When bleary-eyed Pakistanis heard on television of the death of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a unilateral American operation in Abbottabad on the night of May 1, they began to reel under a terrible shock that has, over the days, acquired the sharp edge of anger and resentment. They aren’t all card-holding members of Al Qaeda. Nor are they depressed because someone who spoke and fought against American hegemony was killed. The depth of their depression stems from the belying of the faith they reposed in the Pakistani military establishment, its ability to protect the nation, its repeated voicing of the intention to combat terror. You can’t even say their distress is needless. Decidedly, these are early days and we haven’t heard the complete and truthful narrative of ‘Operation Geronimo’, but consider what we know so far—that Americans flew into Pakistani air space, conducted a 40-minute operation at a villa close to the Kakul Military Academy in Abbottabad, killed bin Laden, took away his body and, before flying out, detonated one of their choppers, which had developed a snag and could not take off. It’s the sound of the detonation that apparently prompted the Pakistani air force to scramble its jets. At the successful conclusion of the operation, US president Barack Obama rang up Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari to convey what happened on his territory. CIA director Leon Panetta rubbed more salt in Pakistan’s wounds: he said the US did not give notice to Islamabad about the operation because it feared it may be leaked to the Al Qaeda supremo.
People question how, under the nose of the Pak army, the US could infringe on its territory. The generals are shame-faced.
And to think Pakistan had been feeding the Americans intelligence about a high-value target in the Abbottabad villa! Was this the way to treat a country that has lost hundreds of citizens in the war on terror? Was this the way to treat an ally which has witnessed countless suicide bombings over the last 10 years? What about the battle-preparedness of the Pakistan army, which allocates to itself lavish funds but was found sleeping when its air space was infringed? Such questions shamed the army into issuing a rather blank statement: “The government of Pakistan and its armed forces consider the support of the people of Pakistan to be its mainstay and actual strength and any action contrary to their aspirations, therefore, run against the very basis on which the edifice of national defence and security is based.”
You could say the first casualty in Pakistan’s Osama nightmare is the reputation of the Pakistani army. As one army officer told Outlook, “At the time of the Raymond Davis affair, we had said that we were good but not God. Today, we admit we are not even good. It is a sorry state of affairs.” Yet, he adds a caveat: “In order to reach bin Laden, the Americans would disregard the army, intelligence, anything. We have to understand this. There was absolutely no intelligence sharing about this operation.” Sounds quite reasonable at one level, but there are others who wonder whether the superior technology of the Americans could enable them to take out Pakistan’s nuclear assets as well. A senior army general scoffs at the idea. “It may not be realistic to draw an analogy between this undefended civilian area and some military/security installations which have elaborate local defence arrangements,” he says.
Obama in prayer at the 9/11 memorial in New York
Whether or not Pakistan supplied intelligence that led to bin Laden, there’s no denying that Islamabad will find it immensely difficult to ward off American pressure on key issues. As former CIA deputy chief John McLaughlin notes, “They now should feel under some great pressure to be very cooperative with us on the remaining issues, like going after the Taliban elsewhere in the country. It is called leverage.” For one, the US will push Pakistan to conduct a military operation in North Waziristan to uproot the network of Jalaluddin Haqqani, who is responsible for attacks against the American forces in Afghanistan. Islamabad, in contrast, views the Haqqani network as its strategic asset.
“From now on, the US will be dismissive about our claims. We have made our position ridiculous.”
Former ambassador Zafar Hilaly told Outlook, “Stormy conditions lie ahead for US-Pak relations. If Pakistan continues to resist undertaking the North Waziristan operation, the next stage will see America backing the forays of the International Security Assistance Force into North Waziristan, on the pretext of hot pursuit. The use of drones and special operations forays will also intensify, leading to skirmishes between the two forces.” Political commentator Ayaz Amir agrees: “From now on, the Americans will be dismissive about our claims, for we have made our position ridiculous. If we try to protest, they will simply look at us.” In disbelief.
Pakistan’s piquant position raises an important question: For how long can Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani resist cracking down on the Haqqani network and throwing a lifeline to Punjabi terrorist groups which target India? Gen (retd) Hamid Gul, a former spy master, feels the questions is irrelevant. As he told Outlook, “The Americans are unaware of what Pakistan can do. A desperate Pakistan is dangerous for the US and India and you cannot simply push us about. Where is the US without us inside Afghanistan? Pakistan should review its policy of fighting this war against terror. It should also tell the Americans to their face, ‘Yanks, go home.’”
For Dr Shireen Mazari, CEO of Strategic Technology Resource, Pakistan has to make a cost-benefit analysis. “Pakistan will now have to make it very clear whether to continue to be pushed and kicked about for a few paltry dollars or make a dignified and clean break from a so-called alliance (with America) which was never really an alliance,” she says.
Yet, there seems to be a growing clamour for Pakistan to review its strategies, stop treading in grey areas, and treat a terrorist as a terrorist without getting entangled in the rhetoric of “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”. Expressing this sentiment was a Pakistani who tweeted, “I wonder how an ordinary soldier who is fighting against Taliban feels to see that his generals and intelligence agencies are protecting the enemy (the terrorist).”
Pervez Hoodbhoy, writing in the Express Tribune, feels the killing of bin Laden is a “transformational” moment for Pakistan. He explains: “It is time to dispense with Musharraf-era cat-and-mouse games. We must repudiate the current policy of verbally condemning jehadism—and actually fighting it in some places—but secretly supporting it in other places. Until the establishment firmly resolves that it shall not support armed and violent non-state actors of any persuasion, including the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Pakistan will remain in interminable conflict both with itself and the world.” You have heard such sentiments before, haven’t you?
No comments:
Post a Comment