Geopolitics

Turbulence in South Asia
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Courtesy: Aakrosh | Date : 17 Nov , 2011

Role of the Pakistan Army in Terrorism

There are a lot of stories doing rounds around the world about whether Pakistan was directly involved in hiding and maintaining Osama bin Laden in Pakistan for so many years, hoodwinking the world about its role in promoting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, a new story maintains Osama was provided protection in Pakistan against huge amounts as protection money. Of course Pakistan has rubbished these reports. The report, however, seems quite feasible as both the policy and religious belief in Pakistan support jihad and terrorism against those they consider infidels. The on-going terrorism against the Americans and European countries and others like India and many African countries has proved Pakistani involvement with al-Qaeda and other domestic terrorist outfits fostered by its army and the ISI.

Editor’s Pick

A report claims that the Saudis were paying money to the Pakistan army and intelligence (ISI) to keep bin Laden in a safe house in Abbottabad, a city with a high military presence and after ascertaining bin Laden’s presence in the town, the U.S. approached Pakistan’s military leaders for their cooperation in capturing Osama, of course, in return for cash and assured them complete secrecy about their role.

If Pakistan army is gaining millions by playing such a game, it will never give up supporting or sponsoring terrorism in neighbouring countries and keep the terrorist groups safe and well oiled.

Such reports indicate that Pakistan has been fooling the world and America completely from day one since Bush and Musharraf came to an agreement to become close allies in fighting al-Qaeda and combating jihadi terrorism. It is believed that Pakistan has gained huge amounts by playing a double game all the time and that it has been getting huge amounts from the Arab countries, al-Qaeda and other unknown sources, besides American aid. The Pakistan army is training and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan for strategic reasons, but it also gets huge sums from jihadi groups and has a large share in the billion-dollar illegal opium trade flourishing in Afghanistan. This being the case, peace will not return to the region whether American troops stay or withdraw from here. Recent reports from China suggest that Pakistani terrorist groups are even involved in brewing trouble in Xinjiang province of China through the Gilgit region. All this indicates a huge worldwide network of terrorist groups supported and trained by Pakistani elements, and it is a money-spinning trade.

If Pakistan army is gaining millions by playing such a game, it will never give up supporting or sponsoring terrorism in neighbouring countries and keep the terrorist groups safe and well oiled. India, of course, will remain its main target, and since we neither plan to attack nor otherwise destroy Pakistani terrorist groups, so far we remain extremely vulnerable. The world has yet to find some ingenious plan to neutralise Pakistan terrorist groups; however, in these circumstances, Pakistan cannot remain stable and grows internally weak and vulnerable to subversion, terrorism and disruptive forces. No one can help Pakistan in fighting internal enemies unless the public is united in convincing the Pakistan army to give up its dangerous game.

Pakistan-U.S. Face Off

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who led the way among senior U.S. officers in urging the administration to have a close look into the dual role of Pakistan in Afghanistan, just before retiring, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan’s spy agency—the Inter-Services Intelligence—played a direct role in supporting insurgents who attacked the American Embassy in Kabul the previous week, killing 16 people. He also said that ISI supported the Haqqani network in planning and conducting an earlier truck bombing on a NATO outpost that killed 5 people and wounded 77 coalition troops, besides other recent attacks in Afghanistan on American troops.

The Obama administration has already suspended or cancelled $800 million in military aid to Pakistan this year, and more could follow, but this is unlikely to bring Pakistan to heel.

It is believed that Admiral Mullen and some other top U.S. officials in the past have been repeatedly pleading with Pakistan to sever all ties with the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other extremists who are spreading violence both inside and outside Pakistani borders. According to the Pakistan army’s Web site, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani dismissed the recent statements from Admiral Mullen as “very unfortunate and not based on facts.” Pakistan’s prime minister went a step further and warned the U.S. that it “could lose an ally” if it keeps humiliating Pakistan with unsubstantiated allegations.

The U.S. administration still hopes that Pakistan will change its present stance. That, however, is unlikely even though the extremists pose a great threat to Pakistan itself. The main reason for this is that the Pakistan army considers all terrorist groups as strategic assets in the event of an Indian invasion and hence intends to nurture and support them.

The Americans have limited options open to them in these circumstances to coerce Pakistan as they need Pakistan to fight terrorism and they need direct access to the intelligence sources inside Pakistan about the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They also need Pakistani routes to deliver military supplies to its forces in Afghanistan. Although there are now alternatives available to America, they are not easily available and may make the operations in Afghanistan more risky. Americans cannot just walk away and leave their most dangerous enemy undefeated or leave Pakistani nuclear assets at the mercy of the extremist forces.

Pakistan denies the charges of official complicity in the attacks on the U.S. embassy, the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a 10 September truck bomb attack and refuses to take military action against the Haqqanis. However, it may go slow in attacking targets across the border into Afghanistan.

The Obama administration has already suspended or cancelled $800 million in military aid to Pakistan this year, and more could follow, but this is unlikely to bring Pakistan to heel. In these circumstances, America has to go for Haqqani forces on its own in whatever way it can without provoking Pakistan to a major war.1

Pakistan stands accused of being a state sponsoring terrorism and faces the possible threat of sanctions and even the use of force by America, but if this really ever happens, Kayani and the other military leaders will retaliate and not take this lying down—they will turn to China and Saudi Arabia for military hardware and financial aid.

Pakistan denies the charges of official complicity in the attacks on the U.S. embassy, the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a 10 September truck bomb attack and refuses to take military action against the Haqqanis. However, it may go slow in attacking targets across the border into Afghanistan. It may try to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table if the U.S. softens its stand and gives a more favourable deal to it in Afghanistan. As the endgame in Afghanistan comes nearer, the U.S. is bound to soften its stand and expect Pakistan to cooperate, but this may not be easy after Admiral Mullen said the “Quetta Shura” and the Haqqani network were not only hurting prospects for security but also “spoiling possibilities for broader reconciliation.” He also added that Islamabad’s support for these groups “continues to jeopardize Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected and prosperous nation with genuine regional and international influence.” This suggests that Pakistan could be kept out of the Afghanistan endgame.

Regardless of all this, Washington cannot afford to rupture relations with Pakistan at this critical juncture and Admiral Mullen himself emphasised the need to maintain good relations with Pakistan recently. “A flawed and strained engagement with Pakistan is better than disengagement,” he said.

1 2 3
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Maj Gen Afsir Karim

is Editor Aakrosh and former Editor Indian Defence Review.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left