Pakistan's laudable handling of extremist threats in the Swat coupled with the impressive counter-insurgency operations in South Waziristan, has initiated a wind of change from the exaggerated outbursts of “doing more” to generous appreciation of fighting resolve against militants.
This appreciation was first endorsed by the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a couple of months back, when he said during an interview to “al-Jazeera” that, "I believe that the Pakistani government, both the civilian side and the military side, have performed better than almost anyone's expectations in the region, or in this country, or elsewhere, and we are very impressed by that and we are prepared to be helpful, to help the Pakistanis in any way we can." The second wave of change was noticed when Gen. David Petraeus, the US General overseeing the Afghan war, appreciated the role of Pakistan security forces in nabbing half a dozen of high value Taliban targets. The general supported Pakistan’s interests on two important issues: (a) Pakistan has genuine interests in Afghanistan which need to be protected and (b) Pakistan cannot send its troops to North Waziristan before consolidating its gains in South Waziristan and Swat. The acceptance of Pakistan’s position indicates a positive change in the Pentagon towards Islamabad. The change is also reflected in similar statements by other US officials, recognising Pakistan’s recent achievements in the war against terror. Why there is a wind of change in the US policy? In fact, an element of doubts, suspicion and mistrust that has always permeated in Washington, has vanished away by the military successes in Malakand and South Waziristan areas. The US appreciation of Pakistan's recent success in the anti-terror campaign is not an overnight development. Pakistan and the US had the same interest in Afghanistan - in not allowing al Qaeda to re-establish safe havens. The public, the Government and the armed forces, all want a Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) free Pakistan. It was the “national will” that finally defeated once the most dreaded terrorist organisation of the world - the TTP. While hailing the resolve of Pakistan government, Gates hinted towards building long-term relationships with Islamabad which would be independent of the US Af-Pak policy. He said "It (Pakistan) is important intrinsically to the US. We have been Pakistan's friend and an ally for a long time. We've had a very close relationship and we look forward to building that relationship, going forward completely independent of Afghanistan." There is a need for realisation of Pakistan’s key regional position and its contribution in the war. Pakistan is the most affected country due to perpetual instability and violence in Afghanistan, hence acting in its own interest; it joined hands with the international community to combat terrorism. Ever since March 2004, Pakistan is confronted with the threat of Talibanization which has spread from the autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the Afghan border deeper into the NWFP, with Swat becoming a major stronghold for Pakistani Taliban. According to a report compiled by Pak-US business council (2009), Pakistan’s economy has so far suffered a huge loss of $ 35 billion in the anti-terror campaign. Pakistan has deployed more than 140,000 troops in fighting militants in the northwest along the Afghan border. During last seven months, Pakistani military has launched 209 major and 510 minor operations in 10 regions, raising the death toll to 2,273 Army officers and soldiers in the fighting so far. The success of military operations in the tribal regions have caused substantial decline in cross-border attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan is trying to consolidate its gains lest it fall back to the terrorists. During the London conference, nations agreed that Afghan National Army (ANA) should aim to take the lead role in providing security in Afghanistan by early 2011, opening the road for a reduction in foreign troops. It was also agreed that Afghanistan needed the support of its neighbours, particularly Pakistan, to secure peace. The United States and its allies want to leave it up to the Afghans to seek reconciliation. Although both Islamabad and Washington agree in principle of reintegrating the Taliban, the two differ on “who should lead the process”. Islamabad believes that Pakistan is better placed to head the initiative. “We want a strategic depth in Afghanistan but do not want to control it,” said the Chief of the Army Staff Gen. Kayani while analyzing the emerging situation. Pakistan is prepared to train a 140,000-strong Afghan National Army force able to take over security responsibilities. It would be a cause of worry for Pakistan if Afghanistan’s projected army developed the potential to take on Pakistan. Pakistan has raised concern over a similar offer by India to train Afghan army, and the issue could become another point of conflict between the two South Asian neighbours. An environment hostile to Pakistan could strain its battle against militancy and extremism. Islamabad has strong reservations about India. Pakistan complains that India is using its influence in Afghanistan to stir trouble in Balochistan and had also provided weapons and financial assistance to the militants in FATA. Islamabad also sees India’s strong presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its own security, fearing that New Delhi is trying to bring pressure on Pakistan from both its eastern and western borders. In a report sent to the White House in September, Gen Stanley McChrystal, who commands US and NATO force in Afghanistan, warned that “increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and influence Pakistan’s counter-insurgency measures. Britain wants to persuade regional players to cooperate rather than compete over Afghanistan – Pakistan being best placed, should mediate. The prevailing US strategy in Afghanistan is to build own forces so as to take over the defense responsibilities. It focuses on the very real need to increase Afghan security forces - the Afghan National Army to 240,000 and the Afghan National Police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000. Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor stated that India wanted a strong ANA that could manage the country's security affairs as and when the ISAF troops pull out. According to him, Indian Army should be given the role of imparting training to ANA officers at its defence institutions, preparing them for a possible exit by ISAF. Nevertheless, Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan are as old as history itself. Pashtuns, a majority in Afghanistan, also inhabit Pakistan’s North Western Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and other provinces. Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghan refugees fleeing Afghan-Russian war. It is natural for Pakistan to react to any negative developments in Afghanistan, whether social, economic, political or even security related, as these will directly impact the stability of Pak-Afghan border region. Can there be another country, globally or regionally, that can lay claim to a greater stake in the stability and progress of Afghanistan other than Pakistan? Therefore, any development like, training of ANA be entrusted to Pakistan than to India.
