Disclaimer!!!


Great Nations Win without Fighting: A Third Side of the Picture
Hi there!

Here is my humble contribution on the said topic. Have a look. But before you do that I would appreciate if you spare few moments to go through the following;

This essay was written on 15th of Feb 2014 when operation had not yet launched and pacifist means were being sought by the government to deal with “gentlemen Talibans”. The nation was divided on the issue between the proponents of dialogue and supporters of a full fledged fighting with the rebels. So keep that scenario in mind.

I think it was an open topic. It had something for everyone. What I read between the lines was that the examiner was interested in the intra state insurgency going on in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas. And he had sensed our leaders’ indecisiveness; to fight or not to fight, to wage a war against the outlaws or pursue the dialogue process? I might be wrong in my assessment.

Comment only after reading it.

Do not waste your energies by highlighting what is not in the essay rather evaluate what is appearing on your computer screens.

See below for the essay.

Great Nations Win Without Fighting

By: Wish Maker

Synopsis

1) Introduction

2) " We Do Not Learn From History": History Bears Witness That Great Nations Won Through Dialogue And Not Through Fighting

a) World War 1 & 2
b) Korean War
c) Vietnam War
d) U.S war on terror and recent attempts at dialogue

3) Hostile Landscape of Pakistan: Why Pakistan Cannot Win Through Fighting But Through Dialogue?

a) The enemy is illusive and adept at neutralizing the state's superior army
b) No visible defeat of rebels in urban centers
c) Presence of Taliban's social psychological and fiscal economic strength in the tribal areas
d) Failure of the strategy of isolating out laws
e) Absence of any time line about the fighting
f) Lack of full support of the masses for the use of force

4) Dividends of a negotiated peace for Pakistan

a) Political stability
b) Economic progress
c) Improved law and order situation in the country
5) What Hampers the Dialogue Process?
a) Drone strikes
b) Trust deficit between Taliban and government
c) Failure of previous dialogue efforts
d) Confusion about who to talk to: No central chain of command in TTP

6) Winning Without Fighting: Towards a "Negotiated Peace"

a) An inclusive plan for defeating the militant ideology
b) Non- military and non-traditional solution is needed
c) Evaluation of the previous failed attempts at dialogue
d) A halt on drone strikes
e) National consensus

7) Conclusion

The Essay:

History bears witness that all the great nations in the world have won not through fighting but through dialogue. For, these are the pacifist means that bring long lasting peace and not the use of force. The mushroom growth of terrorism during the past decade and a half has posed a serious threat to the global peace and security. The events that followed in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks changed the global world order. But, Pakistan has paid a price much greater than any other U.S ally on its war on terror. The U.S led Nato Forces in Afghanistan have ultimately realized that not fighting but dialogue is the best way to combat the outlaws. The incumbent government in Pakistan too has given its consent for negotiations with the non-state actors. There are some good reasons behind the move. Pakistan cannot win through fighting because the enemy is illusive and quite adept at neutralizing the state's superior army; no visible defeat of the rebels in urban centers, absence of any time line about the end of the war and lack of full support of the masses for the use of force against the rebels. These are reasons enough to engage with Taliban for a negotiated peace.


But, drone attacks; death of Hakim Ullah Mehsoud, trust deficit between the government and Taliban, failure of previous peace deals and confusion about who to talk to as there is no central chain of command in TTP and uncertain future of the five member committee appointed by TTP to represent it in talks with government hamper the possibility of peace negotiations in the near future. This bleak picture notwithstanding, peace must be given a chance. An inclusive plan for defeating the militant ideology; bridging the trust deficit between the government and Taliban, a halt on drone strikes and a non-military and non-conventional solution can bring the belligerents to the dialogue table. It must be realized that it is a political issue which needs a political solution and not a military one.

Richard Nixon, the 37th American president observed in his book "No More Vietnams" that we do not learn from history. He was quite right. Though, he had said it for American political leadership yet it holds true for the contemporary political and military leadership of Pakistan. History bears witness that all the conflicts in the world including the two World wars, twenty years long Vietnam War and the Korean War were concluded through dialogue and not through fighting all the way.

Fighting is not a solution to attain a long lasting peace. It may bring short term peace. But a durable peace- peace with honor comes through negotiations and not through fighting. If any evidence is required to support the argument, the proposal of dialogue by U.S led Nato Forces to the Afghan Taliban is a case in point. The Americans after fighting with Taliban for twelve long years ultimately, have realized that fighting cannot win them desired results. The have come to a conclusion that this war is un-winnable. Let’s try pacifist means. Let’s try dialogue.


