More terrorism

December 10th, 2011

The same phrases, the same clauses, the same rhetoric is being heard again. Even the tone and tenor in which the words are uttered are unchanged. Following a blast targeting a Ranger’s vehicle at Gulistan-e-Jauhar in Karachi, the interior minister has ordered an inquiry and security has been placed on high alert in the city. In the past, such measures have had little impact in stopping militancy. What guarantee is there that they will work this time round? And then, what quite are our options? What can we do to stop the militants? The many questions need answers.

The latest incident, in which three Ranger’s personnel died and several others were injured, took place when a roadside bomb exploded. The paramilitary force was quite apparently the target — as it has been in the past. The toll could have been higher, we are fortunate it was not. But we also know that, in the future — other attacks will occur; other people will die. This has been the pattern in the past — there is no sign at all that there is any change in this scheme, or any alteration in the essential realities that fuel militant violence of so many kinds in our country. The unique tensions that ravage Karachi add a dangerous twist to the acts of militancy that take place so often in that city — donning at times a sectarian mask, at others, an ethnic one, or another rooted in the battle between militants and security forces.

There is, when we think rationally and with logic, only one way really to break this cycle. It should not lie beyond the capacity of our security network, and the intelligence agencies that form a part of it, to infiltrate the groups at work, to know who runs them, who funds them and what motivates them. Knowing all we can about these organisations is a crucial step in the task of stopping them and anticipating their plans, so they can be stopped before they strike again, in the process claiming more lives and inflicting more suffering of the worst possible kind.

OBL raid — awaiting answers

December 10th, 2011

The commission set up to investigate the US Navy SEALS mission on May 2 that killed Osama bin Laden should have twin objectives — to find out why the military was asleep at the wheel while the territory it is zealously supposed to protect was so easily violated by the Americans and, even more importantly, how the most-wanted terrorist in the world was able to find refuge in a tranquil cantonment town within our borders. Unfortunately, a press conference by the chairman of the commission, Justice (retd) Javed Iqbal, seemed to confirm that he is interested only in looking into the former aspect of the raid. He stated unequivocally that the May 2 raid was indeed a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty but had nothing to say about whether Bin Laden’s presence in the country was the result of an intelligence failure or whether he had help from elements in the government or the military.

Regrettably, any pronouncement about our sovereignty being violated by the US needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. We do not yet definitively know whether the US acted alone or with the permission of either the civilian or military leadership of the country. In the past, the establishment has not been very forthcoming about the level of its involvement with the US.

Justice Iqbal also criticised Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, for issuing visas to hundreds of Americans, which he said were given without much scrutiny. After memogate, Haqqani seems to have become a convenient scapegoat for all those who do not approve of either the current government. We sincerely hope that the OBL commission does not fall prey to the same temptation or else the credibility of its final report may be called into question.

The fact is that Haqqani alone would not have had the authority to issue these visas; it would have required approval from the interior ministry and background checks by the security agencies. This may only be a small detail but it needs to be addressed since we would not want to see the commission whitewashing the role of the military at the expense of the elected government.

DGMO briefing on Salala

December 10th, 2011

In a briefing to the Senate Standing Committee on Defence, the director-general of military operations Major-General Ashfaq Nadeem, echoing what he had told journalists earlier, showed no hesitation in claiming that the US attack on a checkpost in Mohmand Agency that killed 24 Pakistani security personnel was deliberate and pre-planned. As confident as he may be in his proclamation, there is good reason to avoid jumping to so swift a conclusion. Since 9/11, the Pakistan military has benefitted to quite an extent from US aid and for them to now take such a stance without waiting for the results of the inquiry may, perhaps, not be the best course of action.

The DGMO also ruled out the possibility of Pakistan being a part of the US inquiry into the incident, saying that such investigations are invariably little more than a whitewash. For the military to refuse to even cooperate with the American investigation is unwise. If indeed its worst fears are confirmed and the US is interested in little else than covering its own backside, Pakistan would be on stronger ground if it first gives the inquiry a chance before pulling out in anger. There are many questions about the attack that remain unanswered, like how communications between the two sides broke down to such an extent that the attack carried on for two hours or how the US supposedly mistook a checkpost, of whose coordinates they were previously aware, for a militant hideout. The answers to these questions will likely reflect poorly on the US, whether the attack was carried out by mistake or by design, however, a joint investigation by the two countries is the best way to discover what exactly happened. But now that Nadeem has dug his heels in and shown that the military is in no mood to cooperate, we are unlikely to ever get the full details of the attack.