept of collateral damage, the loss of innocent lives.
Pakistan government has witnessed that frequency of suicide attacks increased manifold after the military action was launched in Swat and other places in August last.
In the indiscriminate use of fire-power against the alleged Taliban and their hideouts, innocent Pakhtuns were martyred in hundreds, maimed in thousands and several hundred thousands had to leave their homes; and all this played out to the advantage of the Taliban.
Already there has been an influx of migration in some localities of Karachi, like other urban centers of Pakistan. The tide of migration continues due to warfare in Pakhtun areas uprooting huge number of people. The economic hub of Pakistan may witness ethnic riots reminiscent of 1980s and 1990s.
MQM’s anti-Taliban posture and rhetoric is reflective of sectarian, ethnic bias and apprehensions, while there are, transcending, segments of population in Karachi, a city of 17 million people from allover Pakistan and other parts of South Asia, who know why people migrate and migrated in the past. There are reports that some elements amongst the Mohajirs and Pushtuns are preparing for showdown. Anything can ignite the riots.
Given the risks involved it is in the national interests that the Pakistan, that the government adopts a policy of negotiations and truce with the local Taliban and persuades the United States to take Taliban on board in Afghanistan without unnecessary fuss, allowing them to have social, political, economic and legal system decided by Afghans. The US and the world may seek of Guarantees, that Afghanistan territory will not be used for planning of any terrorist attack anywhere in the world, as they are exacting from Pakistan. This is in the interest of the peace in the region and the world.
In case Pakistan turns down Obama’s offer of the check, ‘blank’ or otherwise, the most the United States may decide to cut off Pakistan’s economic and military assistance and increase drone attacks on selected Al-Qaeda targets.
If the United States takes the unwise decision of sending troops inside Pakistan to fight the Taliban, it is likely to be sucked up into a protracted war at the cost of ‘precious’ American lives rather than Pakistani troops whom it, regrettably treats at best as mercenaries, despite our troops having sacrificed the most, then US and its partners collectively.
If the leadership were to rise to the occasion, any violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty will unite the nation to face all odds, be that economic or military. It is important that Pakistan remains committed to its ideological moorings and says no to Obama, if it comes to killing our own people.
About the author: Amicus is the pseudonym of Advocate Mohammed Yousuf, lawyer based in Karachi.
Trackback URL
|
|
|
AmiCus has spoken. and spoken well, what is written everywhere, and read it yesterday. I am hoping for peaceful change, is fading with every passing day.
#2: please read “mouthpiece” for ‘mouthpeace’ (’amicus’ is jus a ‘pieace’ [which is not whole!] and far from anything that even resembles ‘peace’ !).
Calm down Aftab Alam…Calm down……
hahahahahahahahaha………..Aftab rocks BIG TIME.
Keep it up brother.
Listen, I am as calm and as cool as one can be! Let’s not worry about me, let’s see what I just saw in ‘DAWN’ today (Saturday, April 11, 2009) :
“So far, with the exception of the PPP and the MQM, most political parties have avoided taking a clear position. While they may occasionally condemn individual atrocities, they fall short of openly identifying the enemy. One senior journalist in Islamabad told me that when reporters seek an interview with Nawaz Sharif, they must first agree not to ask any direct questions about the Taliban. If this is true, it shows that the PML-N leader does not want to either condemn or support the jihadis openly. Being a canny politician, he does not wish to alienate his core support among reactionary elements. Nor does he want to upset Washington. But wars are not won through such tactical hedging.” (’The high cost of surrender’ - Irfan Husain).
P.s.: Pay attention to the phrase, “openly identifying the enemy”!!!!!!
P.S.: Pay attention also to, ” One senior journalist in Islamabad told me that when reporters seek an interview with Nawaz Sharif, they must first agree not to ask any direct questions about the Taliban.” (see where the priority lies, is it Pakistan, its people, its way of life, the people of Pakistan - I am not impressed by this convicted criminal and his politics!).
[...] To Do: ImplicationsBy amicus • Apr 11th, 2009 • Category: Lead Story • 6 Comments • Email This Post window.google_render_ad(); Unveiling the new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on 27 March [...]
Dear Friends,
There is a general precept that General Pervez Musharraf while at the helms of the affairs of this country was some what running his business on his some forsaken personal whims and has left this country in such a mess that it may take us few decades to infuse a new life in the shattered society. But now Mush is gone; do we see a leadership which has some vision and is seen committed for the task to take this nation out of the mess that it is in. No US installed leader like Mush or Zardari may do the desirable but only the down to earth leader emerging from among the grass root Pakistani can do; a messiah who may not need a bullet proof rostrum when addressing his people and may not need a bullet proof car to travel.
There is another concept that Mush while in chair was some what playing a double role? This may be our colonial mentality that we like to think that although we were destined to obey our previous masters but were also doing some under hand jobs to meet our own ends.
But I bear repeating it here too that there has been no hesitation or some under hand current running at the part of godfather: US. They had openly declared Pakistan their proxy country to meet their US designs (then known as Neocons goals) and they have openly paid to do the needful.
Mush has never played a role or done any thing that US were not in knowledge of it. Every time Mush was getting a pat at his back from US; it was but for his deeds that US had desired and Mush has brought about those desired results. US was paying heftily for that. But this paid up business kept on inflicting deeper scars to the fabric of our some what a fragile society and chaos and desperation kept on setting its foot for a hold. Bit by bit this chaos has been turning into anarchy and now we find that entire country is fully engulfed in it.
