Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 4:05 PM

During a briefing at his office in the garrison town of Rawalpindi earlier this month, Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani staunchly defended Pakistan's efforts to combat the militant groups operating on its territory, while pointing toward the still-prominent perceived threat from India as a reason for not taking the operations further.
"During our counterterror campaign we have lost 2,273 army and paramilitary soldiers including three generals, five brigadiers, as many as 73 senior intelligence operatives, and also faced the blowback from Islamist militants," Kayani told us, citing internal instability, a violent spate of suicide bombings -- 87 in 2009 alone -- and an adverse impact on Pakistan's economy.
The Pakistani Army has been conducting counterinsurgency campaigns in 11 tribal areas plus Swat since 2007, including some 209 major military operations, and has committed almost 150,000 of its 550,000-troop army to this effort in the northwestern border regions, the general told us. Kayani noted that Pakistan remains concerned about India's Pakistan-specific military capability, as six of India's 13 strike corps are currently deployed along the border, and India's involvement in Afghanistan is ongoing.
Kayani also pointed to the "Cold Start doctrine" propounded by archrival India and the talk of "limited war" under a "nuclear overhang," suggested by the outgoing Indian army chief in November, saying that this policy and rhetoric do alarm Pakistan's security apparatus. "You plan on an adversary's capability and not intentions," Kayani explained. While the capability takes years to build, intentions may change overnight and Pakistan simply cannot depend on other's intentions, he reasoned.
"I explained to NATO leaders in Brussels [during a recent security conference there] that understanding Pakistan's strategic framework would help them understand the situation in a much better way," Kayani said. Before his late January presentation in Brussels, Kayani had made a similar forceful case before the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the Army's headquarters in Rawalpindi. "If you care about India getting upset, care about us as well. You have to balance the concern for India with concern for our interests," was the blunt message he described.
Kayani reiterated Pakistan's commitment to a "peaceful,
stable, and friendly Afghanistan." As he said
earlier this month, "We cannot wish for Afghanistan anything that we don't
wish for Pakistan." In this context he brushed aside the allegations of
Pakistan pursuing "a strategic depth policy" in Afghanistan. "This does not
imply controlling Afghanistan. If Afghanistan is peaceful, stable, and friendly
we have our strategic depth because our western border is secure... You're not
looking both ways -- as simple as that."
Kayani again insisted that Pakistan must "consolidate our gains and fully stabilize the areas secured, lest they fall back to terrorists," in response to the oft-repeated demand from the U.S. that Pakistan move against militants based in North Waziristan. "Constraints of our capability to absorb and operate, limited cutting edge counterintelligence and counterterrorism capability, and limited budgetary space should be factored in," he said, referring to last fall's Pakistani military operations in South Waziristan, which had served as a of terrorism for Pakistani, Arab, and Uzbek Islamist militants. Kayani explained that the Army had managed to hamper militant logistics and restrict operating space in North Waziristan.
From that, it's straightforward to discern that Kayani's army would far prefer to choose the scale and timing of any military operations into North Waziristan, rather than be dictated to by the United States. The Army says that any "military adventures into the tribal regions require extreme caution and consideration for the future." International troops will not be in Afghanistan forever, the Pakistani argument runs, so in several years Pakistan will be on its own to co-exist with the very tribes that would be hurt when or if the Pakistani Army moves against the militants nestled among them. Thus, Kayani has been explaining to the U.S. and NATO that Pakistan must balance the West's comparatively short-term interests in containing and eliminating the insurgencies with its own long-term objectives, namely securing its western border without offending the tribes that live in that region.
And when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said in December that he "couldn't give the Pakistani Army anything but an ‘A' for how they've conducted their battle so far," it was after Mullen had spent several hours flying over the mountains and gorges of Pakistan's Swat Valley with Kayani. Mullen was apparently so impressed that he asked Kayani to take the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal on a similar tour so he could "get a sense of how and what you need to fight in such a difficult terrain," according to the general.
McChrystal flew over from Kabul shortly thereafter for the detailed aerial view of Swat's hilly and forested topography that had served as a natural sanctuary for the terrorists of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and left with an appreciation for Pakistan's counterinsurgency campaign, according to Kayani. For Kayani, who took charge of Pakistan's army in November 2007, this was hard-earned praise.
And recently, President Obama asked Congress
for an additional $500 million to support Pakistan. If approved, the ‘Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund' would jump to $1.2 billion in the fiscal
year beginning on October 1, 2010, and the money under the fund would be
used to train and equip the Pakistan military to fight militants more
effectively along the Afghan border.
Several Pakistani generals, including Kayani, believe the praise by Mullen and the subsequent request by Obama for additional counterinsurgency funding for their anti-militant reflects a new understanding among the coalition of Pakistani concerns and constraints. The language and vocabulary emanating from Washington and London toward Islamabad has changed in recent months, a prerequisite for creating greater trust among the coalition partners, according to Pakistani generals. Let us see what wonders the changed vocabulary can work in the coming months.
Imtiaz Gul heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad. He is the author of Most Dangerous Place -- Pakistan's Lawless Frontier, due out in May by Penguin USA/UK.
AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
A new understanding for the U.S. and Pakistan?
Whereas it is applaudable that prima facie the Pakistanis have tried to lend a helping hand in the war against terrorism, it must always be remembered that within the Pakistan set up there are too many role-players involved that have turned tackling the issue into an impossible adventure.
Pakistan's military intelligence agency, ISI, refuses to recognize the realities of time. The ethos of this agency is frozen in the Cold War times. Those running the ISI still believe that it is very much possible to 'conquer' India, 'liberate' Kashmir and 'capture' Kabul!
The Taliban elements within the Establishment (a blend of civilian and military bureaucracy) will never allow any action against the 'real Taliban' to succeed. The military operations during the last one year or so in the northern areas of Pakistan, the so-called 'action' against the insurgents, has been, in actuality, just a farce. Sources say that no action was ever taken against the main leadership of the terrorist outfits hiding in the mountains/caves, etc.
Pakistan enormously depends on Saudi aid. The Saudis want fundamentalism to spread in the 'satellite' countries like Pakistan. The Saudi sponsored Wahibism is a scourge that has eaten away the very roots of the country. The 'marketing' of the Saudi brand of Islam has been aggressive and intense, to say the least.
Impressing upon the US that Pakistan has made great sacrifices in the war against terrorism may not be enough for General Kayani to convince Washington to 'reset' its policy or understand Pakistan's situation differently.
The fact of the matter is that something is not right within the Pakistani setup - something that, firstly, makes it harder to comprehend as to why every Tom, Dick and Harry associated with terrorism is either trained in Pakistan or seeks shelter in that country. Why not Bangladesh or India or Sri Lanka?
Secondly, why can the authorities in Pakistan not produce the big wigs of the terrorist organizations? Why is it always those who carry out the orders get caught and not the ones that give orders?
Moreover, why are Pakistan's neighbors never happy about its role within their respective frontiers? India, Iran, Afghanistan, all have serious grievances about Pakistan meddling in their affairs.
Why can Pakistan not accept US assistance within its borders to act against the fundamentalists? Is there something that Pakistan is hiding?
Why has Pakistan been so non-cooperative with respect to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks? Why is India having such a hard time obtaining basic information about the terrorists involved from Islamabad?
Therefore, next time before General Kayani ventures to defend Pakistan or its policies vis-a-vis combating terrorism, he should be ready with the answers to some very straightforward questions.
It is really easy to act as a victim but it is definitely hard to acknowledge one's follies and work on rectifying one's flaws. It is time that the Pakistanis come out clean.
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE