The writer is an independent political and defence analyst. He is also the author of several books, monographs and articles on Pakistan and South Asian Affairs
The most significant regional development is the expected surge of the Afghan Taliban after the drawdown of the US/Nato troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The Afghan Taliban are not expected to take over Kabul but they can either make life miserable for any Kabul government, or establish strongholds in southern parts of Afghanistan (bordering Pakistan) or both.
The increased internal strife, especially the strengthening of the Afghan Taliban’s position in Afghan territory adjoining Pakistan will have two ramifications for us. First, it will strengthen militant groups based primarily in Pakistan’s tribal areas because it will be easier for them to cross over to Afghanistan than it is now. The same can be said about the Afghan Taliban, which will treat the Pakistani tribal areas as their ‘strategic depth’ in their fight against the Kabul government.
Second, as the Afghan government will find it difficult to cope with the security challenges caused by the Afghan Taliban, it will accuse Pakistan of aiding and abetting them. It will also reject Pakistan’s claim that militant groups on our side are using Afghan territory to save themselves from the reach of Pakistan’s security forces.
These problems will add to Pakistan’s internal problems, which include a faltering economy, price hikes and unemployment, an energy crisis and internal insecurities caused by religious extremism manifesting in the shape of sectarianism and terrorist attacks. The intensified political polarisation in Pakistan, especially the growing extra-parliamentary pressures caused by dharnas and street marches by some political parties are complicating the task of governance and political management for the federal government.
The escalation of the Afghan Taliban violence in Afghanistan will cause another problem for Pakistan. Some seminaries and religious political groups are going to come out openly in favour of the Afghan Taliban. They are likely to send their volunteers to fight in Afghanistan, as some of them did in the late 1990s in support of the Taliban government in Kabul in its fight against the Tajiks and Uzbeks of northern Afghanistan. Pakistan’s security establishment is expected to stay aloof from such activity but it will find it difficult to control this cross-border movement.
It is imperative for Pakistan’s civilian leadership and the military to do a down-to-earth self-examination of their approaches to religious extremism, militancy and especially the hangover of using some militant groups as an instrument of the state’s security agenda in the neighbourhood. It is not enough to declare that our civilian and military leadership is opposed to religious extremism and terrorism or mourning how Pakistan’s external adversaries are sponsoring these troublemakers.
The federal and provincial governments are often indecisive about taking tough action against known militant and sectarian groups because they do not want to lose political support or they think that the exit of the US/Nato forces from Afghanistan will defuse militancy in Pakistan. They would like to hold back any tough security action against militant groups for the time being to enable these groups to voluntarily adopt a peaceful disposition towards Pakistan as foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan.
Such a soft approach has enabled militant and sectarian groups to entrench themselves in society, especially in Punjab. These groups have also created strong mutual networking and support bases in urban centres of Pakistan. Therefore, any action against them will face some political opposition and retaliatory violence.
The military appears to have turned against most of these militant groups but it is difficult to suggest if it has completely given up on the Punjab-based militant groups, which possess right-wing ultra-nationalism and anti-India sentiments. The military needs to come out unambiguously on rejecting all mainland militant groups, which engage in extremist and violent activities and/or engage in extremist hate speeches and sectarianism.
The federal government cannot continue causing confusion in the name of holding talks with militants, which have been a non-starter from the beginning. It needs to review its dual-track policy of letting the interior minister play the anti-America card with the prime minister talking of moderation and good relations with the US.
If the government and the military cannot adopt an unambiguous policy of increasing their effective control of the tribal areas and do not strengthen security on the Pakistan-Afghan border in 2014, they will find it difficult to administer these territories. Similarly, a firmer operational strategy is needed to deal with mainland militant groups and their networking though effective intelligence and policing work.
