To Die For.....the War at Wana

TO DIE FOR…. THE WAR OF WANNA


Images flashed on the television screen; a burning homes, scattered FC troops behind mud barricades,house hold things scattered all over the places. Bullets marks over living houses,and coffins wrapped in the national flag. Dead bodies are put in a row on the side of the road all to be buried in one. Weapon of the terrorists are shown in a bulletin ,old MK 47,s few grenades and rocket launchers.This was the footage of the war taking place in Wana - where our soldiers are engaged in a bloody combat with the so called foreign militants.

We all know what has led to this military conflict in Wana. The general’s threat to the tribal elders, the revelation of his killers identities, and the need to impress the great Colin Powell. An interesting mix of events that has triggered off a war that has left many wounded and dead.

Who are the dead?there gul Muhammad, Muhammad jehanzaib khan ,shah ahmed achkzai ,who killed them ? sher Muhammad of pakistan military , gul sher , zaryab ahmed .For us, they are just names that are announced in the news or printed in newspapers. But infact they are not names, they both were humans believed in the superiorty of Allah subhanotallah and the prophecy of prophet Muhammad salalhoalewasullum, and the sovereignty of shariyat.
I payed tax to government to be used over my defence to save my land, and my identity but yet killing my brother on both side. I PAID THE ASSASIGNS OT KILL MY OWN FAMILY ,isn’t it . why use military in Pakistan ?They are men who have sworn to laid down their lives, fighting against the enemies ,invaders and terrorsits. They are men whose bodies were put in wooden coffins with the green and white flag around it and carried off to be buried ceremoniously. But they are also men who leave behind old mothers and fathers, young siblings and anxious wives whose existence depended wholly on the shoulders of the young soldiers. And the soldiers lie dead in the battle.
Imagine rehmatul gul , use to live in waziristan for decades ,with his small family and son serving in Pakistan army, one day he saw a military troop helicopter over his sewing field , he is waving with joy upon the sight , but all of a sudden a rocket shell exploeded in the land next to his field because his neighbor`s son had visited Afghanistan in afghan Russian war(or ameican Russian war).

Soldiers are supposed to lay down their lives for their homeland,protecting against whom. They are trained for this from the day they wear the uniform that they so proudly exhibit. Theirs is not to question why, theirs is but to do and die. And that is what our soldiers have been doing since this country was born, laying down their lives for no worthy cause and asking no questions.

It was these waziristan people who served in army and who had laid down their lives in the 1965 war after our leaders` failure to rouse the Kashmiris to a full fledged combat with India. It was these soldiers, who were forced to surrender in 1971, when their leaders forgot that they had responsibility towards the people of the Eastern wing of the country.

It was very much ,discussed that our journal pus#sy cat, didn’t use the army platoon belonging to this area, but all the mens were from Punjab abd sindh rejiment.
Senior official of the army are not at all happy ,because of the fact , that these tribal area has kept Pakistani borders safe and helped and defend us in the time of need .
Stupid are those ,who loose and and accumulate enemies, making waziristan another of our enemy is not a decision of a journal.
Unless , journal sahib wants to be reformer ,will be American national after his retirement , if that so , then any thing he will ,will be a dictation from white house ,what else?

Yes, pick up the paper and read how manypakistani troops died in war against pakistani(balouchi, sindhi ,pukhtoon,If I am allowed to use word war for this act.?

#156 ferozk
One rule of thumb could be that in a democracy the people are responsible for the acts of their government & in dictatorships no such responsibility can exist.

This article produced an interesting mix of responses and interactions which were indicative of the fact that there is no middle view on Wana.

Many questions have arisen during this operation. But like all other issues that have arisen in Pakistan time and again, there are no answers. The truth is that all governments (elected or enforced) have no policies or long term plans. Our politicians have become so used to acting on their whims that future planning is considered an alien phenomenon.

The army is no different and Musharraf has proved this time and again. Whatever action that he has taken has been on the basis of the events that have taken place in our neighboring countries. Much of what we do and say is dependent on what is happening in Afghanistan, India and Kashmir. Not to mention the dictations we receive from the fools sitting in the White House.

Musharraf acted on removing the terrorists only when orders were issued forth from Uncle Sam. He could have done all of this two years back, immediately after the Twin Towers came crashing down. But he was too busy in trying to stabilize his rule in the country. He did think proactively, but only regarding the issue of saving his own skin.

Thus, the tribal areas, and the terrorists harbored in these areas, were ignored. But then, the tribal areas have always been ignored. What has the government done for the tribal areas so far? The government has a good excuse of ignoring the tribal areas on the pretext of tribal laws and traditions. These tribal laws are being used as smoke screens by the politicians from these areas who are scared of development and improvement in the lifestyle of their people. The tribal areas are inhabited by Pakistanis who deserve all the attention of the government as much as you and me. But the government turns a blind eye always because it is the tradition of the politicians in our country to think of their own interests first and foremost.

The action taking place in Wana is correct. But the approach, the timing and the execution of this operation leaves much to be answered. But like all other ventures that have been undertaken by Musharraf so far, Kargil being the biggest blunder, this one will also lead to much loss than gain.

This was an article written not to glorify the armed forces but to bring to light the poor soldier who lays down his life for the country. Many innocent civilians also come under attack and this has always been the case in history (not that this makes it right). But what disgusts me most was the fact that these soldiers laid down their lives for a lost cause. And there is nothing more pitiful than sacrificing oneself for no cause at all.

farheen

re: arjun_m # 153

Interesting arguments, Arjun. Let me develop this line of thought further and please correct me, if I am wrong.

You are suggesting that we as individuals are responsible for the actions of our government. This idea; the idea of collective responsibility is not going to be shared by all people and they will disagree with you. I have have friends in the United States, who claim that President Bush does not represent them since he was elected by a process, which was/is questionable. They were questioning the legality of the vote count in Florida.

In their case and for the sake of argument, is this responsibility still valid when the government is not considered as a legitimate government?

In making an argument, did the 200 people in Spain who were killed in the terrorist bomb blasts, killed because of the actions of the government of Spain? Does this mean that the Israelis killed in terror bombings were killed because of the Israeli government`s actions or the Indians who were killed in the terror attacks killed because of the actions of their government?

To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the people of Spain did not favor their government`s policy in Iraq in support of the war. Should they be considered as ``legitimate`` targets and killed, because they were responsible for the actions of their government, when that particular government acted against the interests and judgement of its own people? Are we suggesting and I hope we are not, that Israelis should be mentally prepared to be killed in acts of violence, since they are also responsible for the acts of their government and as such are legitimate targets? Are we suggesting and I hope we are not that it is okay to kill American citizens, because they are responsible for the actions of their governments?

Arjun, this logic appeals to the twisted mind of a terrorist and in their rage, they will readily identify innocent people as being responsible for the actions of their government and seek to kill them. We may be responsible for the actions of our governments, but it does not mean we should we killed or blown up because of the actions of our government.

I agree with your statment, that I am responsible for the actions of my government as you for the actions of your government. Does that mean or suggest then that we are legitmate targets of retailiation for the actions of our government and our deaths in a senseless act of violence is not terrorism but a dejure act of political expression against the policies of our governments?

I understand that I have developed this argument too radically, but my point is that you cannot make a blanket judgement on a person being responsible for the actions of their goverments. I am sure that all the victims of terrorism will disagree with you that their deaths were perfectly fine, because they were responsible for the actions of their government and such, could be blown up in a bomb blast.

If you disagree with me, please let me know your reasons so that I may pass them on to the wife of a childhood friend who died in the World Trade Center terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He was an American citizen of Pakistani orgins. Please tell me, did he die because he was responsible for the actions of the Pakistani government or the American government? Was his death in the terrorist attack justified, because after all, he was responsible for the actions of his government? Can it?

I am looking forward to reading your comments.

Thank You.

Ciao

re: Sadna # 154

It was just a rant, which needed to be vented. Still, I am not too keen on the idea of being identified as supporting any political party or personality in Pakistan. I never had the choice to support one or the other! :)

My choices are very stark and when I compare, I have no choices! lol

I was too young when Ayub Khan was in the twilight of his rule; too immature and naive politically, when Z. A. Bhutto came to power in 1971. I supported him, but like all else he ended up as a disappointment. Zia-ul-Haq was the period, when Pakistan regressed into the Dark Ages and we left for North America. I missed out on the entire Zia years. After Zia, we had the decade of kleptocracy and it was a period of legalized robbery gone as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif played musical chairs and for 11 years, nothing happened in Pakistan. Then Musharraf came to power in 1999. Some choice!

