The writer is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Pakistan Army and a PhD in civil-military relations
Unlike the United States where the National Security Council constitutes the forum formally undertaking the ownership of any policymaking, Pakistan is devoid of any such formal policymaking forum where the civil-military leadership can debate and develop a comprehensive response strategy. Even before the policy is revealed some noticeable Pakistan-specific characteristics of it are becoming apparent. Donald Trump is reportedly frustrated on the alleged role of Pakistan in preventing the US in winning the 16-year war and to turn things around Islamabad may be forced to change its behaviour; Pakistan’s alleged ‘paradoxical policies‘ of fighting the militants inside its own borders but allowing them to operate across the border may no longer be tolerated; bases in Pakistan where militants allegedly regroup and reorganise themselves before returning to fight in Afghanistan may no longer be safe from external military action.
In essence, the policy presumably may have one clear Pakistan-specific objective: “stop alleged cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan or face the consequences”.
While there are dark and threatening clouds looming on the horizon of our national security and the new Trump administration’s Afghan policy is increasingly looking to ‘back up its threats with actions’ our political leadership in a non-professional approach is hardly giving any indication that it anticipates any such US course shift. Even if it is so, there are no signs on the ground that demonstrate the seriousness and urgency of the civilian and security establishments to hold joint meetings to discuss the likely vulnerabilities to which Pakistan may be exposed if such a policy is implemented.
Even if the US security team led by National Security Adviser General H R McMaster sidesteps from recommending a conventional option against Pakistan (that may take into account our interests and our preferences as well) and instead recommends choosing a controversial option and insists on ‘full and complete compliance’ by Pakistan then what is our preparation to combat it?
As we all know politically things are not working out well in Pakistan and as the politicians have surrounded themselves in a heap of domestic issues our response to this vital issue smacks of political neglect. Three key ministries related to national security have been handed over to politicians who do not boast of any experience in the fields that they have been chosen to lead. The new defence minister (Khurrum Dastgir) has previously been commerce minister who has never been associated in any capacity with the armed forces of the country. Although the interior minister (Ahsan Iqbal) previously heading the planning and development ministry has a brilliant academic record, he has nothing to show when it comes to managing national security. Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif has no diplomatic experience and if repeated failed negotiation efforts have put the Afghan policy in a very awkward state one wonders how someone like him can make any substantial difference to change its course.
In any case the civilian government and its ministers are busy firefighting the loss of government’s credibility post-Panama judgment. Taking joint positions together with the military to counterbalance against this developing threat doesn’t seem to be a government priority — not at this stage. Unfortunately for Pakistan even if the current civilian government takes any position on the review of Afghan policy and its implications for Pakistan nobody will take it seriously as it will come from a government that is stuck knee deep in a political quagmire. Seen in this context would it be a surprise to know that devoid of political patronage the military in Pakistan alone is spearheading the development and designing of Pakistan’s response strategy to the new Afghan policy.
Ideally, the new Afghan policy should bring a balanced US commitment to the region. It should not push one country’s agenda at the cost of the other. Being herself a victim who else can understand better but the US itself the meaning of ‘how it is to be affected by what happens beyond your borders’. India, Pakistan and Afghanistan continuously and consistently point fingers at one another for what happens outside their borders and then what happens inside them for their insecurities. All have evidence to prove one another’s participation in the ongoing, destabilising proxy wars but none is ready to act as a responsible stakeholder and end the proliferation of this insecurity through negotiations.
In a regional environment devoid of mutual trust many threats are exaggerated, many accusations ill-founded and many vulnerabilities self-created. Countries in this region have now for long avoided direct war and invested too much and for too long in fighting proxy wars to destabilise and weaken one another.
Any US action that demonstrates selective treatment of benefiting one country at the cost of the other will result in the introduction of more radicalisation and contribute to further destabilisation in the region. If the US seeks a ‘change in behaviour’ it must remain cautious that it does not end up doing something so damaging to the national prestige and national pride that it encourages even worst behaviour.
Countering terrorism collectively should ideally continue to be the hallmark of the new US Afghan policy. More importantly the policy should encourage interdependence and seek to economically integrate the countries in the region so that all countries have too much to lose and have high stakes in keeping their relations normal.
Pakistan, on its part, must do everything it can to continue to remain a US ally in the war on terror and address all the US apprehensions on our alleged ‘paradoxical policies’ and build a strong case of a nation that is a victim of terrorism itself and thus does everything to combat terrorism and not contribute to it.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2017.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