Effects of War on Terror on Pakistan

[53fd]

Are both nations not victims of religious extremism that has resulted in thousands of innocent deaths and the spilling of innocent blood on our soil? Are we both not continuously targeted by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, a common enemy set on using religious extremism to destroy our peace and our sovereignty? How can we avoid the reality that these violent extremists are as much, if not more, of an enemy of Pakistan as they are to the US? The sensitivity of the situation requires both nations to keep focus on achieving the common interests and avoid indulging in the blame game.

Are we not, to terrorists, a strong alliance, a common threat standing in their way and preventing them from achieving their dark and evil agenda? Would it be wise to say that “It’s a war we never initiated” when the US and Pakistanis are focused on the common goal of wiping out terrorism? Are we not victims of the same injustice, which points to a common enemy and solidifies our strategic alliance? Then it’s time we eliminate the threat that continues to loom over our nations. We understand the nation of Pakistan continues to pay the highest price in this war on terror, and the US fully backs and supports and appreciates all its efforts. We know there will be disagreements, as there are in any relationship between independent nations. But Pakistan and the US will continue to overcome any obstacles to continue its war on terror until this mission is accomplished. It is clear to us that in the struggle against extremists’ organizations, our interests are one and the same with the people of Pakistan (and every other peace loving nation).

‏MAJ Taylor,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

I suggest you read this very pertinent post by Karan:

USA was smart in 1980's.. It did breed snakes, but did that in Pakistan's backyard instead of its own.. So even if they end up biting the owner of the yard, it was no skin off the back of USA

Pakistan had no real problems with extremism or militancy prior to the 80s, when the US created the Mujahideen in the 80s. They left Pakistan to deal with the monsters all by themselves by forsaking the region.

 

[muse]

Well, that is certainly an interesting perspective. I do agree with you though. I'll give you a couple of points to ponder over:

We all know that Pakistan was relatively stable prior to 2001 in terms of overall violence from terrorism. Does it means there was no extremism/radicalism in Pakistani society then? No, there was plenty of extremism/radicalism in Pakistani society, but it wasn't challenged, or 'pursued' by the LEAs. However, there was a lot of sectarianism in the 90s; lots of people killed from sectarianism. Post 2001, LeJ was banned by Musharraf, LeT/HuM were banned, & these groups were clamped on.

Now coming to today: Punjabi Jihadi groups are still going strong, & they aren't having their authority challenged, so that could explain their lack of activity or endeavor in Punjab: they might have struck some of 'understanding' with the local authorities. But that doesn't stop them from facilitating other local groups (Taliban, TTP) & foreign groups in FATA & Balochistan.

Billu

Yopu are one of my favorite people to read, because I like to think that I can read wheels turning in your writing --- When you are thinking about these insurgents, terrorists or whatever the label flavor of the day - just remember to ask yourself" what does this mean"? Because it will always Always, ALways be motivated by political considerations.

See the Afghan Talib are fighting for What again??? Throw out the coalition of Kuffar? A free Afghanistan? or a piece of the pie if not the whole pie??? One way or another the answer is the third option above -- The Islamists of Pakistan who provide infrastructure and support to the Islamist insurgents in Pakistan, Do so WHY?? What do they want?? Of course they want to see Jinnah's Pakistan destroyed and their islamist hellhole be it's replacement - So how will they achieve this ambition? The bombing and attacks all have a political aim -- in the same way, why is that Pakistani soldiers are beheaded or skinned alive?? It makes a political point, it focus the mind of those who may imagine themselves as the opponents of the Islamists -- and in the same way, Why does the TTP enjoy the patronage of a rich middle eastern country which itself enjoys the patronage of a international power -- what do they seek to make Pakistan do??

 

[SMC]

This was a interesting post but you have not explained WHY the trend will continue - WHY will terror attacks lessen in Punjab (but other kinds of religiously motivated violence against non-Wahabis increase and why in general minorties and women's rights will not fare well in punjab -- till the next election cycles --- And Why will attacks in KP increase -- what is the relationship between these attacks and the kinds of politics at work in different provinces?

What I'm getting at is that there are political motivations behind these attacks - obviously, right?? These attacks are designed to get or effect a change in government policies, right?? So, when these attacks have gone down, as in Punjab, what does it mean??


Am I getting through to you?