So, I guess you do have an argument, when you said I support Musharraf. If the choice is between Zia and Musharraf as military rulers, then I guess Musharraf will be the lesser evil. Between Sharif and Bhutto, there is not that much of a choice; they might be elected and if the elections in Pakistan, which elected them were ever fair. Were the elections in Pakistan, which elected them fair? :)

Where is my choice? I do not have a choice; I am told I have a choice. That my friend is facism and a system under which I surivive. :) lol

Musharraf`s actions might be questioned, but honestly speaking people can question them all they wish, because the average fool like me is least bothered by the international opinion. Our concern is that tomorrow might be worse, but hopefully it will not be as worse as yesterday. The funny thing is the people of Pakistan are totally removed from politics, beause they have no faith in politics or the politicans and who ever rules over us; whether s/he is elected or not or is trusted internationally or not, makes no difference.

Let me put it in another words. United States is thinking about giving Pakistan major non-NATO ally status. Pray tell me, what good is that going to do? Is MNNA going to feed us, clothe us or pay for our kids` education or get us cleaning drinking water? lol

Who is this status going to benefit? lol

Thanks for listening to the rant of an old fool. :)

Ciao

ferozk #151
I wasn`t judging you, I was pointing out a possible difference between our perceptions of Musharraf.

It is not your compromises which are the issue here, it is the compromises/courses of actions made by Musharraf which are the issue, in my view. A person`s compromises in his/her personal life affect mainly that person only and it is noone else`e business to pass judgement.

In huge contrast, the choices of compromises/courses of action made by the President/Prime Minister of a country are public issues since these choices are made on behalf of the state and the entire nation`s population, and it constitutes every affectee`s business to pass judgement.

Hope that clarifies.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: arjun_m # 146

Arjun you wrote, `` It`s not like you`ve never done that before...You radicalized your own population to fight the Americans war...what? you think the arrests in the UK has nothing to do with the paki state policy of radicalization of it`s own population to breed jihadis?``

Please clarify your statement. Whom are you refering to as ``you``? The state of Pakistan or me personally?

Ciao

re: Sadna # 148

As to your comments, I do not trust Musharraf or for that matter any politican in Pakistan. The past experience suggests caution, when dealing with Pakistan`s leadership. I can understand your point on the legality, or the illegality, of Musharraf taking over power. Such ideals are worthy of appluse, but sadly in the situtation of Pakistan the reality is that such ideals are no match for the realpolitik of the Pakistan.

I personally believe that there is no subsitute to democracy and the rule of law, but in Pakistan I am confronted by a situation in which I have to compromise my believes on a daily basis. I wish that I could have the luxury of your thoughts and noble intentions, but I do not and unlike you, I have to exist within an imperfect situation. You have no idea on what I had to compromise and what I compromise in order to survive each day in Pakistan. I may detest Musharraf and I may hate the politicans for ruining my life, but in all honestly my anger and ill feelings towards them are not going to make them cower in their boots and they are not going to change their proverbial bad spots just to please my sense of right and wrong. As I said before and I will say it again; I have no choice in who comes to power in Pakistan and who is evicted from power or what is done in my name though I always suffer for the actions of others and I am the one, who pays the final price. Elected politicans or non-elected politicans have never served my interest as the citizen of Pakistan, but have always benefited themselves at my expense.

Our perceptional difference is simply that we live a world apart. You are entirely free to judge me and highlight all my weakness of character, which you use to condemn me and I have no objections. Before you do that; before you judge me, just walk a mile in my shoes and then, let me know what is your your final judgment. :)

Ciao

re: Sadna # 148

You are entirely welcome. :)

Ciao

Outsourcing the Hunt for Bin Laden
Pakistan should be at the top of Bush`s `axis of evil.`
By Leon Hadar

April 1, 2004

Imagine the following scenario, which includes all the historical analogies that neoconservative ideologues like to apply — World War II, Hitler, appeasement — plus a bonus reference to the evil du jour, Spain.

As American and Allied forces invade Nazi Germany in 1945, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and several SS troops flee to Fascist Spain, where they hide in the Pyrenees Mountains and mount guerrilla attacks against the Free French government. The American response? To ask Generalissimo Francisco Franco if he would be kind enough to send some of his forces to catch those Nazis — and it would be nice if it could all be wrapped up before the 1948 presidential election.

Sound absurd? Well, there is an element of the absurd in the acrimonious debate on 9/11 taking place these days. Lawmakers and pundits are arguing about what could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks. But they all agree that if Americans could rewind history to pre-9/11, they would have done everything humanly possible to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates — sooner rather than later.

But why look backward? Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri — the war-on-terrorism`s Hitler and Himmler, respectively — are still alive and well, as far as we know, and living somewhere in Pakistan. Yet to whom is the United States assigning the task of dealing with the gravest threat to its national security and to ensure that such horrific events won`t happen again? To the best and the brightest in the American armed forces and intelligence services? You would assume that we owe as much to the victims of 9/11 and their families.

But no. In fact, the job of wiping out the leaders of the group responsible for the worst attack on the homeland has been outsourced to a corrupt and incompetent regime that is ruling a country where anti-American Islamist groups roam the streets — and the corridors of power.

Indeed, Pakistan`s military and security services, which are in charge of hunting Bin Laden and his troops, were once allied with the Taliban, the former Al Qaeda protectors in Afghanistan. And some of its members are sympathetic to a radical Islamist agenda. Until recently, the nation`s top nuclear scientist was selling his country`s secret military technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Pakistan should have topped President Bush`s ``axis of evil`` list. Instead, it has been designated as a ``non-NATO`` ally of the United States. And its leader, Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator who ousted the country`s democratically elected, although admittedly unpopular, government, has been feted in Washington as a key partner of the United States in the global campaign to combat terrorism.

This policy helped to produce last month`s pathetic spectacle in the war on terrorism. Musharraf was eager to divert media attention from Abdul Qadeer Khan`s nuclear arms bazaar and to impress visiting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thus, Musharraf and his aides raised expectations that Zawahiri would be captured in a major battle with the guerrillas. But the Pakistanis, after bungling the military operation and suffering many casualties, discovered a network of secret tunnels that the fighters had used to escape. Adding insult to injury, Al Qaeda`s No. 2 figure showed up on a new audiotape calling for Musharraf`s overthrow.

Some military observers might conclude that the Pakistani army just doesn`t have the competence to mount a serious fight against Al Qaeda and capture its leaders. Other critics might explain the failure to apprehend Bin Laden and his associates by pointing to the support that radical Islamists enjoy among the rank and file of the Pakistani military and security services.

Take your pick, but consider what an American ``war president`` would have done in that 1945 scenario. He would have given Franco an ultimatum: Catch Hitler and Himmler, hand them over to us alive or dead, and destroy all the SS remnants. And do it ASAP. If you can`t deliver, the full force of the U.S. military will be employed to make that happen.

Americans should not wait for congressional commissions and historians to explain why their war president wasn`t taking that same kind of action against Bin Laden and Zawahiri in 2004, and why he decided to subcontract the job to an inept and untrustworthy military dictator whose associates espouse anti-Americanism, coddle terrorists and sell WMD to ``rogue states.`` What they know already sounds even worst than appeasement.

Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.

ferozk #145
Thanks again for your reply.

Let me take you up on a couple of points.

Firstly, on `sealing the border`. It is easy for anyone to understand (it is even obvious) without visiting Pakistan and having any military wisdom that the border is hard to seal. OK? No need to host me in Pakistan for that :).

Now. Unlike myself, Musharraf is COAS of Pakistani Army, he is supposed to have some native or military wisdom and has visited Pakistani border areas. He is the President of the country. He is sure to have known right from Oct 9 2001, the day the war began, that Al Qaida elements are likely to find sanctuary in Pakistan, especially in FATA. He is likely to have known well how close are the links between some groups of that region, JUI factions and Al Qaeda/Taliban. I have myself heard Fazlur Rehman saying on Pak TV many months ago that there are regions(ilakas) which the tribals have alloted to Arab/etc mujahiddeen from Afghanistan to settle down.

