Saving Pakistan

by Ali Ahmed

May 27, 2011

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/27/saving-pakistan/

That Pakistan is too important a state to be allowed to fail is long acknowledged. For the US, its strategic location and being the locus of ‘terror’ lend it significance. For China, it is useful for tying down India. For India, a nuclear-armed Pakistan would likely prove a greater headache were it to go under. For Pakistanis themselves, Talibanization would be most unwelcome. Not that Pakistan is about to tip over, but well-wishers prefer it draw back from the brink. The prescriptions extant are, however, wanting in strategic sense.

The Americans prefer Pakistan take on the extremists head on. They want their bases south of the Durand line wrapped up. They are prepared to assist the regime all the way in this. Indians want Pakistan to ‘roll back’ the infrastructure of terror directed against India. A Pakistan that is not a terror sanctuary is a desirable end state. The point is how to get there.

The US, no stranger to the use of force, would not mind this being done militarily and through some tough policing. India would likewise not be averse to seeing Pakistan in the trouble that would surely ensue. It can be argued that the high profile terror attacks that have shown the Army to be less than all powerful lately are the work of the better lot of terrorists. With their numbers dwindling with each such attack, they would be less credible. The state will prevail once it resolves to do so. Society wishing to see the back of terror would be supportive. Therefore all it takes is a decision and resolution.

However, the idea of Pakistan taking on the terrorists in its midst misses the fact that they are considerably strong. The terrorism Pakistan has been subjected to over the past four years clearly indicates that the opposition is fairly well armed, determined, battle hardened, ruthless and will prove a formidable foe. In contrast, the state and society are divided and consequently possibly not as resilient. The military leadership, which alone can take the decision, is well aware of the imbalance in relative strengths. This makes it stay its hand.

The military leadership has over the years been unwilling to undertake the task. The inference most drew from this was that the military intends to use terrorists as ‘strategic assets’ later in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. Therefore it is preserving them.  While this may indeed be the case, the position advanced here is that they are more keenly aware that rolling back the terrorists militarily is possibly impossible. It would endanger the state, create civil war conditions in society, and would likely break the institutional cohesion of the Army. The latter would compound the former problems.

The scenario the Army possibly fears is quite likely. It is not inaccurate to suggest that the better lot of terrorists are being used in the strategic attacks currently. However, were the Army to ‘go after’ the terrorists both in their mountain fastness in remote areas and elsewhere in the country, it would lead to a surge in their ranks. The Algerian case of the early nineties is instructive in this regard. Over one hundred thousand Algerians died, and the emergency has only been lifted after the onset of the Arab spring. Since Pakistan’s population is about four times the size of Algeria, the blood bath would be about as much higher. There is no guarantee the good guys would triumph. The feared outcome of loose nukes would draw closer.

Avoiding this outcome is best. Even if this logic does not drive the Army and it has more nefarious ideas propelling its inaction, it is all for the good. Nevertheless, it remains as to be answered as to what then needs doing.

The long term solution to Pakistan’s problems has been around longer than the short term military solution has. Pakistan should reform itself, beginning with land reforms. It needs to invest in education and employment generation. If this entails opening up to the South Asian economy, then so be it. Reordered civil-military relations and a military budget revised downwards will help. Since this implies reining in the military, it is somewhat wishful. Besides, these reforms amount to the traditional elite committing hara-kiri, an equally unlikely proposition. The idea requires civilian political agents with moral authority, intellectual capability and political will. This has historically been in short supply in Pakistan.

Given that both the short term and long term suggestions of well-wishers are less than viable, what is the alternative? The first principle must be to do no further harm. Pakistan is overstretched as it is. Secondly, the alternative must reckon with what is available in terms of human material, political conditions and social forces. Thirdly, demands must not only be on Pakistan, but must be made of those imposing on its stability even as they desire it remain stable.

It needs recognizing that terror has a context. It has not emerged out of a vacuum. A war has been waging in the vicinity of Pakistan for over thirty years. Others have profited from this war strategically over various times, as indeed has Pakistan. It is time for peace for the Afghan people. All sides in this are unanimous on this score, since all claim to be friends of Afghan people. A closure would require strengthening the reconciliation process underway.

This means that the US must join Karzai at the other side of the table. With Osama bin Laden eliminated and Mullah Omar reportedly done away with, there is little reason for the ISAF to stick around militarily. That US financing of reconstruction and peace-building would be essential, it does not require an operationally involved military presence.

With this one initiative, it can be surmised that the terrorist backlash in Pakistan will wither over time. It needs mention that the terror attacks are messages from extremists to caution Pakistan against going down the military route at the behest of its friends. Once the war draws towards a negotiated end, there would be little rationale for terrorism. This does not mean that terrorists will go away. They can be made to vanish with the long term solution being unfolded alongside. The ability, policy space and attention span to get ahead with these initiatives will only increase with the internal tensions subsiding.

Such actions over the long term alone can detoxify Pakistan. Suggestions however well-meaning for a military denouement require revising accordingly.

