Taliban no longer a fringe element in pak; they are homing to peshawar

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm Appeasement and apathy By Irfan Husain NOT a day passes without further news of death and disaster from the tribal areas along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. These reports of the deteriorating law and order situation are increasingly featuring in the western media where they are viewed with growing alarm. For instance, The Times, London said in an editorial titled ‘Khyber Impasse’ on June 26: “Pakistan is already an anomaly. Without being labelled a failed state, it comprises large swaths of territory where its central government’s writ does not run and its forces dare not deploy… in Swat, where troops have been withdrawn and Sharia has largely replaced Pakistani law; and in South Waziristan where the power vacuum has been filled by Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban faction that is now encircling Peshawar. “Officially, Islamabad has not ceded control of Peshawar to anyone. Yet the Taliban are already closing down music shops and internet cafes. Those business owners who can are leaving… Mr Gilani and President Musharraf have both used the same rationale for doing deals with separatist militants. It is better to appease them, they argue, than to wage an unwinnable civil war that could engulf the whole country. “Yet where Pakistani forces have withdrawn, the Taliban have muscled in, with Al Qaeda in its shadow. Cross-border attacks into Afghanistan have more than doubled since last year, hampering Nato’s and President Karzai’s nation-building efforts and making Islamabad look weak, not wise. Peshawar is where Mr Gilani must be strong. It is sovereign Pakistani territory, unambiguously and vitally. It must not fall.†My excuse for quoting this view at such length is that it basically repeats what some of us have been saying for a long time. The erosion in the writ of the state has been steady and relentless, with the previous government giving in repeatedly to militant pressure. Perhaps the prime example of this masterly strategy of perpetual retreat is the Lal Masjid disaster. For months, Musharraf and his advisers dilly-dallied while militants built up their defences. Instead of doing the obvious, and getting the children’s library vacated, the female madressah students were allowed to occupy it for months. Many of us had argued from day one that the government should just cut off utilities, and force the students to emerge. From the very beginning, this creeping insurgency has been treated as an ideological and strategic issue, rather than the law and order problem it basically is. By negotiating endlessly with violent law-breakers, we have given them a legitimacy they did not deserve. Emboldened, they have used classic salami tactics, slicing off bits of land and sovereignty. And predictably, they have used the respite provided to them by these long-drawn out talks to strengthen their position. Time after time, they have then broken their word, and attacked government targets yet again. There is a kind of blind desperation in the government’s desire to sign a peace deal at any cost. Unfortunately, the price these extremists want to extract is very high: they want nothing less than to impose Taliban-style rule across the country. In a sense, those in charge are negotiating from a position of weakness as a significant segment of the military and civil bureaucracy as well as a large section of the media, are ideologically on the side of the militants. Understandably, the West views these developments with alarm. Its worst nightmare is an expansion of the territory the extremists already control. In a recent survey conducted by the American publication Foreign Policy, and the Fund for Peace, published in this newspaper on Wednesday, Pakistan was placed ninth in the list of dysfunctional states. The survey uses a number of criteria to calculate the stability of 177 states, and our situation has steadily worsened over the years. Fortunately, the present government finally seems to have grasped the gravity of the situation. In a recent meeting chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani in Peshawar, and attended by the top army brass as well as provincial leaders of the NWFP, a number of decisions were taken to tackle the threat faced by the province. How effectively these will be implemented remains to be seen. Thus far, our troops, especially those from the various militias and the Frontier Constabulary, have shown little stomach for a fight. Even regular soldiers have shown an embarrassing propensity to lay down their arms rather than face the militants. Psychologically, a civil war is one of the hardest conflicts to fight as it pits brother against brother. One reason our officers and soldiers had no compunctions about shooting at Bengali civilians in 1971 was that they saw them as enemy aliens, and not our own kith and kin. Much of the army is drawn from Punjab and the NWFP, and because of family and tribal links, using them in these provinces is tricky. The other problem is that our soldiers believe the insurgents are fighting in the name of Islam: mullahs leading prayers across the country have been urging their followers to reject their leaders and accept the rule of the Taliban. This skewed ideology has gone unchallenged by the establishment, making soldiers and officers susceptible to the blandishments of self-styled religious leaders. At the recent meeting in Peshawar, it was recognised that the threat from Islamic militants was the most serious one being faced by Pakistan. And yet, little effort has been made over the years to convince the public of the reality of this danger. The result is that there is huge ambiguity on how to counter it. Anti-western sentiment has gained ground, and has made it correspondingly harder to fight the common enemy. Given the altered threat assessment at the highest level of government, it makes strategic sense to re-orient our defence posture. Keeping the bulk of our army on our border with India is now out of sync with our security requirements. It does not take a Napoleon to work out that it is in India’s interest for Pakistan to win its existential struggle against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Indeed, if we are to win, New Delhi, Islamabad and Kabul will have to cooperate and fight the common enemy. This will require a fundamental change in military thinking, but without it, the entire region risks being engulfed by the forces of darkness. irfan.husain@gmail.com