Musharraf is also likely to have known that the US would come hunting some day.

Inspite of this eventuality being obvious to him from the start, Musharraf seems ill-prepared for it - he was even denying the possibility of such sanctuaries of Al Qaeda till very recently.

Coming to second point - war in Afghanistan and whether US has won or not. The question is what sort of victory does Pakistani Army want to see in Afghanistan? Taliban`s victory for 5 years was also a victory, obtained and maintained with the help of Pakistani Army. Does the Pakistani Army think such a pyrrhic victory as Taliban`s was in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s long term interests?

I would venture a guess that only the jihad-minded in Pakistani establishment think so.

For those who are not jihad-minded, there are more constructive ways for the Pakistan government to press for increased Pashtun representation in Kabul.

Condoning hit and run raids by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Taliban/Al Qaeda from Pakistani territory, attacks in which even civilian Afghans engaged in reconstruction get killed and girls schools are burned down, is not a constructive way to press for Pashtun representation.

My POV wrt these two issues is simply this - Musharraf has/had not made up his mind to be proactive and decisively pursue one of two paths to take, the jihad path or the progressive one. He is taking the path of least resistance, essentially reacting to competing pressures from both the US and his MMA/Army allies.

ferozk, I too think both of us are in agreement on most of the basics and differ in perceptions.

I am guessing one major area of difference is our perception about the primary party, Musharraf.

I myself, fundamentally distrust Musharraf as a person( I cannot trust a person who took power in a military coup), and I consider the realpolitic constraints on him to be largely self-imposed, some of these constraints inherent in how he came to power. Moreover I distrust his intentions and judge him positively only so far as he acts as an agent of positive change.

I could be mistaken, but perhaps you, in contrast, trust Musharraf as a person, view his method of gaining power as regrettable, but in total, the constraints on him to be beyond his control and his actions to be essentially good intentioned.

If my guess is correct, this is a major difference of perception. Let us agree to disagree at this time? Also, thanks for an interesting exchange of views.

arjun,
just when i thought you were beginning to sound less hateful, and i thought, wow. .a man after my own heart, the piper had to return to the same old tune. . .again. damn.

and i keep returning to the same old place. . .

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Sadna # 143

Sadna, all those statements reflect the realpolitik of Pakistan`s politics at the time. There is no ``pattern`` as you seem to think, but they were based on the ground realities of the time. You seemed to be obessed with time. Pakistan did not intergrate the FATA after 1947, because it was struggling to survive its formative years as a nation-state and after 1989, it was pre-occupied with the politics of the so-called ``decade of democracy`` and the governments in Pakistan, between those two time periods, never made a concentrated effort to include FATA into Pakistan. The whole issue of FATA was not high on the list of Pakistani governments` concerns. You have to ``see`` the issue in context of the reality as it existed and not in isolation of it, as you are suggesting by your comments. Hindsight is perfect and you should not judge the past in the experience of the present.

I have no idea how to explain the Pushtun code of honor to you, but it does exist and you and I with our western outlooks and believes may belittle it, but it is a very powerful institutional force in the tribal customs of Afghanistan and Pakistan. A tribe`s and the individual`s honor is judged by this code and people would rather die than betray the code.

The United States has not won the war in Afghanistan by any sense of the imagination. Its control only extends to the outskirts of Kabul. The United States might have defeated the Taliban in 2001, but it has no effective control over the rest of Afghanistan. The war is still being waged and people, on both sides are being killed and to call it an American victory is the height of arrogance.

As to the Arab/Muslim world being offended, I was more offended by their apathy than the American bombing during the months of Ramadan.

Sadna, Afghan history has been dominated by the rule of Pushtuns and they form the majority in Afghanistan and you cannot have a majority ruled by a minority as the United States was wishing in the post-Taliban Afghanistan. Granted, Musharraf`s choice of words always leaves a lot to be desired, but his assessment was correct and the past three years have proven him right. The present political instability inside Afghanistan was created by the exclusion of the Pushtuns from the government. As to Taliban representation, they are presently engaged in a mid-level insurgency to regain their political power and since the Taliban were mostly Pushtuns, Musharraf was correct in predicting the outcome of excluding the Pushtuns from the post Taliban government.

As to the tribals crossing the Durand Line, which is the Afghan-Pakistan border, it was easy because the border was never demarcated and the Afghan never accepted it as a de jure international boundary. Secondly, it runs through mountainous terrain and its populated by tribes, with family links on both sides. The border is nearly 2500 kilometers long. The question is how come the United States has not been able to plug the border on the Afghan side, with all its technology? Some day, you must visit Pakistan and I will take you on a trip to Durand Line and you can share your military wisdom with me and tell us, how you would seal the border? :)

The United States could not seal its border with Mexico with all the resources at its disposal and India had a hard time trying to seal 750 odd kilometer of the LoC and you expect Pakistan to seal 2500 kilometers of the Durand Line? LOL

Sadna, it is very difficult to explain to a person, who have never visted the FATA how things work there. The FATA has to be incorporated into Pakistan by offering the people an incentive and that incentive is economic growth of the region. There are no roads or phone lines in the FATA, so the government has to create the infrastructure of its presence in the region. Did you know that the symbol of Pakistan Government`s authority in FATA is the road. The road and nearly 100 yards on both sides of a road is the only territory the Pakistani government controls inside FATA and that is the extent of its jurisdiction. Hence, building roads means that the government will increase its presence in the region.

Sadna, thank you for all your hard labor in quoting Musharraf, but you also have to look at the context of the quotes and not just the words themselves. :)

Ciao

Letter in Daily Times on 03/31/04

The real battle in Wana

Sir: I supported the recent Wana operation even though I was cognisant of the short-term consequences of such an operation. A state must maintain a monopoly of violence over the territory it controls, and the Pakistani state certainly does not enjoy this monopoly in the tribal areas. This situation must change, and the establishment must come up with a long-term plan to incorporate the tribal areas and its people into Pakistan.

The Pakistan Army says that the operation is now over and its objectives have been realised. But have we really succeeded? Looking at pictures of women and children going through the rubble of their homes in Wana, it is obvious that the army has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the tribal people. I also condemn the policy whereby the houses of people not cooperating with the army were razed. Collective punishment of this kind, which results in women and children losing their homes, is morally reprehensible and will create more hatred against the Pakistan Army and the state.

What the government must do is create a comprehensive economic, social and political programme for these Tribal Areas so that the people can benefit. I welcome the fact that new schools and roads are being constructed in some areas. This is a policy that must continue at a faster pace. Only by winning the hearts of these people can we root out foreign terrorists permanently. As of now, we are losing this battle for the hearts and minds.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
Via Email

ferozk #142
I donot speak from the US point of view, I have no reason to do so.

I donot broadly disagree with you, except in the case of realpolitik. Real politik for Musharraf is US pressure vs refusal to change policy.

Pakistani government had 56 years since 1947 to integrate the tribal areas into mainstream. Pakistani government had 15 years since Soviets left in 1989 to integrate the tribal areas into mainstream.

Musharraf has had 2 years since 9/11 and fleeing of Bin Laden/Taliban/Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, to integrate the tribal areas into mainstream.

But only when the US has decided to corner Bin Laden in 2004 does Pakistani government/Musharraf declare the need to integrate the tribal areas.

This seems consistent with previous arguments made by Musharraf.
(let me list a few)

Before 9/11
`We have no influence with Taliban. Taliban is bound by tribal honor to shelter their guests Bin Laden and his Arabs`.