I think the terrorist attacks have decreased because of big clamping down on terrorist outfits such as TTP, LeJ, etc - these are the terrorist groups who mostly carried out the suicide bombings. These outfits have been reduced to rubble big time and are very weak at this point. TTP for instance has mostly been pushed to Afghanistan where it's being sheltered by the US.

Now it's a good question as to why did the intolerance and radicalization increase in Punjab. These individuals who support blasphemy laws, killing of Taseer, etc do not necessarily support suicide bombings, however, are nevertheless radical in their mindset. So we have two separate issues at play here.

 

[53fd]

When you are thinking about these insurgents, terrorists or whatever the label flavor of the day - just remember to ask yourself" what does this mean"? Because it will always Always, ALways be motivated by political considerations.


See the Afghan Talib are fighting for What again??? Throw out the coalition of Kuffar? A free Afghanistan? or a piece of the pie if not the whole pie??? One way or another the answer is the third option above -- The Islamists of Pakistan who provide infrastructure and support to the Islamist insurgents in Pakistan, Do so WHY?? What do they want?? Of course they want to see Jinnah's Pakistan destroyed and their islamist hellhole be it's replacement - So how will they achieve this ambition? The bombing and attacks all have a political aim -- in the same way, why is that Pakistani soldiers are beheaded or skinned alive?? It makes a political point, it focus the mind of those who may imagine themselves as the opponents of the Islamists -- and in the same way, Why does the TTP enjoy the patronage of a rich middle eastern country which itself enjoys the patronage of a international power -- what do they seek to make Pakistan do??

That's true. But Pakistan would rather have these insurgents/militants on 'its side', than have these groups working against it. Let's face it. Extremist behavior or extremism cannot be eradicated from Pakistan, because the 'monster' was created in the 80s. The 'monster' can only be tamed/contained to an extent, but not eradicated. It's a reality we have to live with, & it is something that the US & Pakistan have found out the hard way in Afghanistan & Pakistan respectively post 2001. The Pakistani authorities have admitted being in contact with the Haqqanis, Taliban & other extremist groups. They would have links with these groups, & would rather be on their 'good side than their bad side', for Pakistan's own protection. Even though these Punjabi Jihadi groups might be helping the TTP/Al-Qaeda in the FATA, as well as other insurgents in Balochistan etc.

I'll give you another example. Pakistan tried to get certain TTP leaders on its side, & it did manage successfully to do that with Mullah Nazir (S.Waziristan), Hafiz Gul Bahadar (N.Waziristan), but not with the Mehsuds, Molvi Faqir etc. The Haqqanis also played as mediators in Kurram with the Turi Shias.

Pakistan will not clamp down on the local Punjabi Taliban groups, as long as they don't threaten the government. There might be sporadic sectarian violence & violence against other minorities, but as long as it is sporadic, it will not feel the need to go after the local Punjabi Taliban. They will give them a 'free reign'. It is a relatively small price to be paid as compared to huge insurgent movements, like the TTP & the ones in Balochistan. So they'd rather be on their good side than their bad side.

Pakistan will remain relatively 'stable' again (similar to the 80s & the 90s) post the AfPak war, it will 'kiss & make up' with the various insurgent groups, & violence from terrorism will become a lot more sporadic. Most of the Pakistani population is against these groups as well, so there will never be a threat of these militants ever being able to overthrow the Pakistan government. Most Pakistanis hold animosity with these militants.

The problem is much more serious in Afghanistan. They are much more a fabric of mainstream Afghan society than Pakistan. These are the words of the Former CIA station chief in Kabul Graham Fuller:

The Taliban represent zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists. They are also all ethnic Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader. In the end, the Taliban are probably more Pashtun than they are Islamist.

So that is the problem with Afghanistan. Pakistan will go to its pre-2001 days, whereas Afghanistan might go into the 90s civil war era, before Taliban take full control again.

 

[muse]

Billu



That was an awful post - just plain confused thinking -- Pakistan would want insurgents of "their: side?? Really? They are insurgents!!! And if that's not enough, if what the insurgents are selling is good for Afghanistan why is it bad for Pakistan???

In the end the taliban are more Pashtun then Islamist

You let this absurd statement go unchallenged? You seek to ofer insult to Pashtuns?? Do Pashtuns bomb the shrines of poets, sufi and saints? DO the do suicide bombings in markets ? to they behead Pakistani Wardi posh?? I am stunne that you let such a thing go unchallenged

Extremist behavior or extremism cannot be eradicated from Pakistan

You are just not thinking - every Pakistani not persuaded by extremism then should get a visa out to anywhere else -- Extremism simply cannot be the norm --- because Pakistan will not survive it -- it's like saying we should learn to live with the idea that suicide bombings are just a fact of life -- and you seek investments for Pakistan? then you complain no one takes us seriously??

