We are incorrigible optimists. Because India’s name was not mentioned in Brussels meeting and the London conference on future of Afghanistan, we believed that the US and the West had come on the right track. But it appears that they are still off track, as they continue to create doubts about security of Pakistan’s nukes.
Director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency Lt General Ronald Burgess told the US senate Intelligence Committee that the Pakistani government and the military establishment both came under repeated pressure from the Taliban extremists last year, including an attack on the army headquarters, which raised questions over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arms. “We have confidence in Pakistan’s ability to safeguard its nuclear weapons though vulnerabilities exist,” he said. This statement can be described as a double speak; it is in fact self-contradictory Pakistan’s nukes can’t be safe and vulnerable at the same time. General Burgess went on to say that the tribal areas in Pakistan continued to provide ‘valuable sanctuary’ to Al Qaeda and others and while attacks on these groups had disrupted some of their activities, however they remained resilient. One could put them a question: could more than 100000 American and NATO troops and Afghan forces in similar number break the will of Afghans? Certainly not; and they have much more resilience than Pakistan’s Talibant. Director of US National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the same committee: “India-Pakistan conflict was helping the militants because Islamabad still believed that some militant groups were strategically useful to counter India”. But this is not true because Pakistan has banned all organizations and they act against extremists and terrorists of any hue and shade, whether pro or anti Pakistan. He persisted in discerning in pro Pakistani Taliban and those dangerous for Pakistan. He acknowledged: “Islamabad had demonstrated determination and persistence in combating militants it perceived dangerous to Pakistan’s interests, particularly those involved in attacks in the settled areas, including FATA-based Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan”. It is indeed Pakistan’s war; however, they are to blame in equal measure for creating monster of militancy during Afghan war. By destroying Tehrik-i-Taliban’s infrastructure in Swat, Malakand Division and South Waziristan, the toing and froing of the militants across Pak-Afghan border has considerably reduced. From the communiqué of the London conference, it appears that the US and the West are indeed serious about a political solution after having realized their ‘vulnerability’ and that the war there is not winnable militarily. One would not know the real motives of the occupiers but the holding of dialogue with rank and file of the Taliban fighters and not the Taliban main leadership shows their real intent ie to drive a wedge between the Taliban, which can prove counterproductive. We would neither hold brief for the Taliban nor condone their acts of exporting their version of Islam to other countries in the past. Yet we would suggest to the occupiers that they would do well to come to terms with objective ground realities and hold peace talks with their true representatives and not with those who had left the Taliban a long time ago. Four or five members, who were taken of the list of terrorists, are already in President Hamid Karzai’s camp but they do not wield any influence over the Taliban leadership. In the past, there were reports that Saudi Arabia was mediating between President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, but the Taliban leadership had categorically refuted the news. Pakistan is often criticized when our leadership talks of strategic interest in Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan’s only genuine wish is that there is stability in Afghanistan and there is friendly government and not hostile government. One can argue that if the US is concerned for its strategic interests thousands of miles away from its borders, why should Pakistan not be concerned over the threats to its security from the next-door hostile neighbour? To make Pakistan’s security perilous, India’s RAW has covertly been supporting centrifugal forces in Balochistan. Pakistan has already credible evidence that in terror attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan, the rocket launcher and other arms and ammunition were the same as used by the Indian army. There is a perception that Indian and American interests converge in the region, as both oppose any agreement in FATA or North Waziristan, so that confrontation continues. While, America and NATO are willing to negotiate with the rank and file of Taliban and, if need be, even with Mullah Omer, but they are averse to any peace agreement between Pakistan government and Pakistani Taliban. Is it not display of double standards.President Barack Obama is an erudite and well-versed in history. He must be aware as to what happened in the Vietnam War and the price the US paid there. The US had an ignominious defeat, and its troops fled by helicopters and other means from Saigon. Both Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had thought that they could win in Vietnam, but they were slowed down by the American people who rebelled against the war, as they were by the North Vietnamese through their unprecedented resistance. He would do well to remember that in 1952 when President Dwight D Eisenhower was running for the White House, the American public was growing frustrated over the long US involvement in the Korean War. And Eisenhower had told voters: “I shall go to Korea.” And he did. The Korean War ended in a standoff in 1953, much to the relief of the American people. During the 2008 campaign, Obama indicated that he was willing to speak to all parties in the military or diplomatic disputes the US was involved in. But the world did not witness the change he had promised. Sooner or later, he will have to realize that people will always fight for their country against a foreign invader. President Obama has prematurely received the Nobel price; he should try to justify it and peace should only be his goal. And Pakistan could contribute a lot towards achieving this laudable goal if intrigues to destabilize Pakistan are stopped by the vested interest in Afghanistan and India. Only when Pakistan’s grievances are addressed then only it could focus on war on terror that can help produce positive results. Last year, some members of US administration and think tanks suggested that a new strategy should include drone attacks on, what they called, safe haven for Al Qaeda fighters in Balochistan. They coined the term of Quetta Shura to convey an impression that Al Qaeda leadership is ensconced in Quetta. But this is travesty of the truth because Pushtuns living in Balochistan do not have any truck with Al Qaeda or Taliban. Such conjectures could further exacerbate the feelings of hatred against the US in general masses. President Obama should understand that the problem is right inside Afghanistan and not in the North Waziristan or any other part of Pakistan. President Obama should try to address Pakistan’s concerns, as Pakistan’s army chief, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has rightly called upon the international community that Pakistan’s long term interests must essentially be addressed.
