Jihad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 0
- By Hammad Siddiqi | DAWN.COM
A US soldier with Task Force Red Horse leans on baggage, as they wait out side of the customs office to leave Afghanistan at the U.S. base in Bagram, north of Kabul, Afghanistan on Thursday, July 14, 2011. The first groups of the US soldiers are leaving Afghanistan as President Barack Obama announced last month that he would pull 10,000 of the extra troops out in 2011 and the remaining 23,000 by the summer of 2012. – AP Photo
Following the announcement of the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan, the United States has devised a counter terrorism strategy that involves deploying troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan adjoining Pakistan’s FATA.
The strategy involves a hundred percent increase in drone attacks inside FATA as well as action by US Special Forces to decapitate the al Qaeda leadership hiding there. This is the pattern used in Cambodia by the US during the Nixon era at the end of war in Vietnam and can have serious repercussions for Pakistan.
Like the Taliban and al Qaeda are based in FATA, during the Vietnam War in 1970, the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, also known as Viet Cong, carried out cross border attacks inside Vietnam against the US and the Vietnamese army targets from bases in eastern Cambodia. Following the ignonimous retreat of the US from Vietnam, US president Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of the eastern border regions of Cambodia to defeat troops of the PAVN and the Viet Cong. As a massive military assault rolled out, the US’s political manipulations in Cambodia also led to severe destabilisation causing Prince Norodom Sihanouk to be deposed.
Against this backdrop, it is a foregone conclusion that Islamabad’s protests, if any, of drones or unilateral actions like the Abbottabad raid violating sovereignty would carry any weight with Washington. The US is convinced of going ahead independently with its decapitation policy against al Qaeda and Taliban leadership without Pakistan’s consent no matter how many time Islamabad states otherwise. All this does not bode well for Pakistan but calls for reviewing its policies.
While the overall Pakistan’s Afghan policy of “strategic depth” is questionable, the obsession with pampering the “good Taliban” should be abandoned. Pakistan is towing a soft line against the Haqqani network who has remained involved in bloodshed in the country. Unlike his father, Jalauddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani faction in North Waziristan, always took an anti-Pakistan Army approach in support of his large Punjabi Taliban following. Hundreds of activists of Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkatul Mujahideen and Harkatul Jehad-e-Islami wanted by the government of Pakistan for large scale terrorism are taking refuge in North Waziristan and using that area for actions against NATO as well as Pakistan.
In his book: “Inside al Qaeda and the Taliban,” late Saleem Shahzad profiles some of Sirajudin Haqqani’s anti Pakistan actions. “During the Shia-Sunni riots in Kurram Agency in 2008-2009, Siraj sent his men comprising non-Pashtun Pakistani fighters to support the Sunnis. In 2009, Sirajuddin Haqqani provided sanctuary and help to TTP (Tehrike-e-Taliban Pakistan) fighting the Pakistan Army. Siraj also developed strong relationship with anti-Pakistan Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud.”
Against this backdrop, what is the guarantee that the Taliban group we are backing will now safeguard our interests in Afghanistan when during Mullah Omar’s regime they refused to extradite sectarian terrorists taking refuge in Afghanistan. They also refused to declare the Durand Line a border with Pakistan after an earnest demand from Islamabad.
While we are always in the habit of shooting at our own feet, the US has also dealt Pakistan shabbily and treated Islamabad like a client state and not as an ally. The unilateral actions of drone attacks and the mantra of “do more” has exposed the vulnerabilities of Islamabad. Besides, the US is not backing a pro-Pakistan or at least a friendly dispensation in Afghanistan, further heightening anxiety in Islamabad. The post Abbottabad fall out including the intelligence cold war, ‘pausing’ of $ 800 million aid package is a new twist in the roller coaster of Pak-US ties calling for a revisit of relations.
There is a lot common between the two allies and the differences are of practical nature. The strategic dialogue must focus on differences. The red lines of national objectives should not be crossed. While drafting a policy, the military should give Parliament the chance to craft a foreign policy rather than passing the buck… a la give directives to destroy US drones by the PAF deputy air chief in briefing to the parliament. The policy should be drafted in consultation with the cross section of political forces of the country.
But the policy should neither be of confrontation nor capitulation, in fact it should be of a middle ground. Following 9/11 during the Musharraf regime, US Secretary of State Collin Powell gave a list of demands to Pakistan. Powell said “he was surprised when Islamabad complied with all the demands, many of which he did not expect any country to comply with”.
While China is a reliable ally, but certainly it is in no position to replace the US in the larger world affairs. The move to embrace Iran for a regional Afghan solution is certainly a thumbs up move unless of course it is being used as a tactical negotiating leverage vis-à-vis the US. The new warmth in ties with Tehran however should balance relations with erstwhile friends like Saudi Arabia that has shown considerable consternation over the development.
Keeping Cambodia in mind, the present scenario should not serve to scare the people of Pakistan. Rather, let this be an opportunity to learn from history and not save ourselves from further self-destruction.
