Failed security policies

This is with reference to the attack by the NATO helicopters on our border post that resulted in the death of officers and soldiers of Pakistan Army. The civil and military leadership of the country as well as the people are outraged and the ‘violent act’ is being condemned across the length and breadth of the country. The big question is why and how could this happen? This cannot be an accident as all our border posts are well-known to NATO forces, especially the ‘air strike’ military tools that carry out operational combat missions on and near the Pak-Afghan borders.

Since the ‘get OBL’ mission executed by the American forces in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army and its leadership were furious on the American ‘unilateral action’ that exposed the weakness of our armed forces. This operation called for ‘response adjustment’ from our security forces so that such an incident should not reoccur. ‘Operational instructions’ for military engagement of all ‘flying violations’ across our border with Afghanistan must have been passed down to the tactical level. It is in this backdrop that we must try and understand what happened.

Our ‘military incompatibilities’ viz-a-viz NATO or ISAF in Afghanistan are too pronounced. If the ‘air machines’ violated our air space, they must have been engaged by our security persons at the border post. When this happens, the other side retains its right to react. On the modern battle field we all know that the side with better military tools in the end prevails. This remains an assumption until an investigation is carried out and the actual facts are known by all. Yet for NATO to deliberately attack a Pakistani post is something that does not serve the interests of the US-led international force in Afghanistan.

The other likely reason could be this operation being an outcome of the ‘renewed regional strategy’ being framed and executed by actors/players that stage-manage an event to ‘control governments’. Seen in this context this event places all anti-government political activities on the back burner and brings to the forefront the debate of ‘state’s security and survival’. If army is still a ‘factor’ that is central to any political change in Pakistan, then this event changes the focus of army from ‘a non-delivering government and what can be done about it?’ to rush for its own self-defence to once again justify to ‘question raisers’ within the army as well as the people of Pakistan – why is it fighting this ill-fated war as an accomplice of the US?

Post-OBL operation polarisation between Pakistan and the US was a high risk policy option. Our policymakers lost the opportunity to deescalate the rising tensions between the two countries. Considering the manner in which our ambassador discharged his duties in Washington, the two countries were always likely to settle scores on the battleground rather then the negotiation table.

What is unfortunate is that innocent lives have been lost because diplomacy failed. If politics cannot prevail what else can? Are the politicians not good enough to make US understand that out of almost 300 land borders in the world Pakistan is the only country that has border conflicts on either side?

Stoppage of NATO supplies and the instructions to vacate the air base within 15 days are reactions that will generate immense public approval. Yet when this is done, as a country, we will further limit our options to survive and conduct business as usual.

Retaining and sustaining a discredited government has implications. We just witnessed its demonstration. Seemingly an accident or wilful act by NATO on the border post, but in reality it is the manifestation of a failed national security policy.

LT COL (retd) MUHAMMAD A EHSAN

Karachi