Director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency Lt General Ronald Burgess told the US senate Intelligence Committee that the Pakistani government and the military establishment both came under repeated pressure from the Taliban extremists last year, including an attack on the army headquarters, which raised questions over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arms. “We have confidence in Pakistan’s ability to safeguard its nuclear weapons though vulnerabilities exist,” he said. This statement can be described as a double speak; it is in fact self-contradictory Pakistan’s nukes can’t be safe and vulnerable at the same time. General Burgess went on to say that the tribal areas in Pakistan continued to provide ‘valuable sanctuary’ to Al Qaeda and others and while attacks on these groups had disrupted some of their activities, however they remained resilient. One could put them a question: could more than 100000 American and NATO troops and Afghan forces in similar number break the will of Afghans? Certainly not; and they have much more resilience than Pakistan’s Talibant. Director of US National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the same committee: “India-Pakistan conflict was helping the militants because Islamabad still believed that some militant groups were strategically useful to counter India”. But this is not true because Pakistan has banned all organizations and they act against extremists and terrorists of any hue and shade, whether pro or anti Pakistan. He persisted in discerning in pro Pakistani Taliban and those dangerous for Pakistan. He acknowledged: “Islamabad had demonstrated determination and persistence in combating militants it perceived dangerous to Pakistan’s interests, particularly those involved in attacks in the settled areas, including FATA-based Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan”. It is indeed Pakistan’s war; however, they are to blame in equal measure for creating monster of militancy during Afghan war. By destroying Tehrik-i-Taliban’s infrastructure in Swat, Malakand Division and South Waziristan, the toing and froing of the militants across Pak-Afghan border has considerably reduced. From the communiqué of the London conference, it appears that the US and the West are indeed serious about a political solution after having realized their ‘vulnerability’ and that the war there is not winnable militarily. One would not know the real motives of the occupiers but the holding of dialogue with rank and file of the Taliban fighters and not the Taliban main leadership shows their real intent ie to drive a wedge between the Taliban, which can prove counterproductive. We would neither hold brief for the Taliban nor condone their acts of exporting their version of Islam to other countries in the past. Yet we would suggest to the occupiers that they would do well to come to terms with objective ground realities and hold peace talks with their true representatives and not with those who had left the Taliban a long time ago. Four or five members, who were taken of the list of terrorists, are already in President Hamid Karzai’s camp but they do not wield any influence over the Taliban leadership. In the past, there were reports that Saudi Arabia was mediating between President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, but the Taliban leadership had categorically refuted the news. Pakistan is often criticized when our leadership talks of strategic interest in Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan’s only genuine wish is that there is stability in Afghanistan and there is friendly government and not hostile government. One can argue that if the US is concerned for its strategic interests thousands of miles away from its borders, why should Pakistan not be concerned over the threats to its security from the next-door hostile neighbour? To make Pakistan’s security perilous, India’s RAW has covertly been supporting centrifugal forces in Balochistan. Pakistan has already credible evidence that in terror attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan, the rocket launcher and other arms and ammunition were the same as used by the Indian army. There is a perception that Indian and American interests converge in the region, as both oppose any agreement in FATA or North Waziristan, so that confrontation continues. While, America and NATO are willing to negotiate with the rank and file of Taliban and, if need be, even with Mullah Omer, but they are averse to any peace agreement between Pakistan government and Pakistani Taliban. Is it not display of double standards.President Barack Obama is an erudite and well-versed in history. He must be aware as to what happened in the Vietnam War and the price the US paid there. The US had an ignominious defeat, and its troops fled by helicopters and other means from Saigon. Both Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had thought that they could win in Vietnam, but they were slowed down by the American people who rebelled against the war, as they were by the North Vietnamese through their unprecedented resistance. He would do well to remember that in 1952 when President Dwight D Eisenhower was running for the White House, the American public was growing frustrated over the long US involvement in the Korean War. And Eisenhower had told voters: “I shall go to Korea.” And he did. The Korean War ended in a standoff in 1953, much to the relief of the American people. During the 2008 campaign, Obama indicated that he was willing to speak to all parties in the military or diplomatic disputes the US was involved in. But the world did not witness the change he had promised. Sooner or later, he will have to realize that people will always fight for their country against a foreign invader. President Obama has prematurely received the Nobel price; he should try to justify it and peace should only be his goal. And Pakistan could contribute a lot towards achieving this laudable goal if intrigues to destabilize Pakistan are stopped by the vested interest in Afghanistan and India. Only when Pakistan’s grievances are addressed then only it could focus on war on terror that can help produce positive results. Last year, some members of US administration and think tanks suggested that a new strategy should include drone attacks on, what they called, safe haven for Al Qaeda fighters in Balochistan. They coined the term of Quetta Shura to convey an impression that Al Qaeda leadership is ensconced in Quetta. But this is travesty of the truth because Pushtuns living in Balochistan do not have any truck with Al Qaeda or Taliban. Such conjectures could further exacerbate the feelings of hatred against the US in general masses. President Obama should understand that the problem is right inside Afghanistan and not in the North Waziristan or any other part of Pakistan. President Obama should try to address Pakistan’s concerns, as Pakistan’s army chief, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has rightly called upon the international community that Pakistan’s long term interests must essentially be addressed.
Comments
Post a Comment