[theguyinallblue]

this is getting seriously scary... and the most dangerous think about pakistan is that their are many sympathizers of Taliban in ruling elite and Army... what will happen if Pakistan army joins hands with Taliban to make Pakistan a sharia state... it indeed is a civil war... and Govt is confused between Allah and welfare of the Nation... all are worried about their afterlife and 72 virgins... and this civil war is not about Better amenities or better governance ...like Naxalites in India.. its an ideological civil war..and PAKISTAN will suffer in the end... an unstable and violent Pakistan is a danger for the world... and if Pakistan do not succeed in controlling the situation ..then there will come a time when it will be bombed to stone age..

[Lurker]

Understandably, the West views these developments with alarm. Its worst nightmare is an expansion of the territory the extremists already control. In a recent survey conducted by the American publication Foreign Policy, and the Fund for Peace, published in this newspaper on Wednesday, Pakistan was placed ninth in the list of dysfunctional states. The survey uses a number of criteria to calculate the stability of 177 states, and our situation has steadily worsened over the years.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: West views these developments with alarm? :hysterical: No it doesnt. The West gets alarmed only when its own rear end gets on the line. Any half sane observant of Pakistan will tell you that this deterioration of Pakistani society basically can be traced to Zia Ul Haq. You can probably go further back if you were interested in history but the main protagonist of current state of affairs has to be General Zia. USA at the time paid little heed to the development of fundamentalism in Pakistan. Their "big picture" was knocking Russia off Afganistan. And to achieve this they would not care what happened to Pakistan(or South Asia for that matter). Every 2nd weapon that was supposed to be received by mujahideen was received by Pakistani Army, and many to the local lads who would fight Russia. The only way to raise these local lads against Russia was by the theory of jihaad. So after Russia withdraws what was expected of these jihadis? That they would go back to doing farming? Obviously these lads did not want to do that and they basically tried to do the only thing they knew - theology. Hence the growth of religious fundamentalism etc etc. Every other day one reads about how millions and billions of American aid send to Pakistan is missing. Do you seriously think Pakistan doesnt know where this money is going? And do you seriously think the all power America that can practically get images of every square inch of this planet has no idea where the money is going? Gimme a break. In the end for all of West, specially America's, interest Pakistan would be slaughtered, in the very least it will continue to deteriorate.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Lurker alarm means alarmed for themselves.. Why sud anybody care about bunch of peopple hellbent on harakiri if it doesn't concern them.. For instance even I would not have given a craaaap about this development had pakistan been in some lala land disconnected from india altogether.. Everyone is watching his/her back and do things as per what they feel in in their national interest at any given time.... I think we sud be concerned about india's interest and taliban in islamabad is not a happy thought for me.. the way they are gaining grounds it looks scary

[Lurker]