Pakistan cannot use force against Taliban. It is not a wise idea. There are some good reasons behind it. Firstly, the proponents of a war with Taliban fail to comprehend the nature of the war. It is not an inter-state war. It has no rear and no front. It is being fought among people. The enemy is flexible, ruthless and quite adept at neutralizing the state's superior army.


Secondly, there is no visible defeat of the rebels in urban centers. Though, the military has been able to achieve some success against Taliban in badlands yet same came cannot be said about the urban areas of the country. The Taliban at their will have launched many terrorist attacks in the urban centers. Many times, they have directly hit the law enforcement agencies.


Thirdly, the military has not been able to dismantle Taliban's social psychological and fiscal economic strategies in the tribal areas. Though it effectively damaged their physical presence yet other two aspects of the triangle remain quite intact. It is a fact that Taliban have managed to convince the tribal people that they are fighting for the just cause. Consequently, they exert a good influence on the natives. The skillful use of Radio in this regard has been very effective. Consequently, the local masses have a soft corner for the militants. The military cannot brain wash the local people. It is not trained to do that. The Taliban so far have successfully exploited these fault lines.


Additionally, there is no time line for the end to this war. There are no defined zones for war and peace. It is against the very basic rules of war. While commenting about the military failure of the United States in Vietnam, Nixon concluded that it was the violation of this rule. He advised the American troops,

“Never go into a war unless you know how and when to get out of it."
For those who are considering the option to use force against Taliban must keep this fact in mind before trading the way of war.


Last but most important, the lack of full support of the masses for the use of force against Taliban should be kept in mind before beating the drums of war with the outlaws. It has been observed that even the educated people believe that Taliban are the good tribesmen gone bad who will become law abiding citizens once the U.S leaves the region. Moreover, the incumbent government whose rightist leanings are no secret could not stand the pressure of religious parties. The celebrated Pakistani thinker Eqbal Ahmed probably, had contemporary Pakistani leadership in mind when he said,


" Democracies are not equipped to fight prolonged or limited wars totalitarian power can coerce its population into fighting indefinitely. But, a democracy fights well only as long as the public opinion supports the fighting. And, public opinion will not continue to support a war that is fought indecisively or that drags on without tangible signs of progress. It is doubly true when the war is being fought against your own people."

The dividends of a negotiated peace for Pakistan are great and manifold. It would ensure political stability in the country. Currently, the hard line Talibans are a potential threat to the political stability in the country who deny the legal system of Pakistan. The proposal of calling an All Parties Conference before announcing the future course against Taliban is a step in the right direction. It is hoped that solution other than fighting with the rebels will be stressed upon.

Equally important is the urge of the government to fix the declining economy due to deteriorated situation in the country. The peaceful settlement of Taliban problem will create a good economic environment in Pakistan. It has been envisaged that the promotion of economic climate will attract the international investors to participate in Pakistan's economy. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif while introducing his vision for the peace talks stated,


“Pakistan needs to end violence, extremism and feuds. Several Muslim and Non-Muslim countries of the World want to invest in Pakistan. But, we must have a safe and secure environment in the country."


Similarly, the negotiated peace will bring peace in the country. According to the latest survey of Global Terrorism Index, Pakistan is the most affected state by terrorism in the World. A peaceful deal with Taliban will bring a halt to bomb blasts and environment of public panic and terror in the country. The common man could take a breath in peaceful environment.

As true as it is that there are many a slip between the cup and the lips. There are many hurdles that deter the dialogue process with the outlaws. Some of the impediments that threaten the possibility of negotiations with non-state actors in the near future are; trust deficit between the government and Taliban, continuous drone strikes, the death of Taliban commander Hakim Ullah Mehsud, failure of previous peace deals between both the parties and last but critically important lack of consensus between the five member dialogue committee announced by Taliban leadership to represent TTP in the peace talks with the government. The withdrawal of Pakistan Tehrik-i- Insaf Chairman, Imran Khan and Molana Kifayat Ullah of Jamiat-i- Ulma- ul Islam Fazul ur Rehman faction have worsen the situation.


