There has been a huge contrast in what the international community has endlessly believed and what has been the assessment of our security establishment. Had we not believed in the concept of strategic depth, the launching of military operation Zarb-e-Azb would have been delayed. Surely, such a choice made in time would have saved many precious lives. The situation became complicated to the point where the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General Raheel Sharif, had to say, “The army was prepared to fight against the entire spectrum of threats”. More than anything else, this statement is meant to reassure the international community which so far has believed that the Pakistan Army only fights the Taliban groups that it considers to be opposed to Islamabad. The fight against the entire spectrum of threats means an end of selected military targeting. So is strategic depth as a concept actually dead?
Over the years, the concept of strategic depth has travelled full circle from being entirely unacceptable as a practising military doctrine to a failed non-military method of fighting an irregular war that allowed no one to win. Americans have viewed it as our ‘two-faced strategy’. They have even called it ‘our double game’. To us, it has been a non-military method to preserve and promote our national interests.
Publicly renouncing that extremism was a tool of our Afghan policy, we never abandoned the ‘useful balancers’ that could fight our covert proxy in Afghanistan. Such balancers included social/welfare organisations and political parties with extremist and sympathetic views towards the Taliban, radicalised madrassas and the financial networks that supported them. Strategic depth before the initiation of a military operation in North Waziristan meant reducing and limiting the threat on the western front by using all the useful balancers to fight a proxy to keep Indian influence out of Afghanistan. The failure of this concept was only a matter of time as more than keeping the Indian influence out of Afghanistan, the pursuit of strategic depth as a strategy was making it harder for the Pakistani government and army to exercise its own influence and writ in the heartland of Pakistan.
The policy and concept of strategic depth in Pakistan has a long history. Over the decades, the concept has changed and evolved to take a variety of military and non-military shapes. General Mirza Aslam Beg is credited as the creator of this concept. The army he led in the late 1980s and early 1990s was riding high on its success as it blocked and limited the Russian invasion up to Afghanistan. After the Russian exit from Afghanistan, the Pakistan military’s strategic thinkers led by General Mirza Aslam Beg elucidated Pakistan’s Afghan policy to include a military component that read, “[The] Pakistan Army can now, in a conventional Pakistan-India military conflict, retreat to mainland Afghanistan, regroup and launch a counteroffensive against India”. But was this actually possible?
Surely, Pakistan is a geographically narrow country and an Indian attack could cut through and divide Pakistan into two halves, but serious military thinkers always believed that Pakistan’s military response could be anything but withdrawing into mainland Afghanistan. Describing it as a misplaced priority, Kamran Shafi, writing for Dawn on January 19, 2010 described its ‘tactical impossibility’ in the following words, “Will our army pack its bags and escape into Afghanistan? How will it disengage itself from the fighting? What route will it use, through which mountain passes? Will the Peshawar Corps gun its tanks and troop carriers and trucks and towed artillery and head into the Khyber Pass, and on to Jalalabad? Will the Karachi and Quetta Corps do likewise through the Bolan and Khojak passes?” To sum up, General Beg in the period leading up to 9/11 had failed to find any serious buyers of the military component of this strategic concept.
Then the 9/11 happened. The entire world, led by the US, using the carrot and stick as a tool, tried to urge Pakistan to close up its shop in Afghanistan and also abandon all its strategic interests. Pakistan and its army instead resorted to a policy of containment — buying time in pursuit of national interest, allowing the continuity and execution of some dangerous things. In Hillary Clinton’s words, one such dangerous thing that Pakistan did was “keeping poisonous snakes in its backyard expecting they will only bite its neighbour”.
Not the snake charmers but serious political and military thinkers and strategists were running Pakistan’s Afghan policy. In the post-9/11 scenario, the presence of Isaf and India in Afghanistan were Pakistan’s main worries. Its western frontier laid exposed to large military presence in the neighbouring country.
From the Indian interests of gaining foothold in Afghanistan stemmed Pakistan’s strategy of reluctance — a strategy that necessitated structuring and recognising the Taliban both as good as well as bad. Against the bad (ideological orientation with al Qaeda) — military operations were initiated. Against the good (such as Haqqanis) — indemnity was extended.