Lurker alarm means alarmed for themselves.. Why sud anybody care about bunch of peopple hellbent on harakiri if it doesn't concern them.. For instance even I would not have given a craaaap about this development had pakistan been in some lala land disconnected from india altogether.. Everyone is watching his/her back and do things as per what they feel in in their national interest at any given time.... I think we sud be concerned about india's interest and taliban in islamabad is not a happy thought for me.. the way they are gaining grounds it looks scary

I agree. However the question is how can you address the Taliban issue if you do not realize where it stems from? Yes Pakistan has its own demerits/faults but it is prudent to remember that the religious fundamentalism was missing for atleast 30-40 years of its existence. Indeed if religious fundamentalism was so prevalent in East and West Pakistan in say 60s there would not have been a modern Pakistan and modern Bangladesh(religious oneness would have overtaken cultural difference, I think). This religious fundamentalism owes a lot, if not all, to the whole Afgan mujahideen adventure. The way to address this issue, in my opinion, is to stop making the same mistakes. Why would US want to keep pumping millions and billions into Pakistan when it goes missing and ends up either in say hands of ISI or worse with fundamentalists?? Surely the Pentagon knows enough about this considering half of its weapons went missing during Afgan-Russian war. The best way to approach the issue is to make sure US stops feeding the Armed Generals and start making earnest effort for Pakistan's Democracy. This whole act of supporting Musharraf has actually helped the fundamentalists in Pakistan who seem to be so much more stronger today than say 2000.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Everyone realizes where it stems from : ideological leg comes from islamic scripture funding came from usa. Even today despite religious upheaval there is regionalism current churning in Balushistan.. Existance of one doesn't preclude the existance of other.. Before america came Taliban had whole nation called Afghinstaan for itself such a rogue nation that it cud immorally get hijacked plane to land there and let terrorists handle the negotiation.. I don't understand how you could say things were better than what it's today... Support of pakistan army from usa was always there musharraf or no musharraf... even today they get support but they don't get unconditional supply like yore. why do we have to get stuck in what it was.... if terrorist operation in kashmir has dipped a even little that is thanks to recent american adventurism.. If a Aasif Zardari now says pakistan should close down the terror camps from the pulpits of indo/pak summit then it's due to to recent american adventurism.. because benazir was the one who shouted azaadi azzadi azzadi and fanned extremism of pakistan and it will be fair to say zardari was in agreement with his wife's stand.. Too much of was let us talk about what is and what it should be....

[Lurker]

Before america came Taliban had whole nation called Afghinstaan for itself such a rogue nation that it cud immorally get hijacked plane to land there and let terrorists handle the negotiation..

Not really DR. Soviet Union withdrew from Afganistan around 1989. At this time Afganistan was led mostly by fighting warlords but none of them were really hardcore Islamists. Indeed this was one of the reason of the rise of Taliban in early 90s and finally to power in mid 90s. If you track the growth of Taliban you will see that Afganistan was otherwise rather moderate. I mean women being killed/hurt for not wearing burqa, men lashed publicly for not sporting beards, demolition of Bamiyan Buddha, ban of all sports including flying kites etc etc happened after Taliban came to power and not before.

I don't understand how you could say things were better than what it's today... Support of pakistan army from usa was always there musharraf or no musharraf... even today they get support but they don't get unconditional supply like yore. why do we have to get stuck in what it was.... if terrorist operation in kashmir has dipped a even little that is thanks to recent american adventurism..

USA has always supported Pakistani Army. This in turn has scrwed up Pakistan's internal state of affairs(read lack of democracy) as also the fact that Pakistani Army has been belligerent into pushing India's buttons. Till 2001 happened, and even after really, Pakistani Army has worked on the premise that USA needs Pakistan more than it needs India. In fact many of the Pakistani bigwigs would even think USA "owes" them for stemming the Russian influence. The tacid support of USA has made Pakistan, and hence South Asia, a dangerous place. It is simple as that. It is not a case of checking history and going back to it but to set the record straight and make sure the mistakes arent repeated.

