Wednesday February 18, 2009
According to Wikipedia a strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. It is different from a tactic which deals with the conduct of an engagement. A strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy. In this context, a strategy is framed on its aims, strength, extent, and profundity; collectively termed "strategic depth". It applies in many areas such as military, political, financial or trade.
Gen Zia was the first leader of Pakistan who coined this term in the context of politics wrapping it with religion. After Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets, he looked at Afghanistan as a source of political/religious strategic depth for Pakistan. He saw Pakistans strength in a stronger and more stable Afghanistan. Once, when he was at the zenith of his power, he told a colleague who was actively involved in facilitating Jihad in Afghanistan, that if he was given a choice to prefer the interest of Pakistan or Afghanistan he would prefer the latter. Such was his commitment to the westward strategic depth.
However, in the process he made one major mistake by making one sect of Islam the base of that depth. It backfired soon when the other sects, the spiritualists and the moderates rejected such a narrow-minded religious view. Had he presented it in a holistic way, it would have won the hearts and minds of the public at large. When the same model was presented by a moderate Benazir Bhutto in the 1990s which helped create the Taliban, it was supported by the majority of the public. Looking at the geographical location of Pakistan, it is pertinent to find that it is the western border with Afghanistan which makes the strategic depth productive in more than one way.
For example; China at our northern border has been our historical friend. It helped us construct the silk route to boost our economy through land trade. To promote the economy of both the countries further, a plan is underway to link China with the Arabian Sea through Gawadar. This has politico-economic strategic depth which is devoid of any religious icing. India sits on our eastern border giving us little or no chance to create such a depth. On the contrary, it would like to squeeze us militarily, politically and economically and keep pushing us with its confrontational tactics to accept living in the shadow of its dominion. To the south we have the sea which links us with the rest of the world. This link will get stronger especially with the Middle East after Gawadar becomes fully operational.
This leaves us with the western border. Even in the good old days of RCD, we failed to expand economic depth with Iran. I remember walking through the streets of Mashad or Tehran in sixties; one could see shops full of Indian goods and none from Pakistan. Our relationship was limited to good wishes and friendly gestures, making political depth shallow and economic closeness trivial. Religion never nurtured a bond between the two countries; thanks to hardcore theologians on both sides.
The other country on the western border is Afghanistan- the doorway to Central Asian States. It was this part of the western border where the importance of strategic depth was appreciated by gen. Zia in the eighties and Benazir in the nineties. The successive governments would have followed this policy if America was not attacked on 9/11 and Musharaf had not taken a U-turn, closing the door of the depth. In December 2002, his government signed an agreement with the Afghan government in Kabul excluding Pakistan from the affairs of Afghanistan, shutting any window of theorem along this line. It is believed that it was signed on the insistence of the US. To please Pakistan, America included India in the loop by creating a post of special envoy for South Asia. It made our thinkers pleased hoping that America would become an arbitrator on the Kashmir issue. It never happened despite our somersaults on this important national matter. India stayed steadfast on its original stand.
The new government in America made a major deviation from its old policy and created a post of special envoy exclusively for Afghanistan and Pakistan, naming veteran diplomat Richard Brooke for the post. Some analysts are worried about this development saying that America was put under pressure by pro-Indian lobbies in Washington as a result of President Obamas commitment to address the Kashmir issue. Be that so; it might not be as bad as it is projected, provided Pakistan takes a more realistic approach and seeks a bigger regional political standing by breaking away from the stalemate politics and the restricted economic scope of South Asia. After all, during the coming years, the new administration in America is going to realize that while solving the problem of terrorism in Pakistan, the Kashmir issue will keep popping up. So while finding a solution for terrorism in the tribal belt of Pakistan, Americans would be forced to look into the problem of Kashmir. There is a strong possibility that we will see President Obama going back on the promise he made on the issue during his election campaign. So here is an opportunity for Pakistan, provided by America, to adopt a strategic depth policy and take full advantage of the new development.
According to an analyst writing on the subject, Although there is a sense of realisation within the Pakistani military establishment that the countrys Afghan policy went wrong, there remains a deep belief about the inevitability of Pakistans strategic links to Central and West Asia within the institution. He further says the policy would make it easier for the current Pakistani government to sell its liberal policies to the people by citing the example of other secular Muslim countries such as Syria, Jordan and the UAE. The strategy becomes especially feasible when the moderates ANP in NWFP and PPP in Baluchistan run the governments. This time, the revival of strategic depth will be based on political, economic and cultural norms with non-sectarian Islam as its wrapping. Such a policy would be acceptable to the vast majority of the public in Pakistan, Afghanistan, CAS and indeed America.