After 9/11, before the war
`Afghans have never been defeated by war, better negotiate with Taliban for surrender of Bin Laden`

During the war
`Muslim world will be offended if US doesnot stop bombing during Ramzan`,

After Kabul was won
`Moderate Taliban should be allowed to rule in Kabul or Pashtuns will split Afghanistan`,

When Taliban/Hekmatyar began their border attacks from Pakistan
`Unless Pashtuns are given representation via Taliban, Taliban will continue to launch attacks in Afghanistan`

When US troops complained that fighters they were pursuing fled into Pakistani territory
`Pak-Afghan border terrain is very difficult, we cannot prevent tribals from crossing over and finding sanctuary in Pakistan, these tribals donot recognise these boundaries anyway`

Now that US has said Bin Laden and his Arabs are hiding in FATA
`We need to integrate the tribal areas, build schools, roads first`

Do you see a pattern here?

re: Sadna # 141

I did not think that you were suggesting that Pakistan should follow the American way willy nilly. Pakistan has to work within the American imperatives, and that is a very tangible constraint on Pakistani options. That is the realpolitik of the situation. Still, I can understand the constraints of the American domestic politics, but I am hoping that the politicans in the United States and Pakistan do not end up making this situation even more worse than it is presently.

Sadna, you and I have no disagreements on this issue. Period. We only have a perceptionally different argument. I am seeing things from the Pakistani perspective and you are seeing things from the American perspective.

Ciao

ferozk #140
Thanks for your reply. Let me clarify I wasn`t suggesting that Pakistan should be guided by US or Indian interests, rather than its own. Rather I was suggesting that Pakistan has constrained options because US will be able to impose its own timetable, like happened with Pakistan`s Afghan policy on 9/12.

re: Sadna # 139

First of all thank you for reading that longish reply and I am sure whether to applaud you or commiserate with you! lol :)

First of all, there seems to be a basic divergence in our posts, which is quite natural and expected. Your views/perceptions are colored by your United States-India centric interests and to you, Pakistani concerns are and should be subordinate to the United States` war on terrorism and towards Indian interests under the rubric of United States` interests on similar issues, i.e. terrorism. I, on the other hand, view Pakistani interests in the war on terrorism and how to fight it, based on Pakistani realities, which suggest that Pakistan should keep its interests in harmony with the overall United States` aim in the war of terrorism, but should not follow the United States` time table on how the war on terrorism should be fought.

Secondly; Pakistan is not waiting for India vis-a-vis Taliban and Al-Qaeda and as far as this issue is concerned, the linkage does not exist. I should have clarified what I was wishing to say and that is, the best remedy to the problem is to offer the people of the region some economic incentive to give up their erring ways. Good economic ties with India will help the matters in way of a transit trade between India and Afghanistan, whose natural route is through Pakistan and once the trade improves and people have a stake in the economic prosperity, it will be much easier to weed away the people of FATA from the political allure of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Also, when a policy decision is made to reverse the past policy, it does not happen over night and takes time since the old system, based on old policy decisions, has to be gradually dismantled and this takes time. You are correct that this process is going to take time, but it will happen and impatience is not going to help the matters, but make the whole situation even more worse.

Pakistan is not holding India responsible for jihad or the madrassa education or its funding by Saudi Arabia.

As to the United States no longer being able to afford work on Pakistani time table, the Pakistanis are not willing to afford the costs of operating on an American time table. Sadna, this problem is one of gradual progression and cannot be limited within a time frame. This a long drawn out process and should be considered as a marathon race; the idea is not to finish the race first and create a world time record, but to finish the race regardless of long it takes.

As to the American public demanding accountability, it is a subjective argument at the best of times. The American public`s sense of accountability revives every four years in November and between that time period, they exist in a political coma. The American public should indeed demand accountability, but should demand it from its elected representatives. The American people are, with the exception of the east coast foreign policy pundits, gulliable and completely ignorant and apathetic towards the execution of foreign policies by their goverments. Where was the American public`s sense of accountability when the Americans were supporting military rule in Pakistan due to their interests in the Cold War of containing the Soviet Union? Where was the American public`s sense of accountability, when the United States was a supporting Zia-ul-Haq in the guise of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? Where was the American public`s sense of accountability when the American governments were aiding the very forces which were destroying democracy in Pakistan?

Besides, American public demanding ``accountability`` is a disquise for revenge and revenge was taken on Afghanistan in 2001 as an accountability for Taliban and Al-Qaeda`s role tin the incident of terrorist attacks on Washington and New York. The American public`s sense of accountability does not mean that other nations and other peoples have no rights or interests but should simply agree to United States interests. The reality is that, as you have astutely pointed out, thousands of unregistered madrassas were created by the Saudis for a wabbhi (spelling?) based education and for fermenting a violent brand of Islam. Kashmir or India were not the primary focus of these madrassas` education and they were encouraged by the United States` when it needed human fodder for its political interests against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion and occupation of that nation.

If the American public is not convinced of this fact, I am sorry but I cannot alter past events and the historic record to appease the American public`s sense of ignorance about world events. :)

As to the New York times article, ten miles is a huge distance in Wana and in South Waziristan, because it is a rugged country. The mountains create a natural barrier and most of the communities are isolated due to poor means of communications and road links. Secondly, a major Pakistani army base is not the same thing as a major American base. In South Waziristan, such a base most likely belonged to frontier militia. As to the Saudi royal family visting Bin Ladin, the question is why did the American not kill the Saudi royal family in the process of getting Bin Ladin? This was a missed opportunity and the world would have been a much better place if the Saudis had also been targetted. Is the safety of the Saudi royal family more important to the Americans than prevention of terrorist attacks and what does this incident tell you about the United States? The Americans are no angels in this matter. :)

Indian capitulation on Kashmir as a linkage to Al-Qaeda and Taliban does not exist and you should not make this linkage and the Americans do not need to consult India before erdicating Taliban or Al-Qaeda. The Americans are interested in internationalizing the LoC and not in favoring Indian or Pakistani capitulation over Kashmir. :)

The United States does not need to sustain any argument for the sake of Pakistan. All the United States needs to do is realize that there is a perceptional gap between how the Americans and the Pakistanis see the problem and though the end is the same, the means to the end are going to be different.

I agree with you that it is in the long term interests of Pakistan to solve the problems of the jihadic culture, of MMA-religion in politics, but Pakistani attempts to do such will be guided more by Pakistan`s domestic political limitations and not United States` sense of political urgency.

Ciao

P.S.: Sorry :)

ferozk #138
I read your whole reply, thanks.

``but how simple it is really depends on India and how intelligently India deals with the issues!``

ferozk, if Pakistan is waiting for India, then evidently the Al Qaeda and Taliban cleanup process is going to take Pakistan as long as reversing its Taliban policy took.

Pakistanis have to stop holding India responsible for everything in Pakistan, whether the jihad taught to children in its textbooks, or the millions of dollars of funding its religious parties get from Arab countries.

For one thing, the US can no longer afford to operate on the Pakistani timetable wrt this.

For instance, it will be hard to convince the US public demanding acocuntability that thousands of unregistered madrassas are set by Arab funding for the sake of Kashmir alone.

One interesting tidbit was in yesterday`s New York Times, which pointed out that the scene of the Waziiristan standoff was not in some remote area, it was 10 miles from a major Army base. And these were not militants who were helpful to the Kashmir jihad.

``Military officials offered no explanation for how the fighters had been able to spend weeks, if not months, building the tunnels on the compound. The battle, in fact, occurred in a cluster of villages 10 miles from a major Pakistani army base, not in a remote area. Pakistani officials said the house had been raided in December, but no militants or tunnels were found. ``

And another example, George Tenet testified to the 9/11 commission that pre 9/11, there was one particular occasion they knew Bin Laden`s location, but couldnot fire missiles and kill him because it would have wiped out the major part of an Arab royal family which was visiting him at that time. Now if Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistani territory and if by chance US intelligence locates him now, will they refrain from launching missiles because Pakistan is waiting for India to deliver on Kashmir?

It is politically much easier for US to take military action against Taliban and Al Qaeda on its own than get India to capitulate to Pakistani demands on Kashmir.

While the US may have for years accepted on face value the argument that MMA and the Army were sympathetic to jihad, Taliban and Al Qaida only because of Kashmir, IMO, this is not an argument which any US government can sustain eternally for Pakistan`s sake.

re: Sadna # 137

You are entirely welcome.

The next deadline need not be another terrorist attack in the United States; it can be anywhere in the world. The idea behind this war is to end the scourage of terrorism and solve its underlying problems and for that, there should be no time limits.