Pakistan also seriously doubted that after the withdrawal of American forces, Americans will continue to pay $9 billion per annum to the Afghan government to maintain and keep the 300,000-plus Afghan security forces they trained? Dreading the scenario where this half-trained security force would break up into wild militias and join the ever-fighting tribal warlords to earn their keep, the Haqqanis emerged and stood out as the favourable shield and buffer that Pakistan was prepared to live with and keep.
“We want a strategic depth in Afghanistan but do not want to control it” and “a peaceful and friendly Afghanistan can provide Pakistan a strategic depth”, said General Kayani before his retirement.’ Today, Zarb-e-Azb is the Pakistan Army’s latest military initiative that seeks to strengthen the now visualised concept of strategic depth in which Pakistan and Afghanistan can together free themselves from the terrorists’ enslavement and jointly fight against terrorists. Both countries need to conduct military operations on their sides of the border to root out terrorists. Only if the two countries join hands in a mutual fight against terrorism can the military operations against terrorists ultimately succeed.
President Karzai in a letter written to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has given a seven-point agenda for cooperating in the fight on terror. The last point mentioned in the letter is actually the starting point, “a roadmap for bilateral coordination and contact to take the war on terror forward”. It is hoped that both countries with mutual cooperation can jointly construct such a road map.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 1st, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (34)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
-(1)1714378140-0/AliAminMaryam-(4)-(1)1714378140-0-270x192.webp)
The mindset of even much educated Pakistanis is laughable. They talk of other countries as if they are our satellites, while we can't provide clean drinking water to our own citizens. Planning to bolster its defence by deploying its nuclear weapons and military forces on the soil of another sovereign country and for that purpose using Jihadist proxies to control that country is the most moronic idea that any political/military strategist would have thought of. A common sense and rational interpretation of strategic depth might have helped these Napoleons and Pakistan but no, that is a far cry. Strategic depth would be accrued when Pakistan accepts Afghanistan as a sovereign country and not as a 5th province, respects and leave its people to make decisions for themselves, stop imposing Sharia of one kind or the other through jihadi proxies, resolve the issue of Durand Line amicably in the benefit of the local population, invest in economic, infrastructure and educational development on both sides of the border and make it a win win scenario for both states rather than a zero sum game. If anything it can learn something from India who has invested billions of $$$ to help Afghanistan recover its institutions and infrastructure. Just by imposing Taliban and Haqqanies we can't achieve strategic depth even on empty Mars; Afghanistan is a SOVERIGN COUNTRY with centuries of history and proud people. Even if Pakistan/US/Saudia etc in cahoots with other powers has managed to destroy it Pakistan will never be able to install a client regime in Afghanistan...Is that such a difficult thing to comprehend?
@Rangoonwala: Just returning the favours with interest.
@Observer: Nuclear wars do not need headquarters. Everyone will be dead in a couple of days.
The Pak generals have very secure and surefire strategic depth worked out for sure. They all have green cards and stashed money in the US, UK and Dubai to serve as their strategic escape/depth in case of serious trouble for their good living in Pakistan.
By reading the original article and subsequent comments one could be amused if they were not so tragic. Perhaps I am being simple minded, but I have always thought that the main purpose in life was to have a good job, find a great wife/husband, have delightful children, give them a good education, have grand children, and generally live the good life. All this appears to have been sidelined. Now we appear to have young people sent to military college or university where a set piece of conditioning is instilled into them, and they end up incapable of unrealistic thinking. For example, whoever heard of nomenclature such as strategic depth 5 years ago? Perhaps I went to the wrong university 50 years ago. I will not go into why I read history, but it is a fascinating subject. If anyone cares to look at WW1 they would find the same type of leaders involved and the wording they espoused is almost exactly the same as that which we have to put up with today. All the current crop have to do to find out what to say is resurrect the archives. In the old days they did not use high sounding terms such as strategic depth, but the British did use unbelievable, and untruthful putdowns on the Germans such as the fact that they were brutal monsters who went around supposedly picking up babies and beating their brain out against brick walls. Of course British propaganda did not mention the brutal activities of the British. Nowadays the Germans are considered to be pleasant civilized people. Although I have spent this article decrying modern phraseology such as "strategic depth I do like the one about political "off-balance". I will not go into the full implications of political off-balance, except to point out that except for one or exceptions, and strategic depth notwithstanding, I am not aware of any government that is on-balance.
