North Waziristan — a timely opportunity
The operation is likely to decide the future course of US-Pakistan relations, domestic security situation of Pakistan.
The August 14 speech by General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is an epoch moment for Pakistan’s war on terrorism. At the same time, it is perhaps, a very timely opportunity for Pakistan to clarify its position to those in the United States who have, in the past few years, grown critical and suspicious of Pakistan’s loyalties.
For many observers, both in Pakistan and the US, it is perhaps, the first time in several years that there is an indication showing the Pakistan Army understands the gravity of the threat and is ready to resolve the issue of militancy with seriousness.
What has stopped the army from taking this step for so long? Many observers, including Ahmed Rashid in his recent article in Financial Times and Kamran Shafi writing for this newspaper “This is not our war? Still?” (August 16) criticised the military’s ‘double role’ and infatuation with ‘strategic depth’ in the region as a reason for its unwillingness to go against the militants. The premise of such an argument assumes that the policymakers in the army are somehow irrational and want to support the militants who are harming them. As a rational actor, I believe that the generals are not plain stupid to allow such a thing. Going beyond this conventional wisdom might suggest a different, more plausible reason why, in fact, the army has been unwilling to go against these groups. The analysts have to first understand that due to the secrecy of the nature of intelligence and operations, there is a lot that the military cannot share with the public; hence, our analysis should give some benefit of the doubt to an entity that can’t truly defend itself.
Second, there is a need to understand the difference between actively supporting militants and being in communication with them and having the ability to influence them. It is preposterous to believe that the army has enough power to dictate and control each and every action of these militant groups. However, it does have the ability to influence these groups, but to what extent is something that is exaggerated far too much. There is also a reason why the army wants to maintain communication with these groups.
Sooner or later the US will be out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, alone, will be left with militants on ground. The army, with its meagre resources and crippling economy, cannot only have a military solution against these sons of the soil. Thus, it maintains communication with them while also keeping these groups under check, so that in the aftermath of the US withdrawal, Pakistan is not set on fire by them. Third, the crises in the economy severely restrict military operations against these groups. That is why in the past, the military has always resorted to a quick political solution after an assault on the militants.
The military has thus, for far too long, tried to strike a balance between its legitimacy in the international world, making war on its own people and maintaining domestic stability. Its efforts have been perceived as ‘back-stabbing’ and at times as evidence for ‘support’ for militancy. However, things are predicted to change with General Kayani’s speech reflecting a certain understanding and consensus within the army and with the US army on the future direction against militancy. The army has come out with a strong fist against militants.
Given the socio-economic situation in Pakistan, the political instability, and recent tensions with the US, there is obvious nervousness within the army. It will be interesting to see how it will make its progress to victory in the North Waziristan operation. Much will depend on the support of the people of Pakistan and the domestic political actors who will have to set aside their petty politics and make sure that the army completes its job in flushing out the militants from Pakistan.
The operation in North Waziristan, which comes at a pivotal moment, right before the elections in the US and in Pakistan is likely to decide the future course of US-Pakistan relations and the domestic security situation of Pakistan. For the US, Pakistan’s indication to move into North Waziristan brings glad tidings and a reassurance that it is a partner in its war on terror. The operation is a unique moment to sort out the grievances between the two countries and will require extensive cooperation in order to defeat the militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 28th, 2012.
For many observers, both in Pakistan and the US, it is perhaps, the first time in several years that there is an indication showing the Pakistan Army understands the gravity of the threat and is ready to resolve the issue of militancy with seriousness.
What has stopped the army from taking this step for so long? Many observers, including Ahmed Rashid in his recent article in Financial Times and Kamran Shafi writing for this newspaper “This is not our war? Still?” (August 16) criticised the military’s ‘double role’ and infatuation with ‘strategic depth’ in the region as a reason for its unwillingness to go against the militants. The premise of such an argument assumes that the policymakers in the army are somehow irrational and want to support the militants who are harming them. As a rational actor, I believe that the generals are not plain stupid to allow such a thing. Going beyond this conventional wisdom might suggest a different, more plausible reason why, in fact, the army has been unwilling to go against these groups. The analysts have to first understand that due to the secrecy of the nature of intelligence and operations, there is a lot that the military cannot share with the public; hence, our analysis should give some benefit of the doubt to an entity that can’t truly defend itself.
Second, there is a need to understand the difference between actively supporting militants and being in communication with them and having the ability to influence them. It is preposterous to believe that the army has enough power to dictate and control each and every action of these militant groups. However, it does have the ability to influence these groups, but to what extent is something that is exaggerated far too much. There is also a reason why the army wants to maintain communication with these groups.
Sooner or later the US will be out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, alone, will be left with militants on ground. The army, with its meagre resources and crippling economy, cannot only have a military solution against these sons of the soil. Thus, it maintains communication with them while also keeping these groups under check, so that in the aftermath of the US withdrawal, Pakistan is not set on fire by them. Third, the crises in the economy severely restrict military operations against these groups. That is why in the past, the military has always resorted to a quick political solution after an assault on the militants.
The military has thus, for far too long, tried to strike a balance between its legitimacy in the international world, making war on its own people and maintaining domestic stability. Its efforts have been perceived as ‘back-stabbing’ and at times as evidence for ‘support’ for militancy. However, things are predicted to change with General Kayani’s speech reflecting a certain understanding and consensus within the army and with the US army on the future direction against militancy. The army has come out with a strong fist against militants.
Given the socio-economic situation in Pakistan, the political instability, and recent tensions with the US, there is obvious nervousness within the army. It will be interesting to see how it will make its progress to victory in the North Waziristan operation. Much will depend on the support of the people of Pakistan and the domestic political actors who will have to set aside their petty politics and make sure that the army completes its job in flushing out the militants from Pakistan.
The operation in North Waziristan, which comes at a pivotal moment, right before the elections in the US and in Pakistan is likely to decide the future course of US-Pakistan relations and the domestic security situation of Pakistan. For the US, Pakistan’s indication to move into North Waziristan brings glad tidings and a reassurance that it is a partner in its war on terror. The operation is a unique moment to sort out the grievances between the two countries and will require extensive cooperation in order to defeat the militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 28th, 2012.