Boko Haram and Da’ish

Of significance to Pakistan

Western experts downplay the significance of Boko Haram joining Dai’ish (allegedly) at their own peril. Even if the oath of allegiance is fake, the news – especially IS’s acceptance – confirms growing interaction between the two. The Arab press, in fact, has been full of news of just such cooperation for months; more so since Da’ish hordes overran significant parts of Syria and extended their footprint to the Maghreb, and further down Africa. And such commitment is not just “spiritual”, as some are dismissing it, rather it indicates erection of logistical chains that run everything from arms to dollars to propaganda.

It also has a spill-over value. Spirited insurgencies, similarly Islamic in their outlook, haunt a number of other strategic posts of the world, most notably the AfPak corridor. There are already reports of Taliban factions expressing interest in Da’ish, especially in Pakistan. It’s another matter, of course, that the government chooses to remain blind to it. Joining the so called caliphate, headquartered in Iraq and Syria, brings a dual advantage for insurgents on both sides of the Durand Line. Not only do they become part of a much larger campaign, but also receive crucial funds and arms that old school al Qaeda is no longer able to provide; especially since Zarb-e-Azb got them on the run.

These developments are crucial for Pakistan, even though they seem half-a-world away. The fight against IS has brought the strangest regional and world powers together. But Saudis (with their usual regional and sectarian concerns) on the one hand and Israel on the other are bent upon sabotaging advances in US-Iran talks. On the surface they are just about the nuclear issue, but they are surely chalking out a mutual strategy against IS. Iran has been acknowledged as the most important force fighting it on the ground, and can achieve much in partnership with the Nato effort. Pakistan is being asked to take sides in this subtle balance. The prime minister gladly brushed aside local concerns – like the Senate election – to lend an ear to the Saudi king’s concerns in this regard. Facing an existential war of our own, we must be very clear about how we should posture. The fight against militancy is global, and siding with those who value regional hegemony and sectarian tensions, instead of those who are committed to rooting out terrorism, may well prove our own undoing in the long run.