Truth or dare

The final showdown in Afghanistan has begun. There is a consensus that this was inevitable. A clash of interests between the US and Pakistan in an Afghanistan where multiple stakeholders were desperately competing for power was bound to end like a game of Monopoly – in a quarrel.

Pakistan will not stop sheltering or supporting, or at least not pick a fight with a long-time ally that is likely to have influence in Afghanistan in future, for another long-time ally that is about to leave Afghanistan for good.

But that is not the argument the military has made in front of its people. Whether it is a good strategy to invest on the Haqqani Network rather than in the economy of the new Kabul is a separate debate. But that debate is not taking place.

The national narrative is this: The world is conspiring against Pakistan. Its sovereignty is being violated, its people are being killed, and its economy is being hurt in the US war on terror, and the world still keeps asking Pakistan to ‘do more’.

Deception is an important part of war and international negotiation, especially for a country like Pakistan that is negotiating from a weak position. But manipulating public opinion to the extent of paranoia and hysteria, to promote a ‘besieged fortress’ mentality is not a good idea. The army may get what it wants in Afghanistan in the end, but it risks doing so at the cost of becoming another Afghanistan.

Some popular ‘public opinion’ myths must be re-examined:

1) That Pakistan was always the primary target because real US interests lie not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan: That is not probable because the US could not have spent more than a trillion dollars on a embarrassing 10-year war in Afghanistan as an excuse to gradually destabilise and deweaponise Pakistan, when it could have done the same directly, right after 9/11 with the world rallying behind it, with less cost and in less time.

2) The US is violating Pakistan’s sovereignty: When the US hinted at a direct strike in North Waziristan, among the first people who vowed to respond was Sirajuddin Haqqani. He said the US would suffer more casualties in North Waziristan than it did in Afghanistan. When Haqqani was vowing to defend the tribal agency, Pakistan Army was saying it does not have the capacity to move in. How can Pakistan lay claim on a territory it admits it cannot control?

3) That terrorism started after 9/11: Of the 35,000 innocent people killed in Pakistan since the war on terror began, less than one percent were killed in US drone strikes. The rest were killed by a) terrorist groups and sectarian militias who had sanctuaries in Pakistan before 9/11 and we would have had to deal with sooner or later or b) Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and other foreigners that Pakistan offered sanctuaries to right after 9/11, but they later turned against Pakistan. The first suicide bombing in Pakistan was carried out by Al-Qaeda in Islamabad in 1995. Thousands of Shias were being massacred by armed sectarian groups prior to 9/11. These groups continue to operate with new names and new alliances, and continue to target Shias and Barelvis and other minorities.

There is no reason to believe Pakistan would have magically contained these groups. In fact, if 9/11 had not happened, the tipping point would have come in some other way.

4) Pakistan’s economy suffered because of the war on terror: The question is, has the Pakistani economy suffered since 9/11 or grown? When we assign a monetary value to ‘missed’ economic opportunities, we assume that if there had been no war on terror, Pakistan would grow at an ideal pace and opportunities would continue to come.

Pakistan’s economy was in a poor state for years before 9/11 and without US help there is no reason to believe it would have improved.

In 1999, Pakistan’s GDP was $75 billion. Ten years later, in 2009, it was $185 billion. In the same ten year period, Pakistan’s foreign reserves grew from $1.96 billion to $14 billion, exports from $7.5 billion to $18.45 billion, foreign direct investment from $1 billion to $4.6 billion, and development programs from Rs80 billion to Rs621 billion.

5) That Pakistan can sustain a war against the US: Pakistan does not have enough troops to guard its border with India and fight a war on its border with Afghanistan. Most of Pakistan’s weapons come from the US and its allies. Pakistan’s economy cannot sustain a war. It has no power and no oil. With a dysfunctional railways, it has poor communications system. Recent incidents have also cast doubt on the capabilities of its intelligence.

The US has failed to meet its goals in Afghanistan and is ready to leave, and that is why it is frustrated. But the Pakistan army must not continue to manipulate public opinion and propagate war rhetoric to a point where it limits its own options.

It is possible for Pakistan to invite the US in and then fight a long-term guerilla war, but are we ready to become another Afghanistan in a battle for control over Afghanistan?

The writer is a media and culture critic. He just began tweeting @paagalinsaan, and can be reached at [email protected]