According to Wikipedia a strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. It is different from a tactic which deals with the conduct of an engagement. A strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy. In this context, a strategy is framed on its aims, strength, extent, and profundity; collectively termed "strategic depth". It applies in many areas such as military, political, financial or trade.
Gen Zia was the first leader of Pakistan who coined this term in the context of politics wrapping it with religion. After Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets, he looked at Afghanistan as a source of political/religious strategic depth for Pakistan. He saw Pakistans strength in a stronger and more stable Afghanistan. Once, when he was at the zenith of his power, he told a colleague who was actively involved in facilitating Jihad in Afghanistan, that if he was given a choice to prefer the interest of Pakistan or Afghanistan he would prefer the latter. Such was his commitment to the westward strategic depth.
However, in the process he made one major mistake by making one sect of Islam the base of that depth. It backfired soon when the other sects, the spiritualists and the moderates rejected such a narrow-minded religious view. Had he presented it in a holistic way, it would have won the hearts and minds of the public at large. When the same model was presented by a moderate Benazir Bhutto in the 1990s which helped create the Taliban, it was supported by the majority of the public. Looking at the geographical location of Pakistan, it is pertinent to find that it is the western border with Afghanistan which makes the strategic depth productive in more than one way.
For example; China at our northern border has been our historical friend. It helped us construct the silk route to boost our economy through land trade. To promote the economy of both the countries further, a plan is underway to link China with the Arabian Sea through Gawadar. This has politico-economic strategic depth which is devoid of any religious icing. India sits on our eastern border giving us little or no chance to create such a depth. On the contrary, it would like to squeeze us militarily, politically and economically and keep pushing us with its confrontational tactics to accept living in the shadow of its dominion. To the south we have the sea which links us with the rest of the world. This link will get stronger especially with the Middle East after Gawadar becomes fully operational.
This leaves us with the western border. Even in the good old days of RCD, we failed to expand economic depth with Iran. I remember walking through the streets of Mashad or Tehran in sixties; one could see shops full of Indian goods and none from Pakistan. Our relationship was limited to good wishes and friendly gestures, making political depth shallow and economic closeness trivial. Religion never nurtured a bond between the two countries; thanks to hardcore theologians on both sides.
The other country on the western border is Afghanistan- the doorway to Central Asian States. It was this part of the western border where the importance of strategic depth was appreciated by gen. Zia in the eighties and Benazir in the nineties. The successive governments would have followed this policy if America was not attacked on 9/11 and Musharaf had not taken a U-turn, closing the door of the depth. In December 2002, his government signed an agreement with the Afghan government in Kabul excluding Pakistan from the affairs of Afghanistan, shutting any window of theorem along this line. It is believed that it was signed on the insistence of the US. To please Pakistan, America included India in the loop by creating a post of special envoy for South Asia. It made our thinkers pleased hoping that America would become an arbitrator on the Kashmir issue. It never happened despite our somersaults on this important national matter. India stayed steadfast on its original stand.
The new government in America made a major deviation from its old policy and created a post of special envoy exclusively for Afghanistan and Pakistan, naming veteran diplomat Richard Brooke for the post. Some analysts are worried about this development saying that America was put under pressure by pro-Indian lobbies in Washington as a result of President Obamas commitment to address the Kashmir issue. Be that so; it might not be as bad as it is projected, provided Pakistan takes a more realistic approach and seeks a bigger regional political standing by breaking away from the stalemate politics and the restricted economic scope of South Asia. After all, during the coming years, the new administration in America is going to realize that while solving the problem of terrorism in Pakistan, the Kashmir issue will keep popping up. So while finding a solution for terrorism in the tribal belt of Pakistan, Americans would be forced to look into the problem of Kashmir. There is a strong possibility that we will see President Obama going back on the promise he made on the issue during his election campaign. So here is an opportunity for Pakistan, provided by America, to adopt a strategic depth policy and take full advantage of the new development.
According to an analyst writing on the subject, Although there is a sense of realisation within the Pakistani military establishment that the countrys Afghan policy went wrong, there remains a deep belief about the inevitability of Pakistans strategic links to Central and West Asia within the institution. He further says the policy would make it easier for the current Pakistani government to sell its liberal policies to the people by citing the example of other secular Muslim countries such as Syria, Jordan and the UAE. The strategy becomes especially feasible when the moderates ANP in NWFP and PPP in Baluchistan run the governments. This time, the revival of strategic depth will be based on political, economic and cultural norms with non-sectarian Islam as its wrapping. Such a policy would be acceptable to the vast majority of the public in Pakistan, Afghanistan, CAS and indeed America.