This appreciation was first endorsed by the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a couple of months back, when he said during an interview to “al-Jazeera” that, "I believe that the Pakistani government, both the civilian side and the military side, have performed better than almost anyone's expectations in the region, or in this country, or elsewhere, and we are very impressed by that and we are prepared to be helpful, to help the Pakistanis in any way we can." The second wave of change was noticed when Gen. David Petraeus, the US General overseeing the Afghan war, appreciated the role of Pakistan security forces in nabbing half a dozen of high value Taliban targets. The general supported Pakistan’s interests on two important issues: (a) Pakistan has genuine interests in Afghanistan which need to be protected and (b) Pakistan cannot send its troops to North Waziristan before consolidating its gains in South Waziristan and Swat. The acceptance of Pakistan’s position indicates a positive change in the Pentagon towards Islamabad. The change is also reflected in similar statements by other US officials, recognising Pakistan’s recent achievements in the war against terror. Why there is a wind of change in the US policy? In fact, an element of doubts, suspicion and mistrust that has always permeated in Washington, has vanished away by the military successes in Malakand and South Waziristan areas. The US appreciation of Pakistan's recent success in the anti-terror campaign is not an overnight development. Pakistan and the US had the same interest in Afghanistan - in not allowing al Qaeda to re-establish safe havens. The public, the Government and the armed forces, all want a Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) free Pakistan. It was the “national will” that finally defeated once the most dreaded terrorist organisation of the world - the TTP. While hailing the resolve of Pakistan government, Gates hinted towards building long-term relationships with Islamabad which would be independent of the US Af-Pak policy. He said "It (Pakistan) is important intrinsically to the US. We have been Pakistan's friend and an ally for a long time. We've had a very close relationship and we look forward to building that relationship, going forward completely independent of Afghanistan." There is a need for realisation of Pakistan’s key regional position and its contribution in the war. Pakistan is the most affected country due to perpetual instability and violence in Afghanistan, hence acting in its own interest; it joined hands with the international community to combat terrorism. Ever since March 2004, Pakistan is confronted with the threat of Talibanization which has spread from the autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the Afghan border deeper into the NWFP, with Swat becoming a major stronghold for Pakistani Taliban. According to a report compiled by Pak-US business council (2009), Pakistan’s economy has so far suffered a huge loss of $ 35 billion in the anti-terror campaign. Pakistan has deployed more than 140,000 troops in fighting militants in the northwest along the Afghan border. During last seven months, Pakistani military has launched 209 major and 510 minor operations in 10 regions, raising the death toll to 2,273 Army officers and soldiers in the fighting so far. The success of military operations in the tribal regions have caused substantial decline in cross-border attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan is trying to consolidate its gains lest it fall back to the terrorists. During the London conference, nations agreed that Afghan National Army (ANA) should aim to take the lead role in providing security in Afghanistan by early 2011, opening the road for a reduction in foreign troops. It was also agreed that Afghanistan needed the support of its neighbours, particularly Pakistan, to secure peace. The United States and its allies want to leave it up to the Afghans to seek reconciliation. Although both Islamabad and Washington agree in principle of reintegrating the Taliban, the two differ on “who should lead the process”. Islamabad believes that Pakistan is better placed to head the initiative. “We want a strategic depth in Afghanistan but do not want to control it,” said the Chief of the Army Staff Gen. Kayani while analyzing the emerging situation. Pakistan is prepared to train a 140,000-strong Afghan National Army force able to take over security responsibilities. It would be a cause of worry for Pakistan if Afghanistan’s projected army developed the potential to take on Pakistan. Pakistan has raised concern over a similar offer by India to train Afghan army, and the issue could become another point of conflict between the two South Asian neighbours. An environment hostile to Pakistan could strain its battle against militancy and extremism. Islamabad has strong reservations about India. Pakistan complains that India is using its influence in Afghanistan to stir trouble in Balochistan and had also provided weapons and financial assistance to the militants in FATA. Islamabad also sees India’s strong presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its own security, fearing that New Delhi is trying to bring pressure on Pakistan from both its eastern and western borders. In a report sent to the White House in September, Gen Stanley McChrystal, who commands US and NATO force in Afghanistan, warned that “increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and influence Pakistan’s counter-insurgency measures. Britain wants to persuade regional players to cooperate rather than compete over Afghanistan – Pakistan being best placed, should mediate. The prevailing US strategy in Afghanistan is to build own forces so as to take over the defense responsibilities. It focuses on the very real need to increase Afghan security forces - the Afghan National Army to 240,000 and the Afghan National Police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000. Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor stated that India wanted a strong ANA that could manage the country's security affairs as and when the ISAF troops pull out. According to him, Indian Army should be given the role of imparting training to ANA officers at its defence institutions, preparing them for a possible exit by ISAF. Nevertheless, Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan are as old as history itself. Pashtuns, a majority in Afghanistan, also inhabit Pakistan’s North Western Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and other provinces. Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghan refugees fleeing Afghan-Russian war. It is natural for Pakistan to react to any negative developments in Afghanistan, whether social, economic, political or even security related, as these will directly impact the stability of Pak-Afghan border region. Can there be another country, globally or regionally, that can lay claim to a greater stake in the stability and progress of Afghanistan other than Pakistan? Therefore, any development like, training of ANA be entrusted to Pakistan than to India.
Comments
Post a Comment