Diplomatic Bubbles
Who gains from US-Pakistan breakup?
Saeed Minhas
Islamabad: Mounting tensions between Pakistan’s military establishment and Obama administration continued to occupy the diplomatic and even non diplomatic tables throughout the federal capital here.
There seems to be a consensus amongst our diplomatic and not so diplomatic friends that with a psychologically depressed Pakistan Army resorting to retaliatory words and actions now it’s up to the Americans to consolidate the gains they have achieved in the post OBL scenario. Just like Pakistan, American administration have to make some tough choices in the coming days and weeks not only to address their respective domestic concerns but also their over arching external threats.
Though it took Obama quite some time and courage to submit to its military janta for sending an additional 30,000 troops in 2009 to Afghanistan but since 05/02 OBL operation in Abbottabad, it has become an even bigger question for the American President to stave off the flood of an unending economic recession at home and hence the demands to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Especially when his military commanders and even Robert Gates are persisting to keep the troops on ground for at least another year to preserve the rewards of recent gains not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan.
Down and out, however, Pakistan’s military top establishment may seem at this time but one thing remains sure and especially to all those who know how our Khaki establishment works around a single man known as chief of army, any speculation of a colonel level coup against the top military command remains an outlandish. Having covered the armed forces for quite some time now and knowing many of the Generals (during and after service), I know that how the top man, no matter how many extensions he may have bagged from a political or in many cases by himself as president of the country, asserts himself over the entire set up. Most of the time it’s not his words but even a slight wink or movement of his eye brows are taken as an indication that which commander is allowed to talk and what. Because it’s the basic structure of the Pakistan Army that it is built on one principle of obeying the command not questioning the command. Therefore, it was hard to imagine any such theory (or for that matter a conspiracy theory) that someone from lower ranks might get the courage to stand up and send the top brass packing home. Neither its Libya nor it’s any other Gulf state, where monarchs run their self-styled armies, it’s what (ever) it is, Pakistan where since British colonial days, Army commander has the final say.
I still remember an incident from the peak days of Gen. Musharraf in office–when corp. commanders in Lahore and elsewhere were busy in developing the state’s leased land into Defence Housing Societies (a landmark achievement of the Pakistan Army in recent times, especially when they were supposedly fighting the war on terror and Mushy was awash with the unabated dollars from Washington). A former chief of army dared to challenge Mushy and the very next day former chief’s home saw Rawalpindi Development Authority’s bulldozers raising the front portions of his villa because it was considered as illegal by the local authority. The message was received and apologies were exchanged and no further action took place in lieu of permanent shutter down on Friends open-mouth policy.
So it’s not about the power, it’s about the command and control with which Pakistan Army operates under one voice which has to be factored in while making any such assumptions about the coup. Yes no one can deny this fact that morale in the lower and middle level officers of army is at its lowest and even if such a conspiracy theory is given credence than does it mean that more radical jawans will take control of the command? Certainly no one in its right mind would like to hear this or imagine this because that not only means further devastation on Pakistan’s stage but regional and world stages would not remain unaffected by such a development.
We have to understand that more than 70 per cent of the lower and middle rank officers and jawans come from rural areas (where Zia’s Islam remains the order of the day thanks to local Mullahs) and though they are groomed under a British code of living throughout their careers, but then their slogan remains ‘Jihad in the name of Allah’ and which keep them rooted in their own morality and gives them a purpose to serve and sacrifice their lives for this Nobel cause. Had that not been the case then CIA wouldn’t have found such a readymade ground to defeat soviets in the rugged lands of Afghanistan. Rather they were the one who helped not only promote Zia’s Islam but also ignore Zia’s blunders and his comrades’ second thoughts about using the non-state actors as strategic assets for achieving an oblivious strategic depth in the region.
Instead of going into a dog-tail whirl and pointing fingers to find out that who brought this mess on a liberal and peaceful Pakistani population or for that matter on the entire world, wouldn’t it be much wiser to stop playing this cold war game with Pakistan Army because an underdog can only be pushed back to an extent, after which it is bound to react.
With the talks of troops drawdown and its possible impact on this region—especially Afghanistan and Pakistan—leaving the real masters of Pakistani lands (whether we accept it or not it remains a fact that who calls the shots here) in lurch hoping that they will be intimidated by face book or social media revolutions might prove counter-productive for all the stakeholders at this time. There is also no second opinion about this that no one in Pakistan wants the army to play Godfather’s role in political arena but since they have grown addicted to this role—thanks to continued American backing whenever they assumed or consumed power—therefore no matter how Obama administration looks at it, they just cannot be ignored when it comes to settling the Afghan issue—one way or the other.
Even if we agree with those think tanks and ‘Washington-fed’ media that so-called strategic depth will bring no good to Pakistan, can we afford to ignore the fact that an over stretched army (on north western and eastern borders) will stop being India-centric and will not resort to other means or ‘strategic assets’ for easing its share of burdens thrown upon them after the American withdrawal from Afghanistan? Whether we agree with Robert Gates or not but the fact remains that President Obama has to make a decision with regard to troops withdrawal and as we have been hearing from the TTP and even from Afghan Taliban, that any amount of withdrawal would just boost their morale. Given the weak government of Hamid Karzai and the fact that after all these years and over 100,000 American troops on ground with an annual backing of over US $ 150 billion and talks of luring former Taliban into government fold or developing an Afghan army or Intelligence force, they have managed to bring just a comparative calm in less than a dozen cities. With these ground realities, would it be in the interest of US administration to leave Pakistan Army in such a mode where trust is all time low and communication between the two is almost broken?
Supporting a weak political leadership, which at best remains subservient to the real masters of the land, is equally important because no matter what kind of (sham) democracy we are living with, it should remain and rather be allowed to grow with the hope that eventually filtration through elections will purge the maligned characters out of this arena and may be two terms down the road we might see some better faces with better mind set running this country. But till that time we just cannot ignore the power of the real masters of the land and without talking them in this process and accounting for their concerns (only legit ones), neither people of Pakistan will gain nor anyone else (including regional and international actors).
Hoping that our so called Muslim Ummah or China would come to help Pakistan might remain a dream because both just don’t want to be part of problem fixing board, especially the Monarchs who continue to fund their respective sects for sectarian gains or keeping the Arab Spring away from their doors.
Therefore, the only suggestion one can make here, as many eminent scholars and even former CIA chiefs have mentioned in their memoirs (only after retirement) is to sort Kashmir and Durand line issues so that this region can live in peace and on its own without making the arm dealers of the west (mostly Americans) richer by the day at the cost of the lives of innocent people in their own impoverished lands.
If we in Pakistan have a problem that Army eats up more than 23 per cent of our GDP by selling us fear than I sensed same feelings in India where they have ten times bigger military budget than Pakistan and still they are considered peaceful because they are stuffing their monies into arm-dealers coffers by amassing all sorts of combative arsenal. Just because they have become a dividend land for the corporate world does not mean that we tend to overlook the level of poverty leading to over a dozen insurgencies going on all parts of India. Therefore, cornering any one might not be a solution and neither playing double-game will bring any positive results, only saner and cooler heads on all sides might bring us to a plausible resolution, otherwise spin will continue to take its own course which might not be very charming for anyone but non-state actors.
Leave Your Comments