AMERICA'S NEW WAR: IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN

Maj Gen (Retd) Rafiuddin Ahmed

The tragedy that struck the USA on the 11th September was quite horrifying. The nature and the magnitude of devastation caused by the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC were gruesome and shocking and shook America and the world. No amount of condemnation can compensate the loss of innocent lives, or the pains of the bereaved families or the grief of a nation. Admittedly, America with its immense resources and power would overcome the shock, as is already evident from the rapid all round recovery being made and display of solidarity and resolve. But it will now carry the scars, which would rankle for a longtime in the memory of its people. After this tragedy, America can never be the same.

From the moment, the terrorists struck, it was abundantly clear that the US Government, indeed the entire Western world were taken by surprise. The shock and disbelief were obvious. It was a massive security and intelligence failure. But the worst must have been the loss of pride and self-esteem being the most powerful country and the painful awareness of American vulnerability to such attacks. The distance and the insulation by sea, nor the technological superiority or the most sophisticated military system, could protect the American mainland. One could therefore understand the reasons behind strong statements, even harsh and at times arrogant language being persistently used for hunting down and punishing the perpetrators and a lot of others along with them. The US government and the American people with their wounded pride would like a quick avenging response, even against a scape-goat and would not settle for anything less. This is their emotional compulsion. It may be too early but some time later when grief dissipates and anger subsides, the people may raise serious questions on the poor state of security and intelligence. But for now, vengeance is the need of the hour, though a subtle change, more sober and thoughtful has begun to overtake the prevalent fury and incivility and some voices of sanity and moderation can be heard in the threatening noises for retribution.

Following the launching of the massive manhunt, while the clues and leads were being searched for, the American and British electronic media unleashed a vicious speculation campaign. Islamic fundamentalism, jihad, religious terrorism and clash of the civilization etc re-surfaced and were inducted into discussions, creating doubts and suspicions. These were actually the defining efforts to guide the investigations in fixing the direction and the targets. All discussions on the Middle-east, particularly the area of ongoing conflict where the Israelis practice terror around the clock and with impunity were shifted on to the Talibans, Osama bin Ladin and Afghanistan. Mr. Yehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister was present from day one, perhaps to ensure that his country does not become the focus of attention. After two days of good work, the target had been defined; Osama and the Talibans. All dissenting opinions were brushed aside and the West seemed united on the American fixation and reinforced it by pledging NATO's full support. This has led to the creation of the most formidable military force in modern times. The manner in which these discussions were carried out showed pre-conceived biases against the Muslims and the targeted countries, which was quite distasteful and wholly unnecessary.

During the week following the terrorist attacks, the American high officials and the media have mainly talked about hunting down the perpetrators and their supporters and punishing them for the crime. No one would dis-agree with this objective, though the manner of its achievement would be highly complicated if not questionable. But then, everyone stops there, assuming that this would also root-out the menace of terrorism. Lately, many analysts and experts have been raising the question of eliminating the root cause and that without resolving it; terrorism will re-surface and continue to threaten the world with violence. Responsible people in the US government and the Western media have been shy of discussing the issue or making a commitment, possibly for fear of exposing Western duplicity and outright insincerity in settling political issues, such as Palestinian state and Kashmiri self determination; both lingering issues which have spilled so much blood and caused so much pains and sufferings. People do not risk or sacrifice their lives without strong motivation. The injustices, deprivations and indignities are the prime causes for terrorism. It is generally believed that the terrorist attacks on America could be an extremely violent expression of disappointment and protest, against highly partisan American policies, which had invariably been against the Muslims. Unless this vital aspect is effectively addressed, the American war against terrorism would remain a mere act of vendetta, whose moral grounds may remain a question mark.

The American investigators are claiming to have identified all the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks, have arrested a suspected accomplice and interrogating hundreds other. More significantly, credible evidence has been claimed, establishing links with Osama and his Al Qaida, which has led to declaring him as the prime suspect. Similar claims were made in the cases of Al Kobar in Saudi Arabia, US embassy bombings in East Africa and attack on USS Cole but the Americans never shared or made the evidence public. It is very likely that they would do so in Osama's case as well, though the pressures now would be very great and the American demands would be strongly resisted by the Islamicists and religious political and militant parties in the affected areas, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since the motivation dominating American resolve for action is of emotional nature, the quality of evidence would not be important. In all probability therefore the available evidence may be regarded sufficient to initiate the military adventure, though the American allies in Europe and amongst Islamic world are advising for caution and restraint.

The US government has already declared war against terrorism and singled out Osama bin Ladin and his supporters, the Talibans. It would be a novel war of its kind. The CNN has dubbed it as the `New War'. Although the operational details are not known and possibly under preparation, some of its parameters have been made public. The objectives are quite obvious: to capture Osama bin Ladin, destroy his base and training camps, capture, kill or disperse his operatives and punish the Talibans. The Americans should not be interested in capturing and holding territories, which would be a qualitative operational difference with that of the Soviets. The mobilization of 35,000 American reserves, relies heavily on the air force personnel's, indicating the likely dominant role of American airpower in the New War. Mr. Bush has talked of a long war, of sustained operations and of greater casualties but essentially this war is expected to remain confined to Afghanistan and focused on Osama and the Talibans. To undertake these operations, a powerful expeditionary force is being assembled. At this stage the nature of operation is difficult to anticipate, but the assembly and redeployment of two airborne divisions and large contingents of Rangers and Special Forces reveal the likely form of mobile 'search, locate and destroy' type of operations supported with massive air strikes and missile attacks. The likely inclusion of airborne forces indicates possibility of bigger air-mobile operations as well. Whatever its final form, knowing the forbidding nature of Afghanistan's geography, absence of communications and a hostile population, it will be an exhausting enterprise and frequently without gains. It is quite likely that the Americans may be up for new experiences in hardships. It is for these compelling reasons that Pakistan and other allies are advising the

Americans to limit her operations to the main targets only.
There is no direct land access into Afghanistan except through the CARs, Iran and Pakistan. The refusal by the former two, to allow use of their country as operational base, makes Pakistan's support, crucial for the Americans. Despite the bitterness of the past, Pakistan has acceded to the US Government's formal request for support and assistance against her war on terrorism. Perhaps the nature of serious compulsions and limitations of options were more compelling and required readjustment of policies with the emerging new situation. The inherent risks in this decision are manifest and need to be analysed.