Intergrating the tribal areas into Pakistan is problematic, but as you said earlier it is in Pakistan`s interest to seek such an inclusion. Musharraf`s actions are limited by the people around him and with those, with whom he has to work. Musharraf`s alliance with MMA is opportunistic and MMA is the major share holder in the jihadic ideals, but MMA is also interested in filling the vacuum in the Pakistani politics left by the marginalization of PPP and PML-N. This weakness will be exploited and the MMA will be restrained, but in due time.

On the contary, Al-Qaeda has a stake in MMA and not MMA in Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda despite it`s intentions is a political organization and its interests and aims are political and it is mode of operations is simply a distortation of the Clausewitzian dictum - terrorism is the continuation of politics by other means. In this sense, terrorism is a low level insurgency waged to change the political dynamics of international politics, but in the end the aim is a political one. Al-Qaeda is not interested in waging a perpetual war with the world and neither does it wish to, because it will never win such a conflict. However, it wants to maintain a low level insurgency, which increases the political costs, which are related when its political concerns are ignored.

MMA offers Al-Qaeda a political outlet to air its point of view and that has more value to Al-Qaeda than a offers of jihad from MMA, because MMA is made up of political hypocrites, who are more interested in maintaining power than losing it by waging a holy war. MMA is a political party, with political limitations and it is simply using religion to attain its political aims.

If you take an unbiased look at MMA`s political center of gravity, jihad is a fulcrum to attain political power in Pakistani politics. MMA realizes that pursuit of a jihadic intentions will lessen its political power base. Since the MMA is an alliance with the Pakistan army, it also realizes that army is a political party in Pakistani politics and if the army`s political interests are endangered by MMA`s jehadic politics, the army will move away from MMA politically.

Sadna, Pakistani politics are so straitjacketed, that there is no freedom of independent manuever and sadly, the western media fails to realize this, because they think of Musharraf in the classical banana republic type of a military dictator and hence, assume that he is an absolutist ruler. Pakistan army is a oligarchy and the real power of decision lies with the corps commanders and not the COAS. People find it hard to believe, but the army`s corps commanders reach decisions on a consensual basis and the COAS is simply their ``point man``.

There is another interesting point in this discussion. The present body of corps commanders are made of officers who had served the in military rule of Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) as middle tiered officers and had seen the radicalization of the officer corps and the indoctorination of religion into the army. They graduated and got their commissions in the middle 1960s, when the Pakistani army was non-religious and secular minded. This secularist nature of the army was their introduction into officer corps and they have retained their initial impressions of the army. Since first impressions are last impressions, they were disenchanted by Zia`s drift towards theocracy within the ranks and are now, slowly, moving the army back to its centeristic philosophies.

Still, it will take time to weed out the roots, which were planted 20 years ago but the process has already started. Musharraf and his corps commanders represent this group of officers, who wish to take the army to a more centerist politics and who, realize that past policies were an unmigtiated failure. Their biggest handicap is that reversing the last 20 years of bad policies and its side effects takes time and will be resisted by those, who have benefitted from such policies. The biggest concern for this group is improving the economy of Pakistan, because once the economy improves and people actually, in a very tangible sense, experience the prosperity, they will pay less heed to the arguments of confrontation and violence. The reason being, that Pakistani people will have a stake in prosperity and will not wish to lose it; right now they are economically disenfranchized and the idea is to give them economic representation.

In this sense, economic ties with India and a closer trade intergration will India makes more strategic sense for Pakistan than an alliance with the United States or be given a major non-NATO ally status. In this view, it is heartening to see the Indian prime minister softening the edges of Indian economic hegemony in the region. Indian economic powress is a foregone conclusion, and the only requirement is that Indians learn to ``package`` it more attractivily.

The recent peace talks between India and Pakistan is an attempt at packaging this reality and sugar coating it for a relatively easy consumption. SAFTA is a logical step in the right direction; a directional route which was derailed in 1947, when the symbiotic enonomies of the region, the sub-continent, were disjoined by the political act of 1947. Once this happens, and Pakistani economy meshes within the Indian economy, two things will happen which will benefit Pakistan. One is that the problem of Kashmir will be eventually decided, but more more importantly than that, the Pakistani border with India will normalize and stablize into a lasting peace. Secondly, once the eastern border has stabilized, Pakistan will have the room to manuever and deal with the problems associated with the western border and thus, in this sense intergrate FATA into Pakistan. In the end, it is Pakistan that gains on all accounts, but it will take time to reverse the process because if you go from the fourth gear into ``reverse`` immediately, you will destroy the crankshaft of Pakistan (economy) and ruin the gear box (politics) by throwing it off balance. It will happen, but again in due time.

You are right, when you said, ``perhaps getting rid of lawlessness and getting the tribal areas integrated into Pakistani nation is the simpler part``, but how simple it is really depends on India and how intelligently India deals with the issues! :)

Ciao

P.S.: I am truly sorry Sadna, for this long post. Please read what you wish to and ignore the rest. :)

ferozk #134
Thanks for your reply.

``This a long term problem and the war on terrorism is an ongoing battle and it should have no arbitary deadlines like the November 2004 elections. ``

Perhaps the deadline is arbitrary, and not in US hands either. The deadline is the next successful terrorist attack on US soil.

Perhaps getting rid of lawlessness and getting the tribal areas integrated into Pakistani nation is the simpler part. Musharraf is clearly dragging his feet on the more dangerous and difficult part - getting the establishment and its MMA allies to give up their stake in Al Qaeda and jihad.

Sadna at # 130:

Your link also supports what Feroz suggested in his last para at # 134.

Tauheed at # 133:

American example that you gave had skipped our minds. That could be an excellent model to follow for bringing tribal areas within the net of Government`s writ.

From what I have heard from our tribal influencials, they are willing to assimilate into Pakistan, but are at the moment reluctant to contribute to the economy through taxes. I know that they use the pretext of locals not able to pay the taxes. My suggestion: so be it. Let us give them some kind of concessions for a certain time period and start moving in. Let the Government start by building infrastructure that you have mentioned in one of your earlier posts. There is no harm in short term losses for making long term gains.

re: Sadna # 126

Sadna, a greater sense of urgency does not exist in FATA. Life in the region moves at relaxed pace and has not changed over the centuries. Pakistani government`s sense of ``urgency`` resides in its fears of an unsettled western border and the revivial of the Pukhtunistan issue. Hence, it was always willing to leave the FATA alone and thus, not get entangled in the FATA affairs. Pakistani government may be eager to catch Osama Bin Ladin and Zawahiri, but not at the cost of stirring a hornet`s nest.

Granted, the political dynamics of the region might suggest an urgency, but the Pakistani government has to balance that urgency with the prudence of its past experience. Helping the Americans catch Bin Ladin and Zawahiri at expense of inflaming the FATA might be good idea in the immediate sense, but the Pakistanis realize that the Americans will not be living next to FATA. Pakistan has to live with these tribes and we have to think of our future and not American interests in FATA. Hence, whereas the American are looking at short term gains, we have to think of this region after the Americans leave and that fact, given past American ``commitment fatigues``, gives Pakistan no sense of urgency.

This should not suggest a carte blanche for FATA tribes. It should suggest that it would be in Pakistan`s interest to evict Bin Ladin and Zawahiri and to end the lawlessness of the FATA region, but at our own pace of action, which suit our own interests. This a long term problem and the war on terrorism is an ongoing battle and it should have no arbitary deadlines like the November 2004 elections. There is no urgency and neither should there be an urgency to mess up the whole situation, because of political reasons of an incumbent, who lives on 1600 Penn Ave.

Bin Ladin or Zawahiri will never stay in one place regardless of what the jirga does not does not do. Their safety lies in constant movement and not in staying at one place for any lenght of time. In all probability, Bin Ladin and Zawahiri are skipping across the border on both sides, but do not venture inland. They are constantly moving and zigzagging across the Durand line in the Pushtun areas of the Pakistan and Afghanistan border.

Ciao

ahmedzai #128 Good point about ``homes`` in NWFP referring to those medieval type fortresses. However....I just think that destroying buildings of any kind as a form of punishment means there is something wrong in which the government is approaching the whole situation (and obviously the fact that the british colonials and israelis have done it does not make it right). And in NWFP I think the answer is clear - the laissez faire treatment of tribals has resulted in these areas becoming a haven for car thieves and now terrorists.

