ISLAMABAD: Contrary to the Pakistan Army’s public stance on the Abbottabad debacle, its official monthly publication “Hilal”, which is published and tightly controlled by the ISPR, declares May 2 as a “big day” and accuses “some groups” in Pakistan and the US of “hijacking the response for their own self-oriented purposes”. In its latest issue available on the ISPR’s official website, the Hilal (English), in its editorial note, neither condemned the shameless breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty by the US Navy SEALs nor reflected on what the unanimously adopted resolution of parliament sought with regard to the Pak-US relations. It also does not elaborate who these groups are and what were their self-oriented purposes.
Instead Hilal, whose Patron-in-Chief is Major General Athar Abbas (the DG ISPR) and has Lt Col Tahir Mehmood as its Editor, recalled a number of terrorist attacks on US interests and the sacrifices made by Pakistan in the US war on terror to suggest that the positions of both Washington and Islamabad be re-evaluated to win this war, which is interestingly not owned by the majority in Pakistan.
For Hilal, the May 2 was a “big day” for Pakistan, however, the press release issued by the ISPR following May 5 corps commanders meeting, which was convened on this particular issue, the Army chief was quoted as saying: “COAS made it very clear that any similar action, violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, will warrant a review on the level of military/intelligence cooperation with the United States.” On the other hand, parliament, through its unanimously adopted resolution of May 13-14th, had condemned the US action. It has already been reported that some top military commanders had their input in the drafting of the said resolution.
The ISPR’s magazine, however, took a unique stance and gives the kind of impression that is neither reflective of the military top command’s public view nor echoes the will of parliament. It instead lamented, “It is ironic that immediate response to the killing of OBL on 2nd May looks to be hijacked by few groups in both the countries for their own self-oriented purposes. Pakistan Foreign Office has very deliberately taken a stance on the issue of sovereignty. However, many in Pakistan; few sympathisers of the militants, few to serve their political agenda, and few naively, started to campaign to defame the armed forces, and to the extent of ‘fighting a possible war with the US’ — of course, they are not the friends of Pakistan. This acrimony must not be the end of our alliance against militancy and terror.”
The editorial of the Pakistan Military’s official monthly Hilal is reproduced full in the following: “Reflection; Not Mere Reaction Dear Readers, 2nd May, 2011, was a big day for the US and Pakistan in particular, and for rest of the world, in general. The US has a history of attacks by the terrorists linked to al-Qaeda in recent past. Few of the attacks attributed to al-Qaeda before September 11 are: shooting down of two US Black Hawk helicopters in Somalia in 1993 and dragging the bodies of the pilots; November 1995 attack in Riyadh (KSA) killing 5 Americans; June 1996 bombing in Dhahran (KSA), killing 19 Americans and wounding 372; bombing of US embassy in Kenya on 7 August 1998, resulting in killing of 12 US citizens, 201 dead from other countries and 5,000 wounded, bombing of the US embassy on the same day in Tanzania killing 11 individuals (no American); and attack on USS Cole killing 17 and wounding 40 US Navy sailors. And then killing of 2,973 individuals and wounding thousands in attacks on USA on 11 September, 2001. The US decided to revenge this particular ‘act of war’, and also to wage war against terrorism. The above figures are quoted to convey the severity of attacks on the US and the seriousness of commitment by the US to ‘must fight and win this war’.
The US located at the distance of more than 7,000 miles from Afghanistan, hurriedly planned and launched the attacks from the North only taking 26 days from September 11, i.e. on 7 October 2001. From all accounts, this time was too less to wage a ‘Global War on terror’. However, US did it primarily relying on its military might. The US was putting only 426 people on ground once it declared ouster of Taliban regime on 7 December 2001. It was both sheer display of superiority of the modern technology over battle hardened but primitive Taliban, and, US reluctance to commit troops on ground to avoid causalities. The burden of stopping the exodus of withdrawing fighters was put on Pakistan to stop and fight at Pak-Afghan border. Pakistan decided to fight this war despite multifaceted fundamental limitations. The US expected that aid will actually empower Pakistani troops to win them this war which US was reluctant to fight by putting more troops on ground inside Afghanistan. The US relied mostly using massive air bombing. Pakistan tried its best, but one must admit the enormity of the task. Later, onus of burden always remained on Pakistan to ‘Do More’. We could also not convey that it was more US responsibility to confine this war to Afghanistan. Once we tried to stop incursions on the border, to many assumptions, we stood short of desired results.
However, Pakistan has much to prove its commitment in war on terror, putting over 0.1 million troops in the war for more than 10 years; conducting numerous operations against terrorists including air and aviation component; suffering over three thousand casualties from armed forces including generals, brigadiers, officers and men, and over 30,000 civilian casualties; killing of a former Prime Minister, twice life attempts on the then sitting President and Prime Minister, and, uncountable attacks including GHQ, PNS Mehran, ISI detachments, Marriott Hotel, shrines, business plazas, schools etc is a long tale of sufferings by the people of Pakistan. This all reflects our seriousness to fight this war that has proved too costly hitherto.
The above cited examples show that both Pakistan and the US are very serious contenders in war on terror. The gap between the two may be of over-expectation and over-estimation. The need is to once again re-evaluate the position of each other, and, win this war which must not be restricted to killing of few individuals only, it is ironic that immediate response to the killing of OBL on 2nd May looks to be hijacked by few groups in both the countries for their own self-oriented purposes. Pakistan Foreign Office has very deliberately taken a stance on the issue of sovereignty. However, many in Pakistan; few sympathizers of the militants, few to serve their political agenda, and few naively, started to campaign to defame the armed forces, and to the extent of ‘fighting a possible war with the US’ — off course, they are not the friends of Pakistan. This acrimony must not be the end of our alliance against militancy and terror. Similarly, many in the US started alleging Pakistan for sheltering the terrorists, and, portrayed Pakistan as a ‘next possible target’. The threats of cutting US aid often touches the fringes of humiliation. ‘It looks we never knew each other and are disgusted foes’. This must not be the end of repeated vows by the US, not to abandon Pakistan’, and of ‘lasting strategic partnership’.
The time and event dictates that both the countries show much reflection, deliberation and maturity to construct a ‘more workable relationship’ for future. The often alleged ‘impatience’ on part of the US and ‘inefficiency’ on our part should not be limited to media rhetoric. The point of concerns must be looked into deeply. They are getting impatient due to ‘cross-border violations’ and ‘possible sanctuaries’, and, we detest coercion to ‘Do More’ all the time. ‘We cannot blindly initiate a war in all parts of the country leading to a greater destabilization of the state’. It must be admitted that both the countries have their own few peculiar interests, and few common interests. It is time to show a greater understanding and mutual respect for each others’ concerns and work on attaining the common interests. Pakistan is committed to its obligations to the international community as per UN Security Council binding resolutions to provide support in war on terror, and, so should be the US and Western World to the sensitivities of Pakistan. The end of ten years alliance must not be bitter and damaging.
It is time to show great reflection, consideration and understanding to rid this region from extremism on long-term basis; and not pose threats to Pakistan’s sovereignty and security — in any case, and, by anyone.”







Military magazine calls May 2 a ‘big day’