If a Aasif Zardari now says pakistan should close down the terror camps from the pulpits of indo/pak summit then it's due to to recent american adventurism.

To be honest I dont think Zardari is qualified enough that we discuss him. I mean I dont have much respect for the man. But I also dont think his stance is due to American adventurism. Zardari is not a USA fan, neither was Benazir by the way, and he realizes that if he has to be in power he needs support from World, and India in particular. Afterall at home the Army is only too willing to kick him out.

[sandtest]

Past policy of US regarding ISI-Taliban and Afghanistan was to preserve American interest and rightly so. Any influencial power will do that and that too America goes an extra mile to preserve their interests, that's the reason why they are a super-power. I have always advocated India to take a lesson from USA and adopt an aggressive foreign policy approach and look for their OWN interest first before preaching pseaudo-morality of Non Alignment Movement (NAM), Non violence, peaceful co-existence, people to people contact yada yada. American policy towards creation of Afghan fighters was mostly driven by Cold War US policy of containing grown Russian influence in Central and South Asia, without directly waging a war with Russians. America for all practical reasons avoided a direct confrontation with Russia due to Nuke angle, instead fought through their surrogates by supplying and training local fighters through their intel. agencies. This genius of a policy worked very well for THAT PERIOD and protected US foreign policy interests resulting in practical defeat of Russia in Afghanistan. It was at a time when Cold war was at it's peak. India unfortunately fell into Russian camp due to it's close defence co-opetaion. To make things worse we were seen as nothing more than NAM chauvinists, by western real-politic policy makers.

[sandtest]

But if someone thinks that Afghan fighters of Soveit era, were NOT ISALAMIZED, then it would be a flawed understanding if Islamization. B. Raman says in his book, Afghan fighters during that time were as Islamized as today they are. Only difference is their Islamic anger was carefully channeled to blunt the invading Russian army. The important thing being, they were reduced to fight within their own country and were not sophisticated enough to take the fight globally to other countries. With arrival of Al Qaeda Inc. and revolutionary progress in Information technology for communication, Taliban got a whole new sophistication. US negligence of Taliban (they were meant for use and throw anyway), and Israel-US-Europe relations provided them enough ammo to wage a war against crusaders, only this time they became sophisticated enough to take the war to the soil of US and Europe through bomb blasts, aircraft crashes etc. Hence the we can see the urgency to eliminate them. ISI have been bleeding India by sending these same Mujaahids since so many years, and India is the biggest victim, but why should US care when it's not hurt? and why Indian expect that? India has to fight her own war, through aggressive foreign policy approach, instead of reducuing herself as a "soft power" by pandering to Candle Light Kissers of wagah border.

[Lurker]

I have always advocated India to take a lesson from USA and adopt an aggressive foreign policy approach and look for their OWN interest first before preaching pseaudo-morality of Non Alignment Movement (NAM), Non violence, peaceful co-existence, people to people contact yada yada.

I am glad South Block doesnt listen to you. Here is how American foreign policy has worked: 1) Afganistan issue is now biting USA's butt. Billions of dollars are now being spent every single year to combat the threat of exact same people who CIA trained in 80s to dethrone Russia. From Asia to Africa CIA is on the run to defend these threats and in the process facing the ire of the world. 2) USA's attack on Iraq has effectively brought USA to verge of bankrupcy. Trillions has been spent, economy has been slaughtered, joblessness is rampant and Dollar is weakest in a long while. 3) The "enemies" of USA, the very same countries who USA wants to see weak - countries like Iran, Venezuela, Russia etc are now rich as hell..thanks to soaring Gas Prices...which in turn owes a lot to Iraq misadventure. 4) While USA has spent last decade effectively fighting "terrorism" countries like China and India have spent that decade coming up. China in particular has become a real threat, including in continents like Africa where USA is largely second player now. You should probably read the latest book by Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria where he mentions that the only industry today where USA is numero uno is Defence. Almost every other industry is led by a global player today. I am only too happy South Block doesnt listen to you.