Incidentally, coming back to that question that you and ferozk also mentioned about the methodology for converting tribal areas from ``federally administered`` areas to regular districts - the US has had over 2 centuries experience in this, since this after all is how many of the ``territories``, starting with the Louisiana purchase in the early 1800`s, and the last major one being the conversion of Hawaii to a state in the 1950`s I think. The most relevant might be the case of Puerto Rico where the issue of providing full statehood has been an on again off again issue for years. My point here is simply that there is nothing written in stone about leaving tribals areas the way they are and not introducing the same form of locally elected officials here as has (quite successfully, it seems so far after a couple of years) been done in other parts of Pakistan.

re: harimau # 131

I was not aware that the Israelis were also following a British practice. Thanks for letting me know.

re: tahmad32 # 124

A constitutional amendment would be the most feasible idea and it should be an amendment, which voids the separate status of the FATA and brings the entire region under the writ of Islamabad.

Your idea of writing to papers is a purely American one, which will not work in Pakistan and as to preparing a bill in the National Assembly, there is no chance of it happening either. Bills are presented in National Assembly if there is some sort of political hay to be made and given the government`s reliance on MMA, it is highly doubtful if such a bill will be ever presented.

Ciao

ahmadzai #129
Sorry I donot know how to change things on the intro page.

``You are unnecessarily convinced that Zawahiri and OBL may be in tribal areas of Pakistan. If you have an evidence to this effect, may I suggest that you inform our Interior Ministry about the same. ``

ahmadzai sahib, it is not my country or my hometown which is at risk here, no point in asking me to take action. It is solely for Pakistanis to do the right things here.

As for my informing the Pakistani Interior Ministry about Bin Laden`s whereabouts, there is no point in telling them what they already suspect, or perhaps Interior Minister is bluffing for a share of that reward?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/sept11_OBL_030908.html

``But according to Pakistan Interior Minister Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, they have been handicapped by centuries-old tribal tradition and customs.

``Because of their tribal sensitivities, it could be entirely possible that Osama, or his other aides — his closest aides — they could be in hiding in parts of the tribal belt,`` said Saleh Hayat.

Tribal customs and traditions aside, Saleh Hayat said it is imperative of Pakistan, ``to now focus on the tribal belts and to extend its laws into those areas … but it is a gradual process.`` ..``

The question still is how will a gradual process ever succeed in catching Al Qaeda members on the run.

Ref ferozk #110

[A point of clarification. The idea of demolishing tribal dwellings was a British invention. The British would demolish houses of a tribe, if it acted against the British and after partition, Pakistani army simply carried out the British practice. Before 1947, it was RAF which bombed FATA and after 1947, was PAF which would bomb those areas....

Maybe and this is speculation, may the Israelis also got the idea from the British?]

You hit the bull`s eye. The Israelis always say that they are merely carrying out British laws still on the books in Palestine when they demolish the homes of terrorists.

Mohtarma Sadna Sahiba at # 125 and # 126:

My 2 bits:

1. Our high value targets are all foreign terrorists, including but not limited to Zawahiri and OBL, who we are convinced are involved in acts of violence in Pakistan - bomb blasts, attempts on the life of the President, sectarian killings of Quetta, etc. But when we start talking about high value targets, the West automatically assumes two names - Zawahiri and OBL.

2. You are unnecessarily convinced that Zawahiri and OBL may be in tribal areas of Pakistan. If you have an evidence to this effect, may I suggest that you inform our Interior Ministry about the same. The recent audio release indicates that at least the former may be in Afghanistan.

3. Also, I have given you my argument that there is no chance that the terrorists could have escaped from the scene under prolonged negotiations, because the area has been cordoned off for a long time now. Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, please furnish it to our Interior Ministry. Not only you will get a handsome financial reward, Pakistanis will also be eternally grateful to you for earning us a good riddance from the two satans.

:-)

Feroz, Romair, Sadna and Tauheed:

I would just like to clarify that the word ` home ` is misleading when we talk about tearing them down. The correct word should be `residential heavily armed fortresses`. All houses in the tribal agencies are fortresses and are heavily defended with all kinds of weaponery ranging from short range guns to medium range artillery and rockets.

Feroz`s post at # 122 nicely outlines the step by step methodolgy that leads to destruction of these fortresses after serving a notice.

Tauheed at 123:

Using MMA could be a long drawn process, but given the sensitivities involved, this seems to be the only option available. I agree with the process that you have highlighted.

The only option that could be seriously wrong is that if military leadership like the station commander of Peshawar is allowed to keep venting out his anger and feeling of revenge and subsequently military attempts to go into the tribal agency under this feeling of revenge.

Sadna Sahiba:

Since you are good in creating images on the interactice board, would you please if possible guide me on how to get rid of a picture on my intro page. I uploaded it long time ago in respect of a Canadian by the name of Fareedi (?) who posted an article on this website. Now I can`t change the picture. Actually, I don`t see the prompt of `upload` after `browse` when I want to change the picture.

ahmedzai #119 you write `` My submission is that we do it slowly and gradually, since the foreign terrorists will and are playing two cards - tribal sentiments and Pakhtoon versus Punjabiism. The best way would be to first take parliament into confidence and then let MMA do the spade work, before the Government machinery moves in. ``

I dont disagree here. I am all for evolutionary change. Right now the focus is to get rid of the terrorists. But one can also see signs of the evolutionary change starting to take place - road and school building etc. that I mentioned having read has started in these areas with Japanese and US financial assistance. And now that government has exerted its authority in these areas, it is unrealistic to expect that things will be ever go back to the laissez faire mode once the operation is complete.

Certainly the government should work within the constitution to bring about the administrative changes to replace tribal structures with district structures. This may mean behind-the-scenes lobbying with MMA - I would expect MMA to be quite opposed to this, however. After all, remember that the MMA government in NWFP province has been trying to steamroll the local governments to the extent that the district Nazims all threatened to resign a few month ago until musharaff intervened. The tribal leaders are probably easier to deal with by MMA, and they would not be too excited with the idea of having to deal with locally elected Nazims in the tribal belt also.

ferozk #122 The methodology, as I said in the post I just wrote to Ahmedzai, is to work within the constitution and bring about the change. Even if it means waiting until there are enough votes to change the status of the tribal areas...and I realize that this may require waiting for several years, not months. The important thing is to get the movement started by writing to newspapers with the aim of having a bill prepared in the national assembly. I remember hearing of one constitutional amendment in the US that took over a century to be finally voted into law - hopefully it wont take that long. :-)

ahmedzai #120
``Also, by now, the one and only pocket of terrorists has been identified and isolated. Because of these two reasons (i.e. no escaping and knowing of the enemy location), we see the ferocity and fierceness of the terrorists.``

Do you mean it is Bin Laden and Zawahiri are surrounded in South Waziristan? I think not?

In one of my previous posts, I posted Ahmed Rashid`s assessment that in the current standoff, it is Uzbek militants who are surrounded, who are fighting because they have weak support from MMA and have nowhere else to go.

That would mean the real McCoy Taliban and Arab Al Qaeda including Bin Laden and Zawahiri are not hiding in this location but are hiding elsewhere in the tribal areas.

However, whereever they are hiding, the long process of negotiation with tribes before taking armed action, gives Taliban and Al Qaeda plenty of time to escape and relocate elsewhere in the region.

ferozk #122
``The problem in the present sense is that Pakistan is working under the deadline of the American election in November 2004 and is using force to reach a decision and this is angering the local tribes towards Islamabad`s insensitivity to their traditions.``

ferozk, if Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hiding among the tribals, shouldnot the Pakistani government be feeling a greater urgency than the US government to catch them on its own behalf?

But will Bin Laden, Zawahiri or any of their Arab colleagues ever wait in one place for days, weeks or months while a jirga debates whether to surrender them or not?

re: tahmad32

Tribal law is indeed a problem, but the real problem is how does one intend to change the tribal law into a progressive law? The solutions to the problems as you have highlighted them are reasonable. However, even though I agree with you, I am more interested in the methodolgy of the solutions.

re: ahmadzai

Thanks.

Also, one more point to your post.

You are correct to state that it is the house(s) of the offending party which is demolished and it is not a collective punishment, as case might be with the Israelis in Palestine.

