The waiting game on North Waziristan

The national debate over an operation is now divided and fragmented and public opinion is confused.


Syed Talat Hussain October 18, 2012

The expected military operation in North Waziristan has been put on hold yet again. Ironically, this has happened in part because of the very event that was supposed to spur the nation and the government into taking decisive action against the last bastion of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan i.e., the attack on Malala Yousufzai. Just last week, the outpouring of national outrage against this heinous assault seemed to bring all stakeholders on the page of cleansing the cities and towns of North Waziristan of the stranglehold of the militants. Now, this has changed. That consensus seems to have been lost in the haystack of heated controversies and cold calculations of the leaderships of various political parties. The national debate is now divided and fragmented and public opinion is confused. Going purely by opinion trends on social media and the conduct of national leadership, the stomach for taking the battle to the Taliban of Waziristan has become squeamish. The counter-narrative of the religious right, and also of those spearheading protests against the blasphemous video, clearly has had an effect. In popular perception, the Malala incident is no longer an open and shut case of the Taliban attempting to silence an ardent spokesperson for female education and a budding activist for her liberal values. The insinuation doing the rounds borders closely on the conspiracy theory that this could well have been staged to either distract media attention from the derogatory video or the growing voices against drone strikes. Another oft-heard assertion is that perhaps, the entire incident was meant to create momentum to launch an operation on North Waziristan.

These are wild theories and have no empirical basis. Some of them are plainly outrageous. But then that hardly matters. What matters is that these have blunted, what a few days ago, looked like a fairly straightforward and pointed demand: the Taliban have started to attack schoolgirls for speaking and writing about education, so the state should say enough is enough and tackle them decisively. What also matters is that these theories have put both the state and the government on the back foot, forcing them to reconsider their options and scale back their enthusiasm for going after the hub of such attacks. The PPP, whose president and prime minister, mouthed valiant bluster when Malala was attacked, have gone completely quiet leaving the field open to the ramblings of Rehman Malik. The PML-N, while continuing to position itself against the stance of the PTI does not want to push the demand of the North Waziristan operation too hard. Its support to the operation is "conditional", which essentially means that its leaders would gingerly and even haltingly follow rather than lead the march on this score. Imran Khan's party continues to weigh against another military operation, hammering the point that use of force is not an option anymore and can only lead to more violence. The PTI leadership's peace plea, however, remains skeletal and without any meaningful details about its implementation. This leaves the ANP as the sole pitcher for the North Waziristan operation. However, it would not surprise anyone if it, too, begins to tone down its stance: the cost of speaking against the militants is paid not in sweat but only in blood.

Interestingly, the army's interest in the North Waziristan operation, too, has ebbed and flowed in tune with the political mood and public opinion trends. The generals make the argument that a fractured political scene and divided public opinion makes any battle-plan impractical. The same argument is couched in the statement that the political leadership has to give a go-ahead for the operation to start. However, like everything else in Pakistan, this issue, too, is not as simple as it is made out to be. The army high command has been in two minds about North Waziristan for three years. In the wake of, nay almost parallel, to South Waziristan's Rah-e-Nijat Operation, there was this should-we or should-we-not circular reasoning about the fate of North Waziristan.

So, the confusion is quite chronic and it showed again after the Malala incident in all its ugliness. Immediately after the attack, the army took charge of all developments concerning Malala. Inter-Services Public Relations started to run a health bulletin on the injured child. The army chief's visit to her produced an incredible press release that had this sentence in capital letters: "We refuse to bow before terror. We fill fight, regardless of the cost, we will prevail Inshallah."  This almost suggested as if commandos were about to rope down in terror-infested compounds of North Waziristan. There was much hype and plenty of meetings. Now, however, this leaping fire of rage has calmed down to a sputtering flame. The health bulletin has stopped. Malala is recuperating in London. Tolerance for audacious attacks on police checkposts and IED blasts have returned. The army brass has gone back to the familiar drawing board, thinking yet again, ‘What to do about North Waziristan? Should we or should we not?’ It is stalemate all over again.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 19th, 2012.

COMMENTS (39)

Nadir N.M Mahmood | 11 years ago | Reply

If army does not act now then worst is yet to come.Extremism is a monstar which should be crushed as soon as possible , if not ,then no Malala and no citizen of pakistan has any future.Army is our only hope and let not this ray of hope be faded away and save us from this menace.

Aviator | 11 years ago | Reply

So, everyone has burried their head back in the sand, where they were the before the Malala incident.

Nobody wants to take action against the Taliban.

The bombings and killings by the Taliban will continue, until the next Malala incident.

I worry for the future of Pakistan.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