This is Our War

We contributed to the making of Taliban & been complicit in not fighting them.This is our War. And we have to win it.

At what point does a battle transform into a war? At what point does the war become “our” own? Is there some precise ghastly number of our causalities after which we can consider a war ours? There are no easy answers to questions such as these, perhaps any answers at all. The good thing is that most people now realise that terrorism is a problem. Well, that’s a start. However, the response of the majority is something along the lines that “we need a consensus on a multifaceted, multidimensional, broad-based, indigenous effort to mould the narrative and isolate the extremists”, etc, etc. It might be useful to remind ourselves, and by all means do it every day of what the challenge really is. Recently, the severed head of a senior police officer was hanged from a police checkpoint. A 15-year-old girl shot in the head for wanting to go to school. Throats of FC and army soldiers are slit and videos made. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and their mindset have no confusion on who the enemy is; it is everyone. They are equally clear about their demands; it is everything. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to impose their demented worldview. We choose to respond to this by statements which belong to mediocre bureaucracy memos.

The North Waziristan operation it seems has been shelved for the time being. There are elections, votes to be lost and potential extensions to be considered, however, one suspects a primary reason is that no one wants to come across as a warmonger. Wars as everyone knows are evil. I am sure that most people cannot really believe that. There are “just” wars and “right” wars. The only exception can be an absolute pacifist. Although in the case of the Taliban, it is mostly selective pacifists. George Orwell wrote: “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.” The use of force is not always immoral or illegal; in fact there are situations where the non-use of force is inarguably immoral. Either we choose the time for a showdown or they certainly will. I hope the anti-imperialist, pacifists would respond differently in a hypothetical clear case of genocide, but you never know.

We should not fight our own people. What sort of silliness is this? Never mind the foreigners in Waziristan, states use force against their own people when they start murdering innocent civilians. Then there is why don’t you go and fight, if you feel so convinced. If this inane argument is accepted, then doctors who feel that the law and order situation needs to improve should instead quit their jobs and become vigilantes, or else have no opinion on the matter. This argument also prohibits women, senior citizens and physically disabled, etc. from having an opinion on national security. You know because they are not allowed on the war front. In theory, we have the idea of civilian supremacy over the army. We have specialised armed forces which have signed up for this task and are paid for this. We can and should support them in this war, and do not need to bear arms for doing that.

The list continues with, if we take them head on, they will be provoked and attack with greater zeal. They do not look unprovoked or lacking in zeal right now. Then there are more sinister apologetic arguments of peace deals and negotiations that should be buried by now. Their demands are impossible to comply with and they will still kill you. They do not want a piece of land or independence or more rights. They want the world and they want it to be their way, which requires first destroying the world. The list of excuses is too exhaustive to be dealt with here; it has two common threads; denial and fear.

The timing of the operation, the mode and the strategic modalities should be worked on for purposes of efficacy and minimising all collateral damage and a consensus built. However, there should be no doubt on who the enemy is. It is the mindset of murder on the basis of religion. I wonder, how many of the above excuses would be made if an operation was to be contemplated and carried out against the sectarian murderous organisations all over the country, which by the way should be carried out. If hopefully that day comes, we will see new excuses of how we are ignoring the complexity of the narrative and force should not be used, etc. It might be useful to distinguish between different sort of terror groups for the purposes of efficiency and strategy, for the purposes of a battle; however, it will not work for a war. We do not take them on all at the same time; however, we need to identify them all as “enemy”.

For the argument of any negotiation to be accepted, we will have to presume that the religious fanatics are rational actors. No; they are not. I assume that I might have irritated some people a bit and to “pacify” them here is an anecdote from the Dark Knight. As Batman ponders over the motivations of the Joker, his valet Alfred narrates his experience of an episode in Burma; where a bandit would raid and plunder caravans of precious stones and after the looting just throw them away. Alfred tells him, “Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn”. This statement of a fictional comic book character has more insight into the mindset of the Taliban and the religious fanatic than dozens of studies and theses.

We have contributed to the making of these murderers and been complicit in not fighting them earlier. However, none of this muddles a clear fact. This is our War. And we have to win it.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 4^th, 2012.