The gradual procedure is that once there is an incident or a member of the tribe is harboring a known offender, the political agent requests that he/they be handed over. To achieve this aim, a jirga is called and it is the job of the jirga to convince the person to hand over the wanted men. Once the jirga fails, the political agent informs the the DC of the situation. After which, there is meeting in which the DC, the corps commander of the region, the air force officer in regional command and the DDI meet and decide upon a course of action. There has to be a universial consensus and only afterwards, a bombing or demolishing of a house is ordered.

Once a decision is taken, the DC informs the political agent, who is generally subordinate to the DC and the political agent informs the the head of the tribe, whose member is responsible for sheltering the offenders that military action will be taken. Then the tribe is given 24 hours to vacate the village and remove their livestocks from the area prior to the bombing. The decision to bomb or demolish a house is taken as a last resort and the tribes are well aware, as you pointed, of the consequences of harboring ``dacoits``.

re: Sadna

A jirga meeting can last up to a year or more and there is no fixed time limit for a jirga`s meeting. It usually takes months to assemble a jira and months of haggling during a jirga session. Afterwards, it is not uncommon for the jirga members to return to their villages and hold tribal/village jirgas and the dicuss the issues. Afterwards, the jirga meets again and this process might go on endlessly until there is a consensus.

From a modernistic point of view, these meetings are frustrating because they are open-ended and can last months and even years before a decision is reached. Hence, the present jirga which is been on going since October 2003 is norm to the rule and it will go on like this in the future.

Deadlines have no utility in a jirga meeting and are not considered. People talk; they leave and then reassemble months later to dicuss the issues. What is required is patience and when the patience wears thin, you have two options: bribe to get the results or use force to make the jirga come to a decision.

The problem in the present sense is that Pakistan is working under the deadline of the American election in November 2004 and is using force to reach a decision and this is angering the local tribes towards Islamabad`s insensitivity to their traditions. :)

Ciao

And do the voluble, hystrionic defenders of the buggers holed up in Wana have anything to say about the executions of the Pakistani troops they were holding prisoner?

Romair at # 116:

I don`t know why many of your posts are not addressed to anybody in particular even though they seek an answer?

Taking the liberty of replying to your post, I would first of all like to express my disappointment at a number of generalizations in the posts coming from someone who stands out in the crowd in advising against generalizations. Then, I would add the following:

1. The Pakhtoon tribals have never blackmailed Pakistan through desiring to join Afghanistan.

2. Like everywhere else in Pakistan, we have wealthy and affluent and poor and destitute in tribal agencies. Whereas, poor want Pakistan to move in with all facilities, the rich want that no taxes be levied on them. Because rich don`t want to pay the taxes, they don`t want any facilities. Is it any different from the rest of the country?

But Tauheed, you and I agree that its about time we moved into tribal agencies and instituted Government writ there. I only differ in methodology. My submission is that we do it slowly and gradually, since the foreign terrorists will and are playing two cards - tribal sentiments and Pakhtoon versus Punjabiism. The best way would be to first take parliament into confidence and then let MMA do the spade work, before the Government machinery moves in.

Sadna at # 115:

Negotiations have been done so that the foreign terrorists and their supporters give themselves up peacefully. The whole tribal territory is cordoned off for a long time now. There is no escaping from Pakistan to Afghanistan under present scenario. What you are referring to was perhaps happening till the recent past. When the pressure came on the terrorists in Pakistan they headed for Afghanistan and vice versa.

The current hammer and anvil operation of Pak-USA military ensures that there is no running away this time. Also, by now, the one and only pocket of terrorists has been identified and isolated. Because of these two reasons (i.e. no escaping and knowing of the enemy location), we see the ferocity and fierceness of the terrorists. This is their last ground and they will defend it employing all unfair means, including playing upon tribal sentiments and Pakhtoon versus Punjabi card. Its for the rest of Pakistan and the military especially not to give into emotionalism.

ahmedzai #114 I just find the idea of tearing down people`s homes to be a violation of basic humanity. Even in bankruptcy court they permit families their own home, with the stipulation that (as I recall from the days I studied the Pakistan civil and criminal procedures as part of a training program I went through) while creditors may take the belongings, the outside doors and windows are not to be taken.

Surely the regular laws that apply to individuals harboring criminals and murderers should apply here as well. Why should the women and children of a family have to be made homeless just because their tribal leader decided to harbor terrorists? I really think the tribal areas should be converted into regular districts. And terrorists hunted down like the dangerous individuals they are, rather than allowed to fester in benign neglect in the tribal areas as has been done the past 10-20 years in Pakistan.

Romair #116 Let us not blame tribals for the failures of our own governments. It is time the government stood up to the tribal leaders and handed power back to where it belongs - to the citizens of that area. Let them elect their leaders, and let them live according to the normal laws of Pakistan. And get rid of sharia laws while we are at it. This plethora of legal systems (tribal law, sharia law) serve only to ensure that justice is not served and the rich and the powerful get away with murder.

A question:

Why don`t the tribal areas do one of the following:

- Agree to come 100%, under the legal system of Pakistan
- Agree to come 100% under the legal system of Afghanistan
- Agree to ask for 100% independence

From what I can see, they seem to be trying to get the best of three worlds. They want the facilities of Pakistan, without the responsibilities of following its laws. They want to keep threatening that they will join Afghanistan, knowing fully well, that joining Afghanistan is not a good idea, since Afghanistan doesn`t have much to offer, at the moment. They want to keep threatening independence, without doing so, knowing fully well that if they do so, the will lose all the benefits like electricity etc. that they get from Pakistan.

So, basically they want to sit in Pakistan`s National Assembly, send their families into its colleges, but if one of them steals a car and brings it to the tribal area, or deals drugs from the tribal areas, they don`t want him to be prosecuted.

This, to me, is not very honorable.....

ahmadzai #114
These negotiations in S. Waziristan have been going on at least since October 2003. With such a prolonged process of negotiation with tribes, any Taliban and Al Qaeda members hiding among them get plenty of time to escape. That means any search for Taliban or Al Qaeda targets via this procedure is bound to fail. Why does noone bring this point up, do you think?

Feroz and Tauheed:

Tearing down the Houses:

1. The tearing down of homes is as per written agreement between Pakistani Administration and Tribal Chiefs. It is not an unwritten understanding.

2. More importantly, many clans live in a tribal agency. Its 1 or few clans out of many who have historically gone against the writ of the Political Administration. The tearing down of their houses is done as a last resort and that too with the agreement of Jirga. Representatives of the Jirga would always accompany the team that goes to destroy the houses. If all the clans living in an agency go against the Government, which has never happened in Pakistan except for Balochistan in early 70s and in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union, then that would be a sensitive situation.

Unlike Balochistan and Afghanistan, rebellion in tribal agencies is not possible, because of inter-tribal conflicts and because their young men also serve in the military.

For example, only 1 clan in SW has gone astray with its support of foreign terrorists. The warrior tribe of the Mahsoods, who are on the side of the Government, formed a Lashkar 2,500 strong to find the culprits who have kidnapped our security men. They discovered 12 dead bodies of the para-militarymen in a ravine today. Their elders have expressed tremendous anger against the terrorists and have told journalists that the loss of these men is the loss of Mahsoods.

However, I believe that Mahsoods would now request the military to come back to the agency and take on the terrorists head on, of course with the full support of majority tribes.

Feroz at # 103:

Very intelligently you turned generalization into holistic reality, with which I fully agree now.

:-)

ferozk #110 Rather than tearing down dwellings, it would be better to go for the root of the problem: which is tribal law itself. The israelis may do that, but the welfare of the palestinian people is not exactly high on sharon`s priorities: The israelis are engaged in an existential struggle, let us remember.

It is time the Pakistan government ended its policy of ``benign neglect`` whose results we have already seen - the tribal areas became a haven for the al qaeda thugs. Tearing down their dwellings may be necessary today in order to clean up the terrorist nest, but it is not a long term solution. It is time we recognized the tribals as fellow citizens with the same basic rights of individual liberty and of elected public servants as pakistanis living in lahore or islamabad or peshawar.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: arjun_m

A point of clarification. The idea of demolishing tribal dwellings was a British invention. The British would demolish houses of a tribe, if it acted against the British and after partition, Pakistani army simply carried out the British practice. Before 1947, it was RAF which bombed FATA and after 1947, was PAF which would bomb those areas.

