Farrukh Khan Pitafi’s Official Website

Since the defeat of President Musharraf’s loyalists in the national elections, the Western neo-cons and their cohorts in the TV channels, such as Fox, are projecting a doomsday scenario about the war on terror. We are repeatedly told that if Musharraf goes the country will become a hotbed of terrorism and the Taliban will have a field day. Under Musharraf’s presidency an unprecedented number of terror attacks have been witnessed. And as for the Talibanisation, this was perhaps the only regime in whose presence action had to be taken in Islamabad to dislodge a crude political challenge by the Taliban loyalists. More…The most pertinent question is why the regime that took over in 1999, vowing to root out extremism and on the basis of Musharraf’s secular credentials, failed to pacifically dislodge the spectre of the Red Mosque much earlier? We all know that a surge in terror attacks was recorded immediately after the Red Mosque operation. The fact that the regime failed to acknowledge, let alone dismember such a threat during less troubled times, gives weight to the speculations that the administration consciously turned a blind eye to the growth of this resident evil so that through it the West can be blackmailed in the shape of the fear of the alternative.

Another sad trend that has emerged is to consider anything short of the use of brute force in the tribal areas, is interpreted akin to concession. A classic example is Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before a Congressional Committee in which she claimed that what was needed in Pakistani tribal areas was not dialogue but something else. What something else that would that be? She, however, did not care to elaborate. Indeed, such a rash remark. Had there been a decent regime in Washington coming from a secretary of state would have cost her/him the job. The brief of the State Department is essentially diplomacy and not issuing half-baked intelligence advisory or directives. But since the element of sanity thus far has been lacking both in Islamabad and Washington, such a possibility never arose.
Then there are other foreign, though less cared for, benefactors of the beleaguered regime here that have taken disinformation to a new high. The Turkish army chief has recently claimed that if Musharraf goes the country will fall into the Taliban’s hands and the future of our nukes will be unsafe. Since Turkey is neither a nuclear state, ignorant hence of the nuclear C4I protocols, nor is it cognizant of the ground realities in Pakistan, such a claim at best is laughable apart from being a breach of the diplomatic decorum.
It is such misinformed talk that has compelled the coalition’s leading powers to station high-ranking officials in Islamabad. Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service has deputed a fulltime prosecutor in Pakistan (the first of its kind outside Europe) and the US has positioned former US Guantanamo commander Major General Jay Hood chief of office of the defence representative here. Indeed, fears are being voiced that these folks, along with diplomatic representatives, will function like viceroys and the governor generals of the Raj. As someone who has been writing extensively on the defence related issues, especially the war on terror since its very inception I, however, do not see this strategy working any better than the previous one. At this crucial juncture, the US and its allies can ill-afford to colonise a state as small as Kosovo, let alone Pakistan. Any gesture that gives impression of such intent will do no better.
Of course, no one justifies terrorism. But to think that the people of the tribal areas, who are roughly about two percent of the country’s population, are all evil and terrorist will be equally unfortunate. If the underlying emotion in Ms Rice’s remark is sheer vendetta or pure racism then we can at least understand her assertion. Otherwise, her notion is totally uncalled for. In order to dry the terrorist swamps in the tribal areas it is mandatory that the state enhances its outreach and credibility by working closely with the local populace. However, any future strategy, it is for sure, will not repeat the blunders of the past like the withdrawal of forces from the region. Yet it also does not mean that there is any need to gut the entire areas and search for the relevant dead bodies only.
Another bad thing that has become quite visible is the habit of the Western particularly the US defence negotiators to first hold talks here in confidential environment and then leak details of the talks to the press. Not only such an approach is highly unprincipled but it also seriously damages the West’s own cause. A fairly recent example is the newspaper reports that the Pakistan army during its defence consultations had asked the US to provide equipment meant to strengthen its defences. The reporters who narrated that story upon the request of the Pentagon officials actually painted it as if it was a funny demand. No sir, it is not. Actually, it is the demand that distinguishes a long-term ally from a vessel or a mercenary. You cannot just walk in and say, ‘Hey folks! I have dollars so let us go and bomb your fellow citizens’.
We first dropped our Taliban policy, which was quite a correct thing to do, but since Islamabad was not prepared for properly managing the change, what we got was increased hostility on our both borders. Then we were asked to go after our own regions and we did. Where Washington went wrong was not the pressure to go after such elements but in siding with authoritarian rule for that actually meant lack of transparency. And, frankly, when I look around the money that Pakistan received is nowhere. It did not become part of the exchequer. It was not spent on the army and it has not been used to subsidise the provision of humanitarian facilities meant to reduce extremism.
Today, when democratic transition seems finally within reach, instead of revising its priorities, Washington and London have done everything to weaken the cause of democracy and constitutionalism in Islamabad rather than strengthening it. When a new set of army generals wants to bring the force back to where it belong, in fighting the militant threats from within and without the country, our friends in Western capitals are seen more doubtful than committed. It only leaves an impression in Pakistan that by the war on terror the West only means a blood thirsty agenda to kill the citizens here. If this impression is accepted at the face value, there will be no bigger tragedy possible for the country. Folks, if you call someone an ally, you better learn also to trust its judgement. Otherwise, this war on terror is only likely to increase extremism and terrorism rather than reducing it. Pakistan has lost some of its finest leaders, soldiers and citizens to the terrorist acts. It has no need to waver from its commitment. But its allies should also know that stubborn attitude of pushing one country towards extinction will not solve their problems either.

Courtesy The Post

Posted on March 23rd, 2008 under Important, Main •  Print This Post •  Email This Post • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback