The United States can defeat terrorism in Pakistan through political means. Defeating terrorism in Pakistan means a defeat to terrorism in the entire world. The US must exert pressure on Pakistani rulers to show sincerity in war on terrorism or leave the corridor of power. One thing should be kept in mind, Pakistan cannot survive without the support from the United States.
According to Pakistan's leading newspaper comment: As Monday’s suicide attack near the air force complex in Kamra shows, the militants are resolved on demonstrating that they are prepared to strike at anyone connected to the armed forces, even the young children of military employees. One can only be thankful that, apart from the bomber, there were no fatalities and that the children, who were being driven to school in a military vehicle at the time of the attack, escaped with injuries that are reported not to be life-threatening.
But as the Islamists extend their definition of ‘military targets’, one wonders where they will strike next — and whether even tight precautionary measures at places like hospitals and schools catering to the families of security employees would be enough to guard against the determination of a single suicide bomber. In fact, as the arena of conflict widens in the country, and batches upon batches of indoctrinated young men are sent out to kill in the name of religion, all lines become blurred. Non-combatants — regardless of whether or not they have connections with security personnel — are as exposed to violence as those directly targeting the extremists. Brutalised, for they have seen their own women and children being killed in indiscriminate attacks by security forces, the Islamists have entered a phase where the principles of just war no longer have any meaning, despite the militants’ commitment to what they perceive as a moral cause.
But it is not only the mindset of the militants that is distorted. Society, too, indulges in similarly warped thinking. In addition to sympathising with the Islamists’ anti-US stance and justifying their anger against western clout that has spawned economic inequality and despotic regimes, there is a tendency to endorse the ‘moral order’ that the militants want to impose on society. Thus, all kinds of atrocities are tolerated. Not a murmur is heard when women, accused of indulging in wayward acts, are beheaded, or when public executions (bypassing state justice) are conducted in the name of purging society of undesirable elements. Little concern is enunciated by the educational authorities when girls’ schools are bombed. If at all there is any protest at the way young boys are brainwashed in seminaries and then dispatched on suicide and other missions, it is muted.
The liberals lack the courage, possibly even the numbers, to come forward and forcefully explain why moral policing and extreme religiosity have no place in a society which would be better off concentrating on how to improve the lives of its people. Taking advantage of their silence, dogmatic elements propound views that fuddle clear thinking. This is the phenomenon that is described as Talibanisation. The latter does not merely pertain to actual deeds of violence in the name of religion. It is also a state of mind.
Another newspaper stated that the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) has thrown its founder party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), out of the “movement” along with other “deviant” parties and declared its intent to embark on a mass movement against the Musharraf establishment. The other parties who are supposed to have succumbed to the lure of elections are: Awami National Party (ANP), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUIF), and Mutahidda Jamiat Ahle Hadith (MJAH). The 12 left inside the movement are all minnows with intensity compensating for lack of stake, except the Jama’at which has cadre clout.
The convenor of the APDM, Raja Zafarul Haq, has been replaced by Mahmood Khan Achakzai of Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP) and the stage is set for an aggressive plan of action after the December 18 “national conference” in Islamabad. The APDM without its founder also declared its final verdict on the MMA when its president, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, asserted that it was “no more an election alliance”, and that he as MMA president would not allow anyone to use the alliance’s election symbol, a book, without his consent. The new APDM will have a regional undertow with sub-nationalist parties helping to maintain its aggressive plank.
What will the national scene be like immediately after this development and in the days to come? The new-look APDM will get the residual kudos from a disappointed civil society and its legal and educational components. The media will give the rejectionists fair coverage and the country will ring to two kinds of charges levelled against the establishment: charges of malfeasance by those who are participating and even more extreme charges of betrayal of the nation by the rejectionists. There will of course be a third stream of expletives aimed by the purists against the mainstream PPP and PMLN for having “sold the nation down the river”.
More seriously, there will be encroachments from another challenge that politicians have by and large ignored because paying attention to it would have drawn the venom of their attacks against the Musharraf establishment. Trouble will be aplenty in the Tribal Areas and more operations will follow the Swat one where Al Qaeda has been forced to beat a temporary retreat. The reaction to the coming developments in the Tribal Areas will be varied. The PMLN will denounce the military option being exercised and will promise to sort out the issue if it is voted to power. The PPP will be muffled in its criticism but will not be totally in agreement with the anti-terrorist strategy in deference to its vote bank which remains a part of the national anti-American consensus. The APDM will be far more active in its opposition to these operations. Its agitational strategy will actually rely on the persistence of trouble in the Tribal Areas. Its cadres will be out on the road and each time an act of terrorism takes place it will blame the government for it and try to mobilise the masses, unwittingly supporting Al Qaeda’s policy of consolidating its hold on the Tribal Areas. In Balochistan, the resonance of the APDM with the common man will be far more pronounced than in Punjab. There could be more trouble there once the APDM begins to stage its protest. The real leader of the APDM, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, will use the Al Qaeda trouble to try to cut the ground from under the feet of his rival, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUIF, accusing him of having walked over to the American side.
Does Al Qaeda have a strategy for these troubled days ahead? The latest news is that warlord Baitullah Mehsud has warned that he will disrupt elections if his captured fellow-terrorists are not released. After his threat, the 15 candidates who had filed their papers for South Waziristan have declared that they had no choice but to withdraw their candidature. This kind of situation may recur. Baitullah has done this before. Earlier, tribal elders had negotiated a deal between the government and Baitullah under which 25 suspects were freed in exchange for 247 captured soldiers. The fact is that Al Qaeda can strike anywhere in Pakistan with its suicide-bombers. And it can choose the political parties it is going to hit.
But the mainstream wisdom is in favour of taking part in elections. No matter what the small parties with extreme agendas decide to do, the participation of the PPP and the PMLN in the January 2008 elections will set the stage for new governance in Pakistan. A number of issues will have to be looked at differently by the new parliament which is predicted to be split. Above all, there will have to be a fresh approach to the issue of the independence of the judiciary; secondly, there has to be a final resolution of the quarrel over the nature of civil-military relations in the country.
The suicide bombing directed at a truck carrying schoolchildren just outside the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra, on Monday, is a dastardly act that needs be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It was, however, sheer good luck that the driver kept his presence of mind. This helped save the lives of the occupants of the vehicle, though 18 children were still injured. Whatever grouse the militants might have against the government, targeting innocent young children could not be justified by any stretch of imagination. It cannot be conceived as a 'legitimate' military target of the resistance forces and would, in fact, raise serious questions in the light of Islamic principles. There is a clear need for the Ulema to play their role and come forward to apprise these misguided fighters of the so-called holy war of the real teachings of Islam. The End
Muhammad Khurshid, a resident of Bajaur Agency, tribal areas situated on Pak-Afghan border is journalist by profession. He contributes articles and news stories to various online and print newspapers. His subject matter is terrorism. He is also (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
I already knew some of it but still I am upset of the horror you describe. However, I think you made a mistake when you said there are things the US can do.
The US is like an elephant fighting some crazed mice, and pulling down the circus tent and tearing every thing up won’t stop the mice. However, individuals like yourself are doing something. So did the Queen of Jordan until al Qaeda agreed to leave Jordan alone. One Muslim cleric on the anniversary of the Madrid bombing in Spanish called bin Laden a traitor to Islam, which noone over her bothered to translate. When Bush began to change, apologizing for Abu Ghraib abuse in front of the King of Jordan he wasn’t praised by anyone. Then Republican Leader Bill Frist was going to call for bipartisan detention reform. Unfortunately he waited for during a grim speech on the additional Abu Ghraib photos Congress privately viewed, and was cut off the air by a news bulletin.
I remember the enthusiasm watching Britain’s largest peace demonstration at the start of the war filled with puppets, floats, and people everywhere. But a news bulletin cut it off the air then it began got on the air again, me and a person watching lost all our enthusiasm. By the way, after bin Laden on the internet demanded that Iraqis not vote, suddenly organizing around the theme that the war had nothing to due with fighting terrorism slowed considerably.
I have been speaking up and once in a one in a while the things I send around actually gets published on this subject. I hope your pleas, leads us readers to copy you a little instead of making people less enthusiastic about fighting for defense cuts. PS There are some people who are doing a good job fighting terror like the Daniel Pearl Foundation named after the beheaded correspondent, but get upset by that claim.
by
RichardKane (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 12, 2007 at 4:33:47 PM
You do not seem to understand that , as Dom so eloquently posts below, the USA is the chief cause of so-called world wide terrorism and the US military is no solution to a problem that can only be resolved when we all learn to share the worlds resources.
Your post contributes to the assumption by far too many that what is theirs is, by right of might and past history our own property. Just like Mr. Khurshid, and for whatever reason, you support this myth of a "world wide terrorist army" that hates us for our freedom. This is sheer nonsens and should be equivocated to the 'let them eat cake" solution to a serious problem.
Mr. Khurshid bemoans the fighting in Pakistan, which he should of course, yet refuses to see that it is the dictator in all but name,, Musharrif, who is the chief contributor to that violence. It is he who harbored bin Laden, it is he who arrests journalists and disbands the chief court in the land, it is he who stands between his people and democracy.
It seems to me that Khurshid is a spokesman for Bush policies and Musharifs dictatorial ambitions. It further seems to me that posters who advocate more military solutions to a problem that is caused by too many having too little are simply guilty of buying into lies and being manipulated far toe easily.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 13, 2007 at 7:03:44 AM
I don't think the US can stop terrorism anywhere. They are the cause, the reason that it happens. Americans kill thousands of Iraqi children and no one condemns those acts? I find that people neglect to consider Mahatma Gandhi's message years ago and his example in being nonviolent gains greater rewards than using violence and bombs. People who want change need to get rid of their military ambitions. All nations will fall who support militaries, militias, guerillas, resistance fighters, patriots, whatever you want to call it. When you start dividing people into them against us, the ideals of terror grow. It is not about us against them, Pakistan against India, America against AlQaida. It is about realizing real men don't fight wars, there is no honor in it, no glory, no justice. That my fellow conrades is the lie, being told. Peace begets peace. Victims of terror are our example in registering that they who do not use guns and violence and are terrorized without fighting back are the people we honor, place dignity upon, and surround our struggle upon in identifying all national goals of respect and supporting humanity. I ask you and all to take upon Gandhi's example and be a compass toward peace.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Thursday, Dec 13, 2007 at 5:06:51 AM
Muhammad, hoping that George Bush will solve Pakistan's problems would be like waiting for Godot, if you have ever seen that play. In other words, you will die of old age before this happens.
by
Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 13, 2007 at 8:26:48 AM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....