My understanding is that if the tribes misbehaved, the political agent in FATA would inform the DC in Peshawar and he would forward the information to Islamabad and then, there would be a pre-dawn sortie against the offending tribe.

Maybe and this is speculation, may the Israelis also got the idea from the British? Americans demolished houses/huts in Vietnam by burning them down in what were known as ``zippo raids``. The Germans would burn down houses in retailation to attacks on them and unlike the British or the Pakistanis or the Israelis, the the Germans would lock up the people in the houses first!

It is an old time tested method. :)

Ciao

High-value fiction


By Ayaz Amir

It was supposed to be Ayman Al-Zawahiri, no less, Osama bin Laden`s deputy, finally trapped by the trusted Pakistan army in the wilds of South Waziristan. President Musharraf himself triggered this feverish line of speculation when he told CNN`s Aaron Brown (one of the best anchors in the business) that the fierce resistance being put up by suspected Al Qaeda fighters suggested they were protecting a ``high-value target``.

The hype, alas, did not last. It gave way to embarrassment when the `militants`, far from surrendering, inflicted heavy casualties on first the Frontier Constabulary and then the regular army.

To add insult to injury, instead of yielding any ``high-value target`` the so-called militants captured over a dozen militiamen or soldiers whose whereabouts are still unknown.

Don`t blame the army for being coy on the subject of casualties. Press reports put the number of militia and army dead at 60, the injured at 45, and ``missing`` at 24. The `militant` dead: 11. `Collateral damage`: over two dozen civilians, including women and children, caught in the crossfire.

This is a first-rate fiasco whichever way you look at it. If this were Iraq and if even half as many Americans had died, the White House would be shaken and George Bush would be scurrying for cover.

This being Pakistan where life is relatively cheap, you just look the other way. And you talk tough. The Rommel in overall command of this operation, the Peshawar Corps Commander, Lt Gen Safdar Hussain, vowed to flush out and eliminate the `militants` as the Wana action got underway.

He continues to sound tough even with this botched operation behind him. Incidentally, Lt Gen Safdar`s name was first on the list of military personnel who received awards on March 23, Republic Day.

The army says it discovered a long tunnel beneath one of the mud fortresses where the `militants` were holed up, the suggestion being that that`s how they got away. The wheel thus comes full circle, high-value target turning to high-value fiction.

Aaron Brown had pressed the military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, on this point. Was there any way the `militants` could get away? No they couldn`t, the army had it all worked out. Well, well, he couldn`t have known about the tunnel, could he?

If the Peshawar Corps HQs had read its tribal history it would have preferred prudence to misplaced bragging. The British learnt to their cost not to mess around with the frontier tribes. In return for nominal allegiance, they allowed them full internal autonomy. This system served the British well for a hundred years. It has served us well since 1947.

There have been no Pakistanis more loyal to Pakistan than the tribal people. Remember they helped get us the bit of Kashmir we have. They went in first, the army followed later.

Now under American pressure these time-tested arrangements are coming under strain. The Americans couldn`t care less what happens to us or to the fabric of our society. They want quick trophies to nail to the wall, so that they can declare some sort of victory in their war against anything that smells or looks like Al Qaeda.

The Americans couldn`t have cared less about Afghanistan in the 1980s. All they wanted was to give the Russians a bloody nose and avenge the memory of Vietnam. That accomplished they just walked away, leaving the Afghans to their misery.

In pursuit of the Viet Cong the Americans entered Kampuchea (then Cambodia) in 1968, setting off a chain reaction leading to the destruction of that once peaceful and easygoing country. Kampuchea has yet to recover from those wounds.

What do the Americans care what happens to Pakistan as long as their purpose is served in the tribal areas? They are paying us for services rendered: about $600 million a year, half in so-called economic aid, half in military aid, most of the military aid being used to beef up the Pakistan army for duty along the Pak-Afghan border.

Smart, isn`t it, the Americans giving us just enough to better serve their interests? Like giving a sentry a better rifle to perform better sentry duty. And we call this aid.

But since they are paying us something, they think they are within their rights to order us about. Reinforcing this monumental self-belief is the spectacle of the Pakistani leadership taking obvious pleasure in being ordered about.

Should we fight the Americans? Who`s saying that? Should we confront them? Don`t be silly. But how does it follow from this that Pakistan should be getting up every morning and proving to the rest of the world that it stands in the front rank of all banana republics?

We did this in the 1950s when we became part of America`s global system of alliances against communism. We did this in the sixties when we played the crucial role in America`s opening to China.

We did this in the eighties when casting prudence aside we became the CIA`s cat`s paw in Afghanistan. We did this after September 11 when we became the launching pad for America`s war on Afghanistan. Masochism aside, why do we do this?

Now Colin Powell tells us Pakistan should soon be getting `non-Nato ally` status. For this kindness many thanks. Don`t we know the list of America`s non-Nato allies? Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Philippines, etc, etc? Do we want to be part of this distinguished company?

It can be argued that after September 11 the Americans, out for revenge and blood, left us with little choice. In his testimony before the presidential commission on terrorism, Colin Powell has said as much. The Pakistanis, he said, were given a clear choice and 48 hours to make up their minds. Pervez Musharraf made his ``historic and strategic`` decision, Powell`s words, on September 14.

Fine. All this is history, water under the bridge. We`ve done the Americans enough service in Afghanistan. There`s no pistol pointing at our head now. We can afford to draw breath, weigh our options, do the sensible thing.

We don`t have to be stampeded into stupid actions enraging the Pakistani people and imperilling our future. At least for now, we can afford to speak to the Americans on equal terms.

It`s the Bush White House in election trouble, not the Musharraf presidency (not least because presidencies here have other ways of going around elections). If anything, between now and the US presidential election, Pakistan`s importance to the Bush White House is greater than the other way round.

And who are these `militants` of Wana, in any case? The foreigners amongst them, Chechens, Uzbeks, Arabs, are the leftovers of the Afghan jihad. They and the CIA fought on the same side then, against the Soviets. They became an embarrassment only later.

But with nowhere to go many of them settled in the tribal areas, marrying locally and intermingling with the tribes. Does that make them Al Qaeda fighters, loyalists to Osama bin Laden, protectors of ``high-value targets``?

Perhaps, yes. But if that`s the case, what`s the Pakistan army been doing these past two years since September 11? Shouldn`t it have gone after these elements much before and without American prodding?

But let`s not be fooled. The Wana operation reeks of other things: American pressure, American indifference to our plight and supreme Pakistani incompetence.

And consider what we are reaping in the aftermath: bomb attacks and ambushes beyond Wana. Even rockets fired at Peshawar itself. Which doesn`t mean the tribal areas are rising in revolt. But it does mean new dangers. Don`t we have enough of them already?

Tailpiece: Haji Abdul Haque of Adil Manzil, Tauheed Commercial Area, DHA, Karachi, asks: ``Whenever our soldiers die in action we call them `shaheed`. In the ongoing Wana operation being carried out at the behest of the United States, Pathan Frontier Constabulary soldiers are pitted in ferocious battles against fellow Pathans.

Whatever the case, all combatants are Muslims. Has our high command decided which of the killed combatants will be called `shaheed`? The Muslim frontier constabulary pathan soldiers fighting for the US or the Muslim pathans fighting against the US? Will our great COAS Gen Musharraf kindly explain?``

Cartoon in #104 was drawn by Ajit Ninan of the Times of India
(Same uncle sam and musharraf in today`s TOI:
www.indiatimes.com/it/toon250304.jpg )

powers-that-be : Just one more?
echoboom

sadna:

Simply superb! Thanks.

You remember playing ``KoRRa Jamal-Shahi``?
``KoRRa jamaal-shahi pichhay pichhay aa-ee hai, jinnay aggay pichhay vaikhyaa unnay maar khaee hai``

In my anglicised-days we used to call it ``I wrote a letter to my friend and on the way I dropped it; Someone came and picked it up and put it in his pocket``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: ahmadzai

There was a great deal of generalization in my post.

Military dominates the economic scene in Pakistan and it is ever present in Pakistan. The economy of Pakistan being tailored made by the military and all