While the people and the political leadership in Pakistan sympathize with the US on the tragedy and condemn the terrorist attacks, there are differences in the public opinion on the US military enterprise against Afghanistan and the Talibans. America's past record against Pakistan had been highly unjust and unfriendly which combined with her policies in Palestine and Kashmir and US prompted UN sanctions against the Talibans have generated strong anti-US feelings particularly amongst the religious groups throughout Pakistan, but more concentrated in the Western border-belt, directly under the influence of the Taliban orthodoxy. Thanks to the American media, Osama, hitherto a small-time Islam cist has been converted into a colossus and given a position of undue importance. In this background, the present developments could acquire a political dimension and any direct Pakistani involvement against the Taliban may prompt internal instability, even violent reactions. The level and severity of this religious backlash may not be wide enough or strong enough to cause serious internal destabilization and could be contained. However, the Taliban anger is apparent and with local support Pakistan herself may become a prime target of terrorism from Afghanistan. With increased economic burden caused by fresh influx of Afghan refugees, Pakistan would be faced with daunting challenges and grave risks by joining the American military enterprise. This would obviously impose some limitations on the nature and extent of cooperation Pakistan can offer to the US. Firstly, it could not participate in any activities that would harm her friendly standing with the Afghan people or cause further devastation and sufferings. Secondly, it could not accept a change of government that would be unfriendly to her. Continuation of the Taliban rule need not be an abiding factor. Thirdly, for reason of internal compulsion, Pakistan could not join American ground operations across the border. And for the safety of the American forces, it would be prudent not to launch ground operations from Pakistan. It is important that the US should be fully aware of these risks and compulsions.

The spectre of war is quite distasteful to many Americans and there is a simmering of opposition building up within the US against the emotional surge calling for an immediate retaliatory response against the terrorists. But for the present, the US for her own compulsions seems determined to recover her wounded prestige and reassert herself. There can be no doubt about her capability, manifest in her military power and resources. It is naïve to think that it could be resisted by the rag-tag of Taliban militia. Surely, the Afghans are brave people but today they are completely isolated and without any material support from outside. Some of our self-assumed strategists who preached world revolution after the Afghan Jihad and predicted another American Vietnam in Iraq before the Gulf war are once again foretelling doom for the Americans. It is unfortunate that they learn no lesson from the past. The Afghan people have suffered enough and besides a million lives, lost almost everything. They deserve peace, rehabilitation and re-construction. The confrontation being preached can only add to their miseries. The prevailing conditions in Afghanistan are not only a liability for the common Afghan but also a source of grave concern to her neighbours, particularly Pakistan that suffers equally from the constant influx of refugees and terrorist sallies from the protected havens of Al Qaida. Pakistan can act as a bridge to bring about positive changes in the complexion of the ruling Talibans and induce Americans to help lift the UN sanctions against Afghanistan and initiate the process of rebuilding and rehabilitation. These measures will go a long way to contain extreme orthodoxy and eradicate the culture of terrorism.

Pakistan's foremost concern is her national security. Everything else, including the Talibans or Afghanistan is of secondary importance. In a critical situation when options are dangerously limited by compelling factors, Pakistan by aligning herself with the US and the world coalition against terrorism has made a judicious decision. Although by implication it may cause internal problems, the decision has put the hostile Indian designs into complete disarray. The US rebuff seems to have thrown them out of their wits. Pakistan should therefore be ready to face and counter a vicious Indian propaganda campaign to reduce Pakistani gains. A good answer would be to make a concerted effort to induce the US for a direct and active involvement in resolving the Kashmir issue.
On the internal front, Pakistan faces two separate situations. Firstly with the Talibans, whom Pakistan has supported on every forum and earned bad name for it, sustained them with every possible means despite increasing economic pressures and took care of nearly two million refugees, despite complete lack of cooperation from them, including refusal to hand over Pakistani criminals hiding with Osama's Al Qaida. Instead, they unleashed an extreme form of orthodoxy, infecting Pakistan's border areas and exporting it into the interior, promoting militancy and sectarian terrorism. They seem least concerned about the plight of their refugees or reconstruction of their country. There is a need to bring about a qualitative change even through selective punishment of the present ruling elite. The second relate to the religious parties/groups mostly Frontier based who are making all the noises about bloodshed and civil war if Afghanistan is attacked or Osama is captured for trial in the US. Their approach is more ideological and national security is of little importance. It is a small minority, which has kept the government and the people hostage to their religious extremism. It is time to call their bluff and deal with them firmly. Finally, it would be in Pakistan's interest to ensure surrender of Osama and his Al Qaida and complete uprooting of his training camps and facilities. It will then be possible to chase the Pakistani criminals hiding in Afghanistan and eliminating the source of all extremism and misguided jihad activities from the neighbourhood, which had been posing threat to Pakistan's internal security.

Pakistan faces grave challenges. But as it is said, great opportunities also follow behind. In the present situation, these opportunities offer far-reaching benefits, which could take the country out of its present difficulties and throw it up to new levels of strength and prosperity. Pakistani leadership has already accepted the challenge. Now, they must steer the country to success with courage and determination.