The army high command is out of a coma, at last. For four days, people have waited for an official explanation of how the most wanted man in the world was found to be nestling in a Pakistani cantonment city and how US helicopters entered Pakistan, killed OBL and returned to their base unchecked by the defenders of the country’s geographical borders. Obviously, only the army high command could have offered answers to these questions.
The FO denied any prior knowledge of the operation and regretted the US action but had nothing to say about the crucial question every body was asking about how OBL came to be in Abbottabad.
During these four days, retired military personnel turned political commentators had been taking all sorts of shots at what had actually happened from positions somewhat similar to that of Leon Panetta to maintaining that the Americans could have only reached OBL with ISI’s help and explaining away the US operation as something that could not have been stopped.
The answers we have got after the corps commanders’ meeting are less than satisfactory. There is an admission of inadequacies in military’s intelligence gathering. An enquiry would be conducted in the matter, we are told. The US has been warned against any future unilateral action violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, saying it would warrant review of the level of military and intelligence cooperation with the US. It has been decided to reduce the strength of US military personnel in Pakistan.
To explain away what has happened as ‘inadequacies’ or ‘shortcomings’ is an understatement. The president, prime minister, interior minister and COAS had invariably rejected any possibility of OBL sheltering inside the country as out of hand. That they have all been made to cut a sorry figure now is no small matter. If it is really a matter of intelligence failure, it falls under the category of uncondonable strategic lapses which could have grave consequences for the country.
Will a genuine enquiry be held in days to come? Enquiries are trusted when they are conducted by an independent body in a transparent manner. An institution conducting an enquiry into its own lapses is likely to cover things up. Keeping the track record of enquiries ordered so far by the guardians of the geographical borders, few would be satisfied with the promise of an enquiry into the ISI’s colossal failure. Two years back, an enquiry was promised when a video showing uniformed personnel killing captured civilians created a stir at home and abroad. Last year, another enquiry was promised when three army generals were found to be involved in a big financial scam. If the enquiries were really held, there was no word subsequently about their findings or actions taken.
An enquiry is the need of the time no doubt. But it has to be undertaken by a body considered to be independent. One of the ways could be to ask the SC to appoint an independent commission to point out those responsible for the lapse. It is high time the parliament defines the precise limits and scope of the three major intelligence agencies, the ISI, MI and IB through a charter to put an end to the unending complaints of high-handedness on their part. Equally important is to hold them accountable. For this, too, the parliament needs to specify a mechanism for their accountability. Unless this is done the agencies will continue to indulge in acts of commission and omission that could be harmful for the country.
The corps commanders’ meeting has also warned the United States against any future unilateral action violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, saying it would warrant review of the level of military and intelligence cooperation with the US. Suppose the US was to find Ayman al-Zawahiri hiding somewhere inside Pakistan due to another “shortcoming” of the ISI, will the statement by corps commanders deter it from repeating its earlier performance? The army should not take a position that it might find difficult to maintain.
In a democracy, it is for the elected government to decide what action has to be taken, military or diplomatic or both, in case of a country violating its sovereignty. The government will have to consider a number of factors before taking the decision. It cannot be one-size-fits-all type of response. The matter simply does not come under the purview of the armed forces which are trained to look at things only from the narrow military perspective.
The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.
