The recent visit to Pakistan by the U.S Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and Admiral Mike Mullen highlighted the growing differences between Pakistan and the United States on how to tackle the threat of Pakistani Taliban. At another level, their visit also signified an emerging consensus between Pakistan’s political leadership and security establishment that it can not afford to give in to the U.S. demands and need to chart a different course.
As a recent Dawn editorial noted, the visiting U.S. team was taken aback by the tone of Pakistani officials. Instead of arm-twisting Pakistan into agreeing to joint military operations in the tribal areas, they were confronted with a barrage of criticism and the visit ended with a rare and public acknowledgment of the differences between the two sides. While the PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has been forceful in his opposition to these attacks for quite some time, it appears that the Prime Minister Gilani, President Zardari and the COAS Gen. Kiyani has finally thrown their weight behind this argument. Also a recent report from the bipartisan National Security committee condemned such attacks in the “strongest possible manner”.
Ironically its the Americans that deserve most of the “credit” for causing this convergence of thinking in Pakistan. A sustained campaign of charges in the U.S. press against the ISI for its alleged links with militants led by the senior U.S. Generals coupled with the threat of an expansion in drone attacks to cover Baluchistan and settled parts of Pakistan has finally convinced the national leaders to come out against the U.S. plans. Pakistan is also frustrated at the United States for its failure to make Pakistan’s strategic interests in Afghanistan a part of its new strategy for the region.
While it is too early to know if Pakistan can put up enough resistance to stop these attacks by unmanned aircrafts, it is good to see the change in nation’s attitude. Sovereignty is something that you either use or loose and in the case of Pakistan, we have opted for the later for the past 8 years. No one can deny the emerging threat of Taliban emanating from Pakistan’s tribal belt yet no sovereign country can allow such attacks by a foreign power. The western media often cites the killing of high-level Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders to justify such tactics but they often fail to recognize the impact of such attacks at the strategic level: in addition to the backlash caused by the civilian casualties, these attacks put Pakistan government and army in an impossible situation that they can’t possibly cope with. They have also caused the Taliban to move eastwards into the more settled areas where such attacks are not possible due to population density. A recent report in the Foreign policy magazine summarized the situation as follows:
The US administration justified the drone attacks by claiming it would deny the militants a ‘safe haven’ in Pakistan.‘This line of argument sounds persuasive, but it falls apart on closer examination. For starters, it is not clear that al Qaeda requires a safe haven to do damage, especially since the original organisation has metastasised into smaller groups of sympathisers.’
The magazine pointed out that only a large-scale invasion could eliminate al Qaeda from the region but such an invasion was impossible and therefore there was little reason to continue the drone attacks.
‘US military strikes in Pakistan —even limited ones —tend to undermine the Pakistani government and increase the risk that Pakistan will become a failed state,’ the report noted.
Can someone please give me a count of how many Muslims have been murdered by the Taliban and other suicide bombers etc. since the beginning of the year. And how many by the US drones?
You can never entrust your defence in the hands of others. Even if there is a genuine need of attacks, US should not be allowed to do it. Pakistan should be operating in it’s own area.
Uptill now, in all the drone attacks, there is no proof provided by US that there were Taliban in those places that were bombed. Women and children have died in these attacks. So US better stop this.
I think this is a very pertinent topic to discuss. Reading the print media, and following the talking heads on our electronic media suggests that there is a strong consensus in Pakistani society against Drone attacks. I don’t disagree. But the above statement only holds true when we talk about urban populations. What about the people of the tribal areas? What are their views on this matter?
The only study that has examined the views of the people of the tribal areas is one conducted by the Aryana Institute, the findings of which are summarized by Dr. Farhat Taj here.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=1657 81
Now, it may be right that many of us Pakistanis, most of whom have an urban background consider these drone attacks a violation of our national sovereignty. That’s true. But for the people of the tribal areas, Dr Taj persuasively argues, they are the only force that is attacking their oppressors, the Taliban.
Thoughts?
It’s the only way to eliminate elements (foreign and alien) who have occupied our land when our Army is surrendering again and again. If it ever comes to this, I will be fine bombed by UN forces than lashed by Taliban but before that I will fight for what is my country against Taliban
The problem is the billions of dollars of aid money. Nobody is giving away money for free in this economy. This basically is a compromise of sovereignty in lieu of a few billion dollars. The first step has to be refusal to accept money.
But that would amount to a confrontation mode with America. That may not be desirable. However, nobody is giving solutions to Obama on what is a feasible alternative to Drone attacks. Pakistani official agencies are perceived by the West to be sympathetic to the Taliban.
Obama is not gonna trust Pakistani autorities who made the deal with SWAT taliban to take out high value Al-Qaeda targets. He would rather take that responsibility under his own direct control.
Someone needs to give him a feasible logical alternative. Simple dissent (after accepting the dollars) will not work.