The federal government and the military need to send a clear-cut and sharp message to militants and their affiliates that Pakistan will no longer tolerate any group with a violent agenda. These groups should not be allowed to build support for themselves by playing up the Kashmir issue and anti-India and anti-US sentiments. The civilian and military authorities should also create a strong narrative to justify their counterterrorism policies and neutralise the anti-state propaganda carried out by militant groups.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 13th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731570357-0/elon-musk-(1)1731570357-0-405x300.webp "article")
-(1)1717678110-0/Kendrick-(1)-(1)1717678110-0-165x106.webp "article")
@shahid: Are you sure you didn't write those lines half asleep?Instead of sending clear cut assertive messages what alternative do we have then.? Go soft on them,or better yet accept their demands and Impose their brand of sharia because as you said our harsh words made them more belligerent. Dear friend, if you are really aware, we have been on a policy of appeasing and in a way encouraging these terrorists through our indecision on the issue of militancy.And so we need to take a clear stance on the issue.The duplicity tactic cannot continue for long.This is what the author wants to say and I agree with him. Please try to read and understand before commenting and make sure you are fully awake..
Anybody who thinks that harsh language is going to defeat terrorist is naive and/or stupid. Further - while nobody likes to talk about it - your civilian govt has no say over whether your military goes to war. As such, whether the civilian govt and military are on the same page is just PR with little practical value.
Dr Sahab is forgetting the government is part of the violent agenda. The Saudi influence is overbearing.
Only thing Pakistan needs to do is to undo Zia's doctrine. That itself will take a generation to correct the Pakistani thought process on violent ideologies like jihad.
The run with the hare and hunt with the hound policy has caused confusion within the ranks of its creators as well as the Public. The problem with a country like Pakistan with multiple Power centers is that it is almost impossible to pin responsibility for failures on those whose disastrous decision making, caused it. If no one gets punished, there is no incentive to change for the better, fearing reprisal. Pakistan has more strategists and think tanks advising on Foreign Policy and Security issues, relative to its size compared with other States. Nobody has done any evaluation regarding the quality of advice rendered or its efficacy, reflecting that the culture of responsibility or accountability has not taken roots. If every section of the Government wants to give advise to the other sections but none want to take the responsibility for implementing harsh measures needed to secure the country, there is a problem. Indulging in rhetoric or pulling red herrings out of the hat, will not solve or address the problem. Pakistan has never been short of good advise, it has always lacked the energy or will to move beyond words and into action. The costs incurred due to procrastination keeps rising.
The author completely missed out the economic hardships Pak will face after US withdrawal because US will not have any reason to bestow aid/reimbursements to Pak and they will not easily forget that OBL was happily breeding in Pakistan with/without local/state patronage. "Looking both ways" will play up in hardships for Pak as the world is unlikely to bail it out. Saudi and Iran will turn the otherway once sanctions on Iran are lifted, They may not fund the IP pipeline also
Wel done! Dr.sb,exellent analysis of the situation,hope you continue writing masterpicolumns for us
The writer rightly urges our leadership to have an unambiguous policy towards the militants and send them a long overdue message that they will not be tolerated anymore . The question is : Will our leadership heed his words which speak for millions of Pakistanis ? To do it, our ruling elites have to overcome a chronic and deeply-entrenched policy of appeasement towards those who defy or violate law in the name of religion .The clerics challenge the decision of the government to regulate curricula or functionihg of madrassas , or to review the blasphemy laws , and the governnment capitulates post-haste . Even carnage and arson are condoned if done in the name of religion . Some minorities have been virtually eliminated by religious fanatics but no one is held accountable or punished . It has to be realised that this policy of appeasement of the religious lobby has not only de-stabilised our state , but has also degraded our religion now equated around the world with the behaviour of terrorists and suicide bombers .
The author has started day dreaming. Sir, wishes do not get fulfilled without concrete actions.
What exactly does the author think that the government has been doing for the past 12 years? Go and ask Rustam Shah Mophman and AYaz Wazir former ambassadors and administrators form FATA who certainly know it better than the author. They will tell you the real story of what has been going on. All the sharp messages have brought us to this point that we now do not seem to have any alternatives left. Send more sharp messages and it will get even worse. Do you not think that the Russians and the US did deploy the sharpest edges that human have produced so far in the human history and what was the result? WHen will you learn for God's sake respected Dr. Sahib???