Coping with Islamist Pakistan

by Ali Ahmed

February 1, 2011

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/01/coping-with-islamist-pakistan/

The revolution in Tunisia, with ripple effects in Egypt, Yemen and Lebanon, has placed authoritarian regimes across the Muslim world on notice. On the face of it, Pakistan, having a democracy, albeit with a guardian military, does not qualify as the next domino. Yet, in light of the recent assassination of the Governor of Punjab and the aftermath revealing an elite-mass disconnect, an Islamist take over has moved from an academic possibility to a real probability. Though this dénouement may not be revolutionary, portents of a slow burn have been around for as long as Pakistan has been reckoned as a failing state.

Given that this dubious status has been Pakistan’s for long, it could imply one of two things: either the robustness of the Pakistani state, or a tenuousness requiring but another push. The consensus is in favor of the former, since Pakistan has a cohesive military; a largely stable core province, Punjab; supportive friends and allies, such as the US and China, which would not allow it to go under; secular democratic parties of sufficient strength; and a popular majority of moderates.

Having acknowledged this at the outset, this article discusses possible reactions to Pakistan in case of its hypothetical ‘descent into chaos’. This scenario has figured in strategic debates, but not the reaction to it. Expanding instability signified by bomb blasts in settled areas and urban centers, ethnic tensions in Karachi and the implications in terms of radicalization of security forces of the governor’s bodyguard turning out an assassin. The discussion has thrown up innovative ideas such as Ralph Peter’s solution dealing with the wider AfPak region.

Two options present themselves for India: ‘Proactive’ and ‘Lay off’.

The ‘proactive option’ envisages assertive support of the failing regime. The impulse behind this would be to preserve Pakistani ‘crown jewels’, its nuclear arsenal, from falling into ‘wrong hands’, as much as to prevent the expansion of ungoverned spaces beyond the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Active demonstration of support in terms of possible deployment of military forces to assist secular-rational forces may help deter further unrest and retrieve lost ground. This is an option the US may exercise, compelled by its existing commitments and presence in AfPak and the stakes it has in preventing an anti-Western regime coming to power.

In case of US exercise of proactive insertion, India, in its role as a ‘strategic partner’, may be required to lend a hand. This perhaps explains some of the military exercises that India has had with the US, numbering over two score; in particular of Special Forces. The recent acquisition of US transport aircraft for out of area operations indicates the thrust of the military engagement. Interoperability having been achieved to an extent, India may be called upon to fulfill the role played in exercises so far. India would be faced with a choice of intervention along with the US, actively dissuading it, or standing by inert or non-military engagement in keeping with its regional weight.

The latter implies political accommodation in terms of supporting the challenged regime so as to strengthen its hand. This would include at a minimum reassurance on not taking advantage of the Pakistani predicament and at a maximum agreeing to concessions on outstanding issues, such as Kashmir, saleable in Pakistan. That India is amenable to go halfway has been the declared Indian position. The revelations by Pakistan’s former foreign minister, Kasuri, at the lecture at Sapru House, indicate the extent India is prepared to move on Kashmir. This would help defuse the extremist argument aimed at delegitimizing the government. At a stretch, India may take part in operations alongside the US and the supported regime, as depicted in the futuristic climax in the book by India’s former army chief, ‘Paddy’ Padmanabhan, The Writing on the Wall: India Checkmates America 2017.

What might be the outcome? Extremist energy would in the short term be energized by nationalism. The side being supported would suffer a legitimacy deficit initially in its association with a foreign power. The fight would be considerably bloody since the intervening force would exert to prevail; exit not being an option. Over the long term, the asymmetric counter will amount to a high intensity insurgency, spawning both Al Qaeda franchisees and sectarian factions. The significance of the nuclear weapons would heighten and guarantee of securing against the proverbial ‘loose nuke’ would not be there. The threat to India would be to the extent of its participation and the nuclear threat higher because of proximity. The final outcome would not be a ‘sure thing’ either as the failed support to White Russians testifies.

This uncertainty brings to fore the ‘lay off’ option. The argument is that nuclear weapons in ‘known’ ‘wrong hands’ are better than in ‘unknown’ ‘wrong hands’. Nuclear weapons control by the state, even if an Islamist one and adversarial, is better, since deterrence could work. Loose nukes with non-state actors would make for a more potent threat, not only to the US, against whom they would be primarily directed, but also to India. This logic makes the ‘lay off’ option plausible.

Revolutions are not unknown in history. Revolutionary regimes are not necessarily expansive. Expansion can also be seen as a defensive consequence against counter revolutionary pressures. This is true of the Iranian case, for instance. The war waged by Iraq had fatal long term consequences for itself. By analogy, if there is a fight for political control in Pakistan, there is no necessity for India to be party to it physically.

While India may prefer democratic forces and may assist these, it need not be to the extent of military intervention. As the civil war progresses, India would need to hedge its position so that it can continue engaging with the state despite the complexion of its regime. Engagement would help socialize the regime. This is seemingly impossible given the opprobrium Islamism has received. However, discounting for rhetoric surrounding the ‘global war on terror’ is necessary since Islamism has had an exaggerated profile. Seeing it in perspective would help bring balance and rationality into the reckoning.

The analysis here suggests that a choice is available and must be exercised rationally. The necessity for pointing this out owes to uncritical and emotional commentary in favor of a proactive and assertive Indian involvement against fundamentalist forces. The argument here to the contrary is that the issue is internal to Pakistani polity and India would do well to allow the contradictions in that society to play out.  India must favor a democratic outcome, undaunted by the ideological color.