This bleak picture notwithstanding, peace must be given a chance. The pragmatic steps such as; an inclusive plan for defeating the militant ideology, proposal of a non-military and non-conventional solution, honest evaluation of the previous failed peace deals, a halt on drone strikes, bridging the trust deficit between government and Taliban and finally, a national consensus on the issue will certainly go a long way in bringing the extremists to the negotiating table.


To conclude, it must serve as a lesson for the political and military leadership of Pakistan that great nations win without fighting. Wars no matter, intra state or interstate are ugly, painful and destructive. They do more harm than good. Combating militancy lies at the heart of multiple challenges faced by Pakistan. The people of Pakistan have suffered long and hard at the hands of militancy and extremism. They have had their share of miseries and sufferings. They want peace- a peace with honor which is enduring and long lasting. It is possible through pacifist means, through dialogue and not through the use of force. It is hoped that better sense would prevail among the country's leadership and dialogue will be preferred to deal with the non-state actors. After all, all the major conflicts in the world have been resolved through dialogue and not through fighting. The great nations stood tall by winning without fighting.

__________________
"Whatever you are, be a good one"

Since you asked to comment and didn't specify who and who cannot comment so I am taking the liberty of doing it. To tell you the truth after reading the first post I was expecting something new but I was disappointed when I read it. It's just Dialogue is the best way to combat terrorism all over again. So I'm gonna ignore the dialogue part and see what's the rest of it.

The thesis of the essay is
and to prove that some examples are given. World War 1 & 2. Actually they weren't won through dialogue.
As far as Korea and Vietnam are concerned dialogue might have just concluded the war but nobody won.

The support for the thesis was inadequate and there was deviation from the main topic.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

look at muslim history and conclude...
muslims right from the beginning won through war....they tried to negotiate but when there is no chance of dialogue then ended up in war....

agreed

well written....but it lacks relavant data...
there are many examples from history ....
nice approach...wait and watch ....it depends on examiner how it perceives

@ Budha ,Wasfagillani!

Thank you for input fellows.

As I said in the beginning that it was an open topic and it had something for everyone. So far this essay has been interpreted or approached in three dimensions which are as follows:

Front side of the Picture: They approached the essay by discussing what the charatristics of great nations are, the social ‘economic, political and technological progress and bla b la

Back side of the Picture: They have negated the statement and have gone against the established view point. They are of the view that No nation has become great without fighting and so on.

Third side of the Picture: They have interpreted that it was Dialogue is the best course to combat terrorism. I happen to fall in this group of people.

Now the problem with the critics here is that they have not been able to differentiate between these different shades. Objectivity demands that every essay must be evaluated in its own domain- they way it has been approached or interpreted. I hope the honourable members will keep this important point in mind before commenting on the essay(s) in this thread.

PS: I would invite other fellows as well to share their full essays and not the outlines alone with the forum members.

Regards,

Wish maker

__________________
"Whatever you are, be a good one"

You're welcome!

The problem is not about differentiating the different shades nor is it about interpretation, it is about inference. How do you go from A to B? From A: Great Nations win without fighting to B: Dialogue is a best way to combat terrorism. What's the inferential link? Was it missing? Was it inadequate?

A could not be taken as an undeniable truth. It is debatable that is why it is topic of the essay in the first place. Without dealing with it first you could not just go to B.

Artemis wrote about this problem and that really summed up what was wrong in such an approach but that thread was deleted.

The essay is really good if the topic had been Dialogue is the best way to combat terrorism.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

@ Budha!

"Great Nations win without fighting is simply Dialogue is the best way to combat terrorism. Old wine in a new bottle. I thought most of the people (at least the sane ones) would attempt this essay in this perspective so I dropped the idea."( Budha)
http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-past-...2014-a-12.html



i m wondering that where do we go from here now?

Well! I have an idea.

Lets wait for another two months as the result for the written part is expected in October 2014. Trust me i'll do let you know about my marks in Essay. Cheer up!

__________________
"Whatever you are, be a good one"

Glad you brought that up. I was wrong and I am glad I didn't act on my first impulse and start writing on Dialogue is the best way to combat terrorism. And even if that decision was based on what majority would be writing I'm still happy that I didn't take that approach. And I kept on believing it for quite some time that it wouldn't have been a problem if such an approach were taken. Now I don't, after discussing it with a lot of people.

Pointing out what I believed 4 months ago doesn't make my recent comments null and void. I also have an idea: Stop looking for just approval. I guess you got to cheer up not me.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)