Four Reasons for Optimism in Pakistan

Pakistan's military and government is finally turning the tide against the Taliban. Isn't it time we give them a little credit?

BY IMTIAZ GUL | SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

We in Pakistan constantly hear that our country is a hopeless mess, an ungovernable shamble of a state whose military and intelligence services are more or less on the side of global terrorists and local insurgents. But few observers seem to have noticed that, over the last five months or so, Pakistan has made an astonishing turnaround. In fact, it's time for cautious optimism about my country's fate.

For one thing, the militants are reeling from a series of significant blows. The dramatic capture of Muslim Khan and four other Taliban militants in a Sept. 3 military-intelligence sting operation is just the latest deadly strike against the embattled Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). It represents the third major setback for the dreaded outfit since Aug. 5, when a CIA-operated drone missile took out Baitullah Mehsud, TTP's founder and chief.

Only a few days after Mehsud's death, TTP spokesman Maulvi Muhammad Omar was captured in the Mohmand tribal region. The fate of Hakimullah Mehsud, whom the organization's shura purportedly picked as the new chief on Aug. 25, is still uncertain, with virtually no sign of him since the day he was made the ameer. Similarly, another fierce al Qaeda-aligned TTP leader, Maulvi Fazlullah, is handicapped by serious wounds and reportedly under siege -- probably counting his days as a free icon of terror. And Shah Dauran, an infamous associate of Fazlullah who used to spread terror through mobile FM radio airwaves, is now dead.

Khan, as TTP spokesman in the Swat Valley, had owned up to scores of suicide bombings against security forces and admitted attacks on dozens of girls' schools in the Swat region. Khan also claimed responsibility on behalf of the TTP for sending two suicide bombers to a weapons-manufacturing complex -- the Pakistan Ordnance Factories near Islamabad -- where about 90 people were blown into pieces in April 2008 in one of the deadliest attacks in Pakistan's recent history.

The sting operation became possible only after Kamal Khan, an old acquaintance of Muslim Khan now living in the United States, agreed to become part of the game. The strategy to capture the TTP spokesman aimed to create a facade of negotiations and trap the militants, who had been publicly vowing attacks on Pakistani government institutions.

Kamal Khan and Pakistan's Military Intelligence, a division of the Pakistani Army, moved in tandem and eventually a raid involving some six dozen commandos resulted in Muslim Khan's capture at a village called Mangalore, some 7 miles southwest of Mingora, the administrative capital of the Swat district.

"It was purely an intelligence-driven operation," a senior Army official overseeing the operation told me. "It was not a smooth affair. Six of their guards got killed in the firefight that erupted when the commandos moved in."

As a whole, the events since Aug. 5, when a U.S. drone strike put Baitullah Mehsud to sleep forever, underline a pattern that should evoke optimism and confidence both inside and outside Pakistan. It also erases fears of a potentially drawn-out conflict in the tribal areas. Let us consider why.

First, the Army and civilians alike were shocked and alarmed in early April when the TTP militants, taking cover under a controversial peace deal, began occupying strategic locations in Buner, Mingora, Malam Jabba, and parts of Malakand. Their worries multiplied when Taliban militants abducted four Pakistani Army commandos in the mountainous Buner Valley and eventually executed them.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

 

Imtiaz Gul is the chairman of the independent Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad and the author of The al Qaeda Connection: The Taliban and Terror in Pakistan's Tribal Areas.

Facebook|Twitter|Digg

B. ELLI COSE

7:38 PM ET

September 16, 2009

On the contrary

Isn't it time we give them a little credit?

No.

Why should we give them credit for belatedly realizing that their offspring is now in danger of devouring them? Why should we give them credit for their misguided "strategic depth" Afghanistan policy? Why should we give them credit for state sponsorship of terrorism directed at India? Why should we give them credit for transferring nuclear technology to North Korea and possibly Iran?

Get real. The only reason they began to cooperate (albeit in a half-assed, mealy-mouthed fashion) post-9/11 was because we informed them that the price of non-cooperation was to be, in the eloquent words of Richard Armitage, bombed back into the stone age.

 

ALISYED

12:20 AM ET

September 17, 2009

I disagree..

You know it's rhetoric exactly like this that causes the Pakistani public to be deeply skeptical of the west.

You needed us to fight your proxy war for you against Russia in the 80's in afghanistan. Americans and Saudi's took the initiative to sow the seeds of militancy in a peaceful country and peaceful religion to create the Mujahideen. Once that war was over, Afghanistan as a whole country was left in complete shambles, and Pakistan who cooperated with the west was left with a huge problem of refugees and an unstable country at its doorstep.

After all this, you come back now and villainize Pakistan and blame it all on us?

