Between eulogies and barricades

In a recent visit to the Corps Headquarters Peshawar, the incumbent Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa expressed his satisfaction with the improving security situation in erstwhile Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA). This visit followed another meeting between high ranking military officials and Prime Minister Imran Khan, where matters pertaining to the state’s external and internal security matters were discussed. The mood across both meetings appeared to be a mix between careful optimism and an affirmation of the state’s hitherto embroilment in a web of insecurities.

Hope for normalcy amidst a falling number of terror incidents across the state had some wishful thinkers expecting a steady waning away of the physical as well as psychological barricades erected during the war on terror, which are not only gruesome reminders of a bloodied past but also a divide cast between the securitised and those who are not. The now almost omnipotent series of unsightly barbed wire infused barricades, sheathing fortifications reminiscent of a medieval time, induce a sense of insecurity for many citizens.

Not being ignorant of the efficacy of deploying such defences in slowing down terrorist incursions and aiding response times, one can argue that although being effective, such deployments presented only short-term solutions. Also, given the fact that policies drive strategies and all strategies in principle are devised in pursuit of achieving policy objectives, the aforementioned strategy cannot be delinked from the larger security policy objective of eliminating the probable causes of terrorism and extremism in the country.

David A Baldwin argues for the definitional specification of security when dealt with as a policy objective. He proclaims that — security for whom? from what threats? by what means? in what time period? — are questions which need answering while devising a rational security policy.

Security from what threats and during what time period?

Although defences such as barricades and stationed armed personnel do aid in curbing terrorist threats, one can understand their deployment as a short-term strategy to combat terrorism. But long-term counter-terrorism strategies ought to be based on preventive measures rather than reactive ones. Moreover, since successive military operations have exponentially reduced the threat of terror incidents across the country, a possible roll back on the strategy might be in order to regain some sense of normalcy. Finally, although the strategy has proven more resilient to the pressures of time than one would’ve hoped, it is about time that a transition to a prevention centric long-term strategies be embraced.

Security for whom and by what means?

Traditional security debates had initially centered around ensuring the state’s territorial integrity but later broadened to include other values as well. Since contemporary threats are mostly of an irregular nature, this widening of the security ambit was imperative to adapt and devise effectively against terrorist threats, which systematically target the population and other soft targets. Non-combatants in today’s wars appear more susceptible to harm as they are not prepared to face any life threatening tactical scenarios. The gut-wrenching APS attack in late 2014 verified the need for this widened security ambit.

This brings us to the core argument that flagrant displays of firearms and skyscraping fences were never long-term security solutions. Devising comprehensive long-term defence policies which target the root causes of conflicts and extremism in a system are the best bet at achieving a secure environment. Eulogies for the martyrs of war against violent extremism still echo in our collective consciousness, calling upon us to make certain that the approaches we adopt provide long term dividends. Furthermore, military successes gained through a hard hand can only be consolidated when it runs parallel with long term political solutions to conflicts. Investing in finding viable political solutions in addition to activating our military responses might prove vital in the cause for achieving comprehensive security.

Violence can find various outlets for its expression and, unless its structural embeddings are dismantled, can reemerge in a different shape or form. The attack carried out by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) on the Karachi Stock Exchange might serve as a caution in this regard. Be it the BLA terrorists spilling blood in Karachi or the dying out TTP, we must ensure the adoption of a long-term approach to achieve a lasting peace. Unfortunately, until we change our strategic preferences, the state remains stuck between eulogies and barricades.