We may even still think that Mush was some how out smarting the US, CIA and Pentagon, playing a trick; sort of double cross to mint money only. US is out on a rampage and has no hesitation to exterminate and put his known foe down; US is savage and a brutal oppressor and no proxy must ever think to out smart his godfather?
We had also thought that having a set of big ‘patakhas’ (nuclear arsenals) in our kitty; it has made us some how invincible country in this region but today we find that all that is still at our hands but we find ourselves insecure, right in our own houses. Don’t we see that our society is falling apart; disintegrating, loosing heart and is surrendering to the onslaught of even the titly bitly US implanted agents (like the mullahs with their lashkars and the TTP) infused and instilled into our ranks and files. These agents are at their work; busy very busy. Provided we come out with some down to earth patriot leadership we may find that with out the invasion of US soldiers that they need not to set their foot on our soil’; it is so evident that we are already holding our hands up—?
US used Mush like a tissue paper. Mush is now discarded and binned. US has it proxy governing policy tradition to send the proxy leaders down the gallows at the end but probably Mush may escape this ordeal. US job in the region is not yet finished and they may not set a precedence and don’t want to scare the new proxy.
Asif Ali Zardari is new tissue box put there by US to head this country and curry a favour for US. There should not be an iota of doubt in our mind that (God forbid) he is installed and is destined to submit a formal final surrender of this country to US.
Regards
In all the Proxy businesses like in the Red light area business; it is always a paid for business. You may not lodge a complaint or put forward a claim afterward for any depredation or being molested there.
Khokar
very well explained the whole scenario.In short you want to say that America is customer, our leadership on command is acting like prostitutes.One by one all are being utilized by master.first musahrf then zardari and now shairf are coming ahead for their turns.So where stand 17 million people of Pakistan in all this mess where even our intellectuals and educators can see the criminal history of sharif brothers but ignored all the criminal cases of PPP and mqm leadership after seeing their dummy protests against the talibans flogging a young women.
Aftab & Nazia
Phool ki patti say cut sakta hai heeray ka jigar?
Mard Nadan pay klam e narm o nazuk bay asar.
TPS ki ronaq, Ghairat tumhi say hai
Friendship, Lots of love and many regards
Dear Nazia,
My earnest desire and endeavoured is that we must be able to identify our national issues and any problems related to them correctly; other wise we have seen that all such matters just remain ambiguous and some how open ended and out of focus. Ambiguity may generate lot of discussions but always fail us at each and every step to pin point the flaws—– explicitly.
For instance, we keep on attaching lot of leadership traits toward Musharraf for him being bold, outspoken and a patriot but we all know; he was unable to say a simple No after 9/11 to US and there on he was simply a US bow-wow poodle and kept riding us all for long 8 years.
Likewise Zardari or say Nawaz Sharif; they boast around a lot because ghar main bilee bhi sher hotie hey; but they all are the hand picked US stooges to keep US agenda on the front burner even at the cost of loosing every thing that Pakistan posses.
I was told that Nawz Sharif allows having his interview done only; provided he is not asked any question or his opinion regarding Taliban or FATA. So the prime security issue of Pakistan like Taliban or FATA are found totally absent from his line of opinions. He would like to be called a national hero but the prime Pakistan security issues are never his subjects. What a shame?
To know them well will will make clear for us that where we stand; other wise; we will stay totally dumbfounded, confused and finding no headway?
Dear Khokar
The problem is greater and extremely complex, dangerous, challenging, than it appears to lallo phatto. The world has never experienced, faced such a war like situation, is not equipped, and has no experience to deal with, even with combined efforts, so far. The world leadership is still looking for answers and solutions. Its not only Mullah behind it as it appears to a common sense writer, its an ideology well rooted in many brains for hundreds of years.
Hi Amicus,
Well spoken for Army leadership which is the backbone of Pakistan. You know common people never mattered. It is always Army,Allah and America.
The Army in USA has always to creat an enemy to survive.The bomber scare,Missile gap and even after fall of soviet union, they resurrected China and now global jihad.
Your Army is doing the same. It has India the perennial enemy but it has to sucker the Americans who give the moolah and they are dead afraid of Jihadies.They can defeat any army in the world but not this suicide bombers who casually walk the terrain with pathani kurtas and turbans. Your army is using this fear to milk the Americans.The ruling elite is now fearful about the backlash Pakistanies are already facing in UK,USAEurope and even in Middleast.My friend tells me they prefer infidel Indians to Pure Islamic pakistanies.Even Saudi arabia doesnot allow its citizens to travel to your country.
Americans are not bothered about girls getting flogged or men have to keep beards.They are bothered about your nukes.It is here Musharaff fell into the trap of Americans. He created kargil as soon as Pakistani nukes got parity from India.He showed how immature he is by showing off the nukes and telling the world that many kargils will happen now that nukes are with us also.He is not happy with the security nukes offered to pakistan from India,USA and even Soviet union and china.Instead of securing economy of his country he allowed Taliban to develop who are not only targetting USA even UK and also chinese what to talk of flogging pakistani girls and digging graves.
Pakistanies must think why their Army killed the three baloach leaders?Who ordered it? Why the elite of pAKISTAN is targetting covertly the Chief justice of pakistan and rehman Malik posting source report on RAW?
Hi Mr Aftab S Alam is un necessarily getting emothional what Amicus has stated is visible in the policy of MQM