The Pakistan government will not clamp down on the local Punjabi Taliban groups, & will let extremism spread in society. There might be sporadic sectarian violence & violence against other minorities, but as long as it is sporadic, it will not feel the need to go after the local Punjabi Taliban. They will give them a 'free reign'. It is a relatively small price to be paid as compared to huge insurgent movements, like the TTP & the ones in Balochistan.

Pakistan will remain relatively stable post WOT, it will 'kiss & make up' with the various insurgent groups, & violence from terrorism will become a lot more sporadic. Most of the Pakistani population is against these groups as well, so there will never be a threat of these militants ever being able to overthrow the Pakistan government.

So if the extremists are winning and changing Pakistan, why the need for a violent overthrow, after all they are winning and getting into government - right? Lett be careful what we wish for.

 

[53fd]

That was an awful post - just plain confused thinking -- Pakistan would want insurgents of "their: side?? Really? They are insurgents!!! And if that's not enough, if what the insurgents are selling is good for Afghanistan why is it bad for Pakistan???

I think you misunderstand me. It would rather be on the 'good side of the militants than on their bad side'. It will 'kiss & make up' with these groups. They managed to separate the TTP leaders Maulvi Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadar from the Mehsuds. Do I like it personally? No. But that it what is going to happen, whether we like it or not. I think Hina Rabbani Khar's words "let's give peace a chance" are pretty indicative of that. The US realizes that as well, it is negotiating with the Taliban, & wants to have the Haqqanis on the table as well. The US will not remain in the region forever (maybe it will have a little, 'strategic' presence in Afghanistan, to protect its strategic assets, but not a huge military one).

You let this absurd statement go unchallenged? You seek to ofer insult to Pashtuns?? Do Pashtuns bomb the shrines of poets, sufi and saints? DO the do suicide bombings in markets ? to they behead Pakistani Wardi posh?? I am stunne that you let such a thing go unchallenged

The Pashtuns of Afghanistan are different from the ones in Pakistan generally. Pashtuns in Afghanistan have plenty of grievances with Afghanistan since decades, Pashtuns in Pakistan are for the most part prosperous, & content with Pakistan. Suicide bombings in Afghanistan will become minimal or will stop when the Taliban assumes full control of Afghanistan. This won't be happening in Pakistan, because the people of Pakistan will not allow it to happen. The Taliban already control 80% of Afghanistan, take whatever you want from that.

You are just not thinking - every Pakistani not persuaded by extremism then should get a visa out to anywhere else -- Extremism simply cannot be the norm

Well, that is the choice of the person. It won't be a savory situation. But there are many people of Pakistan that still manage to live their lives normally in Pakistan today, despite these turbulent times. When Pakistan 'kisses & makes up' with these extremist groups, Pakistan will probably return to the 90s, & won't be as turbulent, bar sporadic killings of Shias & other minorities. These won't be clamped down by the Pakistani authorities unfortunately, unless the situation threatens the government itself.

because Pakistan will not survive it -- it's like saying we should learn to live with the idea that suicide bombings are just a fact of life -- and you seek investments for Pakistan? then you complain no one takes us seriously??

Well, that remains to be seen. However, I think suicide bombings will decrease (& have been decreasing) post the WOT. There will be sporadic killings of Shias & other minorities, but the country on a whole won't be as turbulent. The statistics I have posted for 2009, 2010 & 2011 are an indication of that. We had Saleem Shahzad, Shahbaz Bhatti & Salman Taseer murdered in Islamabad, but we did not have the Marriott bombings that killed so many people.

 

[muse]

Ok - lets start over -- we began by suggesting that the meaning of various numbers and stats you offered could best be understood in the framework of extremists winning their political demands.


Am I to understand that you are now suggesting that these numbers can go down to "negligible" or statistically irrelevant

 

[Rafi]

Ultimately the solution to the Gordian knot of Afghanistan, is a negotiated peace settlement that brings in the insurgents from the cold.

 

[53fd]

Ok - lets start over -- we began by suggesting that the meaning of various numbers and stats you offered could best be understood in the framework of extremists winning their political demands.