India has traditionally been a sworn enemy of Pakistan since the day that both countries came to existence. You are quick to list the acts of terrorism that Pakistan allegedly took against India as a state. Why don't you look at what's happening in Kashmir. Where police used live ammunition against unarmed protesters to cut down the voice of the people. Shouldn't that be considered state terrorism?

I would sincerely suggest to the writer to please not depict Pakistan is such an evil light. Every country has its problems. It doesn't help a lot when at our own cost if we achieve something, all the pessimist crawl out of the woodworks and cry about the past.

 

FAHD

3:54 AM ET

September 17, 2009

Your comments are a replica

Your comments are a replica of a hollywood movie ... not a realistic chant...

This is not your fault ... you people grow up seeeing hollywood movies and self characterized wars movies ... and this is the result ... video game kids ...

I feel shame for the author in writing a request for approval of pakistan's role ...

 

FAHD

4:29 AM ET

September 17, 2009

@ B. ELLI COSE Your comments

@ B. ELLI COSE

Your comments are a replica of a hollywood movie dialogue... not a realistic chant...

Well.. I see this is not your fault ... you people grow up seeeing self characterized war movies ... and this is the result ... video game kids and video game minds ...

FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON STONE AGE

People chanting about sending pakistan to stone age are themselves thrown to steets by their own banks... they are homeless...(though they were morality-less already) people have to wait in long long queues for food... look at the surge in unemployment...

I dont know where to start... are you so ignorant????

AND FINALLY WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT:

(i) US led.. state sponser of terrorism in palestine
(ii) US-India led state sponser of terrorism in kashmir
(iii) US led transfer of nuclear tech to Izrael...
(iv) US sponsered terrorism in northern pakistan
(v) US sponsered terrorism in balochistan
(vi) US sponsered terrorism in iran...
....
do you need further mentions ????????

 

GRANT

8:03 PM ET

September 16, 2009

I might if the military

I might if the military didn't appear to be engaging in age old practices of kidnapping, torture, and murder. While I find Pakistan's current actions useful, I have no intention of crediting them for anything more than putting military pressure on an enemy while simultaneously convincing the people that both sides are untrustworthy.

 

CRAIG HANLEY

11:59 PM ET

September 16, 2009

ANOTHER REASON FOR PESSIMISM

Pakistan Army Said to Be Linked to Swat Killings

By JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH/NEW YORK TIMES
Published: September 14, 2009

MINGORA, Pakistan — Two months after the Pakistani Army wrested control of the Swat Valley from Taliban militants, a new campaign of fear has taken hold, with scores, perhaps hundreds, of bodies dumped on the streets in what human rights advocates and local residents say is the work of the military.

 

AARUN

10:34 AM ET

September 17, 2009

Good, but not Enough

First, the Army has only changed its calculus about militants that pose a domestic threat to Pakistan, namely the TTP.

While I don't agree with most what B. Ellicose said, but this is a legitimate question: "Why should we give them credit for belatedly realizing that their offspring is now in danger of devouring them?"

Tremendous violenceand attacks against Pakistan went on for a LONG time before this change in attitude by the Army occurred: The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Marriott Bombing, the attacks on the Sri Lankan Cricket Team, the incursions into Buner, to name just a few.

While this is a positive change, and US officials ARE crediting Pakistan for it, this is long overdue and completely out of self-interest. Self-interested actions are totally understandable, but I don't think they constitute a standing ovation from the US.

Second, while Pakistan seems willing to take on SOME militant groups, it continues a policy of nurturing, or at best ignoring, other groups -- most importantly, Mullah Omar's Afghan Taliban. The Afghan Taliban continues to use Pakistan as a base and sanctuary from which senior leadership can direct the insurgency in Afghanistan. Without Pakistan's full cooperation in undermining this group, US and NATO forces have slim chance in effectively countering the increasingly deadly insurgency in Afghanistan.

There are many reasons why Pakistan differentiates between the TTP and the Afghan Taliban. In return, the Afghan Taliban abstains from threatening Pakistan as well. But until this relationship is severed, Pakistan is unlikely to get the credit or the standing ovation it so desires.

 

ALISYED

11:48 PM ET

September 17, 2009

For some people it will never be good enough.

On the one hand you say that Pakistan is completely unfazed by the campaign of violence of the TTP until it's own self interests are at stake. And on the other hand you say that Pakistan desperately desires a standing ovation. Which one is it?

I think if Pakistan doesn't do anything to counter the insurgency it is maligned by everyone of inaction and apathy. If Pakistan does take tangible action to counter the insurgency, it is said that it is acting solely out of selfishness. With some people you just can't win. To be honest with you Pakistan has done whatever was in its own interest and cared little about those who will always find fault in any scenario.