@Gp65: With Haqannis and others on Pakistani side that wont be an FOREIGN country. Pashtoons dominate most of the area on both side of the border. Dear learn something about strategy... I am taking about 2nd strike capability. That doesn't count who starts the onslaught. As far as command and control are concerned, what do you think in case of an all out nuclear war, where will be the head quarters of Pak Fauj. In Afghanistan not on the zero ground.
Strategic Depth theory was actually put in action by Musharraf and ISI when the Indian Airlines plane was hijacked from Kathmandu and taken to Kandahar in 1999. This forced India to free three terrorists for Pakistan.
@Observer: India has a No first use policy and will never be the one to initiate use of nuclear option. This was tested during Kargill when Pakistan attacked India. So Pakistan does not need a 2nd strike capability.
In any case, would Pakistan feel comfortale stationing its nuclear arsenal in another country? How will it enforce its chain of command and control over those assets in a foreign coun try?
One has to be realistic when one talks of the Pakistan army's strategy towards neighboring countries and not lose sight of the fact that this strategy will ALWAYS include maintaining its position as the ' top dog ' player internally........and some think that this takes precedence over all else.
While Pakistan has been preoccupied with creating nuisance(strategic depth) to itself and the rest of the world since Zia's time, others countries have strived to create better economic conditions for its citizens. Its high time we do away with this negative mindset and start re-branding ourselves as a progressive nation. A good way to do this would be to not think of ourselves as another Gulf state but rather as a South Asian country.
“The army was prepared to fight against the entire spectrum of threats”. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And since Haqqanis, Hafeez Gul, etc etc are not prerceived as threat they will be outside the fight. Strategic Depth Lives!. QED.
The idea of strategic depth is not flawed, as it primarily dealt with nuclear arsenals not the conventional force. 2nd strike capability of Pakistan becomes untenable if all nuclear assets are located in Pakistan, we don't have any nuclear weapon armed submarines. So with adequate protection strategic depth was to deal with Indian in an all out war. Still I believe we need this capability and need to maintain strategic depth. Pakistan due to its shape has to find strategic depth. The writer has not catered for this contingency for which strategic depth was being ensured. Hope it will guide the writer to develop deeper understanding of the strategic depth.
Military success in fight against the scourge of terrorism will not succeed, unless the Political stakeholders improve governance in the conflict zone by creating employment resources, close unlicensed madrasas all over the country, register licensed madrasas & monitor their activities....for this act, even if they have to bring new law, the lawmakers in the interest & safety of this country must stand united. Strong Politically backed govt with political will is the only way to save our Country...otherwise, the future of our country certainly look bleak. The Karzai govt never had the guts to look & talk eye to eye during the period of Gen M, but after 6 years, they seem more stronger then what we are TODAY. The situation has worsened during the past 6 years of civilian govt. Not that proposing a dictator over the civilian backed govt, but we need a very strong politically matured, honest & patriotic leadership, only then we can stand strong against any enemy, but what we got from 5 years of democratic govt need no details. Their poor governance made our enemy strong & the result is all in front of us....
Retreat to Afghanistan.what an absurd idea.as if pak army is taliban and indian army is mighty us army.i have attended war courses and have never even heard about this stupid concept,if it was really existed.it has been and sure still is a civilian obsession which has made its way to hillary Clinton through media.
What about "Bleed with Thousands Cuts" strategy? and Please include "Strategic Assets" as well
This stupidity of strategic depth and related stories should end now. Admit that such stories were invented by the military establishment to keep its hold on more than 50 % of Pakistan's budget.
The larger picture is this: our involvement in Afghanistan since 1979 has - and continues to - bring grave harm to Pakistan. Not just in terms of security and economy, but the general lawlessness it has brought to the country is breaking down its social fabric. If peace and prosperity is what 200 million Pakistanis want, then we should stop caring who has influence in Afghanistan (Tajiks, Indians, Russians, Americans, who ever ..) and completely detach ourselves polticially from that country. We should reduce the relationship down to these 3 questions: (1) Will Afghanistan attack us? (to date no one has attacked a nuclear country) (2) Does Afghanistan want to trade with us? (fine if it does, fine if it does not) (3) Is Afghanistan causing covert mischief in K-P like it used to pre-1979? (If yes, we counter with our own covert mischief makers - this worked well in 1970s). That's it. If we limit "Afghanistan" to these three issues, we will have time and energy to invest where it is really needed: fixing and building Pakistan so that 200 million can live decent lives free of terrorism, lawlessness, drugs, poverty and fear.