Am I to understand that you are now suggesting that these numbers can go down to "negligible" or statistically irrelevant

Pakistan is 'ok' with extremists/extremism as long as it doesn't challenge the writ of the government. Sporadic incidents against Shias & other minorities is unfortunately 'acceptable'. Whether that will threaten the existence of Pakistan we shall see with time. I suggest you read the book "Pakistan: A Hard Country" by Anaton Lieven, you will understand exactly what I'm talking about. Or just watch this if you want a basic overview of his book, in which he makes very good points:

Muse bhai, I suggest you think less with 'your heart'. Both of us are against extremism in Pakistan, but let's think of this from a strategic point of view. Why do you think Karzai only condemns the violence of NATO/US troops when they kill innocent civilians, whereas he doesn't condemn the violence of the Taliban against innocent Afghans? Why did Karzai threaten the US that he would join the Taliban? A recent survey showed more than 50% of Afghans saw the US/NATO Forces as occupiers. So that is why the Taliban control 80% of Afghanistan. People know they will be brutal if they come into power again, but won't feel the need to resort to suicide bombings, which they didn't do when they came into Afghanistan in the 90s.

 

[Rafi]

Pakistan is 'ok' with extremists/extremism as long as it doesn't challenge the writ of the government. Sporadic incidents against Shias & other minorities is unfortunately 'acceptable'. Whether that will threaten the existence of Pakistan we shall see with time. I suggest you read the book "Pakistan: A Hard Country" by Anaton Lieven, you will understand exactly what I'm talking about. Or just watch this if you want a basic overview of his book, in which he makes very good points:

Muse bhai, I suggest you think less with 'your heart'. Both of us are against extremism in Pakistan, but let's think of this from a strategic point of view. Why do you think Karzai only condemns the violence of NATO/US troops when they kill innocent civilians, whereas he doesn't condemn the violence of the Taliban against innocent Afghans? Why did Karzai threaten the US that he would join the Taliban? A recent survey showed more than 50% of Afghans saw the US/NATO Forces as occupiers. So that is why the Taliban control 80% of Afghanistan. People know they will be brutal if they come into power again, but won't feel the need to resort to suicide bombings, which they didn't do when they came into Afghanistan in the 90s.

A brilliant and extremely relevant response, well done Bilal.

 

[rohailmalhi]

People here are saying that the voilence decreased after a crack down on different radical organisations............

But have you given thought that after Raymond davis Americans are under strict watch and after that moment things are going pretty much smooth in Pakistan even now Pakistan is standing in front of America but Masaallah haalat are better than before.

 

[Mike2011]

Pakistan mainly benefited from WOT. It gives pakistan much needed foreign exchange.
It is in interest of pakistan to keep WOT running. Thats why they keep supporting taliban and co-operating with USA.

But everything has to come to end. WOT end effect will be severe for pakistan. Pakistan has to sell land to get money.

 

[muse]

Billu



Anatoly says "The waves pass through the water but the water remains" -- I will only offer that the kinds of origins and politics the religious militants offer is very different from the origins and politics of the "feudals" - but clearly I will not be persuasive - feel good solutions never allow me to feel good

 

[53fd]

Billu



Anatoly says "The waves pass through the water but the water remains" -- I will only offer that the kinds of origins and politics the religious militants offer is very different from the origins and politics of the "feudals" - but clearly I will not be persuasive - feel good solutions never allow me to feel good

I think we all know how religious militancy started in Pakistan. It (the Mujahideen) was a creation of the US, Pakistan & Afghanistan in the 80s. The US cut loose & fled, whereas Pakistan had to deal with this monster created by the US all by itself, as Afghanistan itself was suffering from civil war in the 90s, & could have destabilized Pakistan itself. In fact, the Taliban were actually greeted by the Afghan people because they rooted out the corrupt warlords that had caused the civil war in the first place.

Before the 80s, Pakistan had never used religious extremism in Kashmir or Afghanistan.

 

[muse]

I think you are confusing apples and oranges - these characters are no Mujahideen of 80's.

While it's a fact that today an outside power and it's middle eastern oil rich client are active with Islamists in Pakistan, it is also true that the groups the oild rich client state sponsors on behalf of the foreign power and a host of others that the Pakistani state used to sponsor, are in some ways, fundamentally different from what were once known as Mujahideen ---- but lets not miss the forest for the trees - incidents of Islamist terror, like suicide bombings tend to go down as the sponsors and the political arm of these movements gain acceptance in the corridors of power.