Pakistan was free to negotiate a peace deal with the militants to avoid bloodshed. When the militants got out of hand and started challenging the sovereignty of the government, the writ of the government had to be re-established.

Is it better to see that Pakistan is taking action to reign in the terrorism that has run amok in the country, although for selfish reasons. Please realize that this is a far better thing than no action being taken by Pakistan at all.

 

AARUN

10:04 AM ET

September 18, 2009

You are missing the point

Alisyed -

It is both. Pakistan barely even addressed, let alone took care of its own terrorism problem for a long time but, when it finally does, the international community should "credit" them with defending themselves? Makes no sense to me. A sovereign nation-state should not be looking for praise from others simply for taking care of their own citizens and interests.

That being said, I can see why Gul is arguing that this a optimistic sign -- it IS. And I fully agree that Pakistan taking action to reign in terrorism now is much better than not doing so at all. All I am saying is the reason Pakistan is not getting its due "credit" is because Pakistan's willingness to reign in terror that is posing a threat to its own regime is coupled with its unwillingness to confront the Afghan Taliban, which is clearly a threat to all of Afghanistan, the US, and NATO.

I applaud your effort to counter terror and insurency that is killing your own people, great job. We could use some help countering the insurgency in Afghanistan, whenever you get the chance.

 

SREEKANTH

1:17 PM ET

September 17, 2009

proxy war

>>>You needed us to fight your proxy war for you against Russia in the 80's in afghanistan. Americans and Saudi's took the initiative to sow the seeds of militancy in a peaceful country and peaceful religion to create the Mujahideen. Once that war was over, Afghanistan as a whole country was left in complete shambles, and Pakistan who cooperated with the west was left with a huge problem of refugees and an unstable country at its doorstep.

Only partially true. It is true that the US funded the mujahideen in the 80's. But Zia and Pakistan as a whole were solidly behind the whole enterprise, for their own reasons.

Relations between Pak and Af have always been strained. Af never accepted the Durand Line, and has always claimed territory in present day Pak. Just as Pakistanis have irredentist dreams of ruling Hindustan, Afghans remember the times when they ruled all the way down to the Arabian sea, including present day Sindh. So Pak was glad to seize the chance to fund guerilla warfare, and try to install a puppet government.

Pak was panicked by the Soviet invasion of Af, because they thought the next step for the Soviets would be Pak itself. So they had every reason to co-operate with the US

Finally, the US wanted to generically indulge in proxy war, and especially payback the Soviets for the Vietnam debacle.

So everyone's interests coincided. It's disingenuous to say Pak went out of their way to help the US and got shafted. It's fair to say Zia and co never thought of the downside of creating a Kalashnikov culture, and the possibility of blowback.

 

ALISYED

12:07 AM ET

September 18, 2009

RE: Proxy War

I think you have some valid points but I do have to make some rebuttal.

Pakistan was the country that has absorbed the largest amount of refugees from the Afghan war with the Russians. I personally cannot say that I have met a single Afghani who hasn't spent some time in Pakistan, and I've met a lot of Afghanis.

For the common Pakistani, this influx of refugees has brought a lot of real problems. Over crowding, over burdened infrastructure, drug smuggling, lack of opportunities for making a decent living. These are very real and timely issues that Pakistani's face every day. The times when the Afghans ruled all the way down to the arabian sea are not merely a bygone, but an ancient era.

And just for the record, Pakistan has no aspirations to rule over India. We are too caught up in our own deluge of problems. You live in peace and let us live in peace. India initiated a nuclear arms race which Pakistan had no choice to escalate in order to maintain its own defenses. India intervened and aided in the breakup of East Pakistan into Bangladesh. You can't say that after these things there aren't going to be any bitter feelings between the two countries.

What we need now is to put the past behind us and speak of reconciliation and moving on to address our own domestic issues, not to mention, compete on the global stage. The world is moving ahead and we seem to be going backwards..

 

SREEKANTH

5:53 AM ET

September 18, 2009

>>>The times when the Afghans

>>>The times when the Afghans ruled all the way down to the arabian sea are not merely a bygone, but an ancient era.

Not that long ago, by sub-continental standards :-). Durranis were early 1800's, Mughal empire ended in the mid 1800's.

Agree about looking forward. India has wasted several decades with socialism, but at least reacted correctly to the fall of the Soviet model. Pak has wasted several decades with military rule and Islamism.

 

KHALID MUFTI

6:29 PM ET

September 19, 2009

Afghanis-Nam? Viet-Stan?

This war has already been lost. We can either come out in defeat now, or come out in defeat two years from now, with even more killed on both sides.
Take your pick.