@Rehmat: Great analysis! But that has always been Pakistan's approach. I don't think they had envisaged a day when somebody would call it into question. But OBL changed everything. It was the seminal moment in Pakistan's history vis-a-vis its relationship with the west. It is debatable whether Pakistan really needs the west or can fill the vacuum with China and the Ummah. Interesting times for students of international relations.
@ Rehmat, It does not matter who understands what, as long as Pakistani leadership continues to receive the blessings and the wink from the NATO leaders, Britain and the US ...
If Pakistan was really interested in targeting the Haqqani it's done a terrible job - two weeks into the offensive and they can't seem to find the largest/strongest Taliban force in N Waziristan. Pakistan is notorious for saying one thing and doing another - seems that hasn't changed.
The COAS of Pakistan said quote - “The army was prepared to fight against the entire spectrum of threats” unquote.
Much has been made out of this statement. Obviously he meant only the threats to Pakistan, and not any other country or region. The statement was not aimed at appeasing the international community. This by extension also means that the proxies will not be touched.Strategic depth had/has nothing to do with "retreating to Afghanistan."
The goal of strategic depth was/is to contain Pakhtun nationalism in order to prevent the Pakhtun dominated regions of Pakistan from merging back with Afghanistan. To achieve this goal, Pakistan seeks to annex Afghanistan.
Honestly, why do we just care about Afghanistan? Do we not want to prosper like many of the other Asian countries. The primary objective is to get rid of any sign of terrorists from our cities and villages all over the country...not just Waziristan...right?
If you agree then we should redefine "strategic depth" altogether. It should help us to define our global position and how we want to be viewed as by the entire world.
Farid Zakaria on CNN once said, "There are those who are still trapped by history and geography. Think of Pakistan’s generals, still trying to establish “strategic depth” in their backyard while their country collapses."
In regard to strategic depth the author keeps quoting US personalities, such as Hilary Clinton, to strengthen his argument. It should be obvious to even a child that America lacks strategic depth, and they have spent the last 50 years, since the Vietnam war, proving it. A kinder description of America's method of solving problems, which they continually dream up, is that they are somewhat off balance, and I am not referring to physical inabilities.
Will not happen. Hidustanis are in Afghanistan. Supplying arms, cash to likes of Mulla Fazlullah. He then uses the money to recruit Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Uighurs and sends them to safe havens in Pakistan. That includes sniper, long barrel, rifles to shoot at landing planes. All the work of Good Neighbor Sam,...er...Good Neighboring Shining India.
We have heard of some Al Qaeda people being captured and killed and some TTP. If no Haqqani has been captured or killed in 15 days of this operation- how credible is the notion that Haqqanis will nt be spared either? It is just more double speak to gain support from Afghanistan to block TTP from escaping when Afghanistan can legitimately question why it should expect help while sheltering the Haqqanis and Quetta Shura.
Too clever by far - that is what Pakistan's strategists have always been and they underestimate the world's ability to see through these games.
To claim that the army led by Pakistan halted USSR is flawed. While undoubtedly, Zia allowed its madrassas to create jihadis for the Afghan war, Pakistan army never fought in that theatre. If it was good enough to halt USSR, why was it unable to. Get India to vacateSiachen despite 3 failed attempts?
By a "friendly and peaceful" Afghanistan, Kayani actually meant a pro-Pakistani (like the Taliban days) Afghanistan. When will the leaders of Pakistan finally stop dreaming of "strategic depth" ?
Dear sir, Please stop being a purveyor of simpleton ideas. Before the soviet jihad, Afghanistan did everything to break away NWFP from Pakistan. According to afghans their eastern border is the Indus River. The animosity between these two countries transcends the issue of 'terrorism' and goes quite deep.
Very Good Article ............
Good lesson for the reasons of Strategic Depth from the Deep State's perspective. However, no mention of the 'Quetta Shura' though. Surprising.
No one cares what you call exporting terrorism. Nothing to be proud of.