- Dawn
Used and disposed, repeatedly | | DAWN.COM
A US soldier with Task Force Red Horse leans on baggage, as they wait out side of the customs office to leave Afghanistan at the U.S. base in Bagram, north of Kabul, Afghanistan on Thursday, July 14, 2011. The first groups of the US soldiers are leaving Afghanistan as President Barack Obama announced last month that he would pull 10,000 of the extra troops out in 2011 and the remaining 23,000 by the summer of 2012. – AP Photo
Following the announcement of the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan, the United States has devised a counter terrorism strategy that involves deploying troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan adjoining Pakistan’s FATA.
The strategy involves a hundred percent increase in drone attacks inside FATA as well as action by US Special Forces to decapitate the al Qaeda leadership hiding there. This is the pattern used in Cambodia by the US during the Nixon era at the end of war in Vietnam and can have serious repercussions for Pakistan.
Like the Taliban and al Qaeda are based in FATA, during the Vietnam War in 1970, the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, also known as Viet Cong, carried out cross border attacks inside Vietnam against the US and the Vietnamese army targets from bases in eastern Cambodia. Following the ignonimous retreat of the US from Vietnam, US president Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of the eastern border regions of Cambodia to defeat troops of the PAVN and the Viet Cong. As a massive military assault rolled out, the US’s political manipulations in Cambodia also led to severe destabilisation causing Prince Norodom Sihanouk to be deposed.
Against this backdrop, it is a foregone conclusion that Islamabad’s protests, if any, of drones or unilateral actions like the Abbottabad raid violating sovereignty would carry any weight with Washington. The US is convinced of going ahead independently with its decapitation policy against al Qaeda and Taliban leadership without Pakistan’s consent no matter how many time Islamabad states otherwise. All this does not bode well for Pakistan but calls for reviewing its policies.
While the overall Pakistan’s Afghan policy of “strategic depth” is questionable, the obsession with pampering the “good Taliban” should be abandoned. Pakistan is towing a soft line against the Haqqani network who has remained involved in bloodshed in the country. Unlike his father, Jalauddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani faction in North Waziristan, always took an anti-Pakistan Army approach in support of his large Punjabi Taliban following. Hundreds of activists of Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkatul Mujahideen and Harkatul Jehad-e-Islami wanted by the government of Pakistan for large scale terrorism are taking refuge in North Waziristan and using that area for actions against NATO as well as Pakistan.
In his book: “Inside al Qaeda and the Taliban,” late Saleem Shahzad profiles some of Sirajudin Haqqani’s anti Pakistan actions. “During the Shia-Sunni riots in Kurram Agency in 2008-2009, Siraj sent his men comprising non-Pashtun Pakistani fighters to support the Sunnis. In 2009, Sirajuddin Haqqani provided sanctuary and help to TTP (Tehrike-e-Taliban Pakistan) fighting the Pakistan Army. Siraj also developed strong relationship with anti-Pakistan Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud.”
Against this backdrop, what is the guarantee that the Taliban group we are backing will now safeguard our interests in Afghanistan when during Mullah Omar’s regime they refused to extradite sectarian terrorists taking refuge in Afghanistan. They also refused to declare the Durand Line a border with Pakistan after an earnest demand from Islamabad.
While we are always in the habit of shooting at our own feet, the US has also dealt Pakistan shabbily and treated Islamabad like a client state and not as an ally. The unilateral actions of drone attacks and the mantra of “do more” has exposed the vulnerabilities of Islamabad. Besides, the US is not backing a pro-Pakistan or at least a friendly dispensation in Afghanistan, further heightening anxiety in Islamabad. The post Abbottabad fall out including the intelligence cold war, ‘pausing’ of $ 800 million aid package is a new twist in the roller coaster of Pak-US ties calling for a revisit of relations.
There is a lot common between the two allies and the differences are of practical nature. The strategic dialogue must focus on differences. The red lines of national objectives should not be crossed. While drafting a policy, the military should give Parliament the chance to craft a foreign policy rather than passing the buck… a la give directives to destroy US drones by the PAF deputy air chief in briefing to the parliament. The policy should be drafted in consultation with the cross section of political forces of the country.
But the policy should neither be of confrontation nor capitulation, in fact it should be of a middle ground. Following 9/11 during the Musharraf regime, US Secretary of State Collin Powell gave a list of demands to Pakistan. Powell said “he was surprised when Islamabad complied with all the demands, many of which he did not expect any country to comply with”.
While China is a reliable ally, but certainly it is in no position to replace the US in the larger world affairs. The move to embrace Iran for a regional Afghan solution is certainly a thumbs up move unless of course it is being used as a tactical negotiating leverage vis-à-vis the US. The new warmth in ties with Tehran however should balance relations with erstwhile friends like Saudi Arabia that has shown considerable consternation over the development.
Keeping Cambodia in mind, the present scenario should not serve to scare the people of Pakistan. Rather, let this be an opportunity to learn from history and not save ourselves from further self-destruction.
- Dawn
Used and disposed, repeatedly | | DAWN.COM