Why should Pakistan create new enemies for itself? When we withdraw from Afghanistan, which will be sooner rather than later, the Taliban are most likely to come to power, and Pakistan will need their goodwill. Pakistan already has a hostile neighbor to the east. Why should it antagonize Afghans to the west?

Pakistani Taliban will probably cease to be a threat, once Pakistan makes up with the Afghans.

The new (old) regime in Afghanistan will ensure its territory is not used to attack other countries. This lesson has been learnt at a great price, and is not likely to be forgotten in a hurry.

 

AARUN

11:52 AM ET

September 21, 2009

Without Pakistan's Help, the US will Lose

"Why should Pakistan create new enemies for itself? When we withdraw from Afghanistan, which will be sooner rather than later, the Taliban are most likely to come to power, and Pakistan will need their goodwill. Pakistan already has a hostile neighbor to the east. Why should it antagonize Afghans to the west?"

If Pakistan starts pressuring the Afghan Taliban on their side of the border and patrols the Durand line more effectively to hinder the insurgent's freedom of movement, this war is not inevitably lost.

That being said, one of the main reasons even I am skeptical of remaining in Afghanistan is because an imperative to successful COIN operations in Afghanistan is better control of both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

The US made several strategic mistakes in the early years of the war (empowering warlords and strongmen, failing to commit enough troops and resources, invading Iraq, unconditionally supporting Musharraf, etc). However, with enough time and an unmolested sanctuary in Pakistan from which to re-group, some sort of Taliban insurgency was probably inevitable. If the US and Pakistan's interests could have coalesced in those early years, the insurgency would probably not be nearly as potent as it is now.

Pakistan ignored and refused to take on the Taliban even when they were routed and ousted from power in just a matter of weeks, implying that that their calculus toward the Taliban was exactly the same regardless of the drastic change the ground situation. Thus, I don't necessarily buy the argument that Pakistan is unwilling to fight the Taliban now only because the insurgents have the momentum in Afghanistan. It is much more complicated than that.

While I still see why Pakistan would be hesitant to threaten the Afghan Taliban now, doing so would be a game changer for the insurgency and the region. Of course, Pakistan is likely face an increased backlash from an enraged Afghan Taliban in the short-term. But Pakistan showing such a commitment would warrant US and international assistance that would dwarf the billions and billions in aid Pakistan currently receives. Perhaps such a turn-around by Pakistan would also win them the drone technology they are currently seeking (to no avail). Other resources and training would also follow. More importantly, the US would see Pakistan as more of a real ally than a opportunistic and duplicitious partner (and vice versa).

Admittedly, things may get worse in Pakistan before they could get better.

Nevertheless, the policy Pakistan is currently pursuing does not seem completely in its interest either. If Pakistan refuses to pull the plug on cultivating relationships with militant groups, the US military will probably wind up in South Asia (and possibly even Pakistan itself) again fairly soon after any withdrawl. Especially, if this time an an-Qaida attack against the US emanates from Pakistan.

 

SHABNAM KHAN

12:26 AM ET

September 30, 2009

Pakistan Govt. Should Be Given Credit

Ali Syed, Aarun, Sreekanth and all--please stop using the word "Pakistan!" ---it was the previous Musharaff goat. that let Talibans have a free ride (wonder why the US never realized?); now its a new government, and it has really taken some concrete steps to curb Talibans, and there are indeed some great results to be seen. In fact, I was wondering that despite all efforts, and some major succesful actions against Talibans there was little mention on US media; Sure, the present Pakistani government should be given credit for it!!

 

SHABNAM KHAN

12:34 AM ET

September 30, 2009

Musharaff's Govt.

Excuse error: should have written "Musharraf's govt." I wrote "Musharaff's goat" !!! Though on second thoughts hmmm..!!

 

AARUN

12:37 PM ET

September 30, 2009

Nobody is addressing my point

Shabnam -

Are you claiming that the new Zardari-led civilian government is indeed going after the Afghan Taliban, particularly its leadership in Quetta? Pakistani officials bluntly state there is "no Taliban in Baluchistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803751.html?referrer=emailarticle

While I agree it is increasingly difficult to differenitate between "Pakistani" and "Afghan" Taliban as well as between "Taliban" and local criminals or militants, there is a group of Taliban leaders that are responsible for the strategic guidance of the insurgency in Afghanistan (Mullah Omar, Mullah Berader, etc). Many of these insurgent leaders were formally part of the Taliban government from 1996-2001. The US believes they are crucial to the insurgency inside Afghanistan.

When the US cries foul against Pakistan, it is because THESE leaders were neither pursed by Musharraf nor are currently being pursued by Zardari.

 
January/February 2010