And bringing the warring sides to peace negotiations
A mix of rational self-interest and an attempt to do-the-right-thing. That is how states make their decisions.
The proportions in this mix depend on the state in question and the regime that governs it. Mostly, the pragmatists win but several times, the moralists hold sway.
Sending our boys to Yemen, I would like to argue, would serve neither purpose.
Which aspect should I start with? How about the moral side first?
This very recent state of affairs in Yemen — the country has been engaged in domestic strife since long — started out as a tribal affair and an insurgency. But, due to neighbouring countries taking sides and patronising proxies, this tribal war has metastasised into one with sectarian undertones.
Do we really want any part in that? Pakistan is a significant nation within the Muslim world. We have not just considerable military prowess but are, much to the chagrin of the west, a nuclear power — the only one in the Muslim world. We are an ideological state specifically carved out for Muslims. It is because of these facts and others that it would be safe to say that the rest of the Muslim world looks up to us. We are meant to be making peace within the Muslim world, not war. At a time when the Ummah needs less conflict, we can’t possibly think it would be right to actively contribute to it.
What about that other emotional argument, the one that pulls at our hearts’ strings like no other? The one about the safety of the Holy Sites?
I must say that even as I type this, I feel a sense of anger that even the remotest of possibilities to that end could arise. As, I am sure, most Muslims would. But better sense prevails in me. Because the Houthis, even according to their most fierce critics, haven’t expressed any desire to compromise the security of these sites. Even the prospect of their adventurism into Saudi soil is remote.
Furthermore, Daesh (or ISIS, as it has come to be known) has actually, specifically expressed a most vile desire to destroy the Ka’aba itself. I don’t recall a similar plea to be made to Pakistan or other countries about the ISIS threat.
Now that we are done with the emotional aspect, should we address rational self-interest?
Firstly, I would like to say that the bit about the need for unity in the Muslim world also figures in the matrix of our self-interest. What is good for the Muslim world is good for us.
Secondly, do we know how long this war is going to be? What if it isn’t exactly a cakewalk as some are saying it will be, but turns out to be a long, drawn-out quagmire? What if it becomes our Vietnam?
In his timeless history of the Peloponnesian war, Thucydides wrote: “Think, too, of the great part that is played by the unpredictable in war: think of it now, before you are actually committed to war. The longer a war lasts, the more things tend to depend on accidents. Neither you nor we can see into them: we have to abide their outcome in the dark. And when people are entering upon a war they do things the wrong way round. Action comes first, and it is only when they have already suffered that they begin to think.”
A caution as relevant now as it was in 431 BC. Who knows what perils lie over in the hills of Yemen? By now we ought to know a thing or two about the difficulty of fighting a non-state actor in an unforgiving terrain, which segues on to my next point.
We, in Pakistan, are in a state of war at the moment. Operation Zarb-e-Azb rages on and that’s only talking about North Waziristan. And what about the other tribal agencies? Cleared they might have been by our officers and jawans, but the possibility of relapse is a very real one. The menace will keep coming back. We need vigilance for that and a fighting force ready when that vigilance informs us of the need for action.
Furthermore, do keep in mind that we have a hostile, war-mongering government next door in India. Yes, the possibility of any adventurism on their part might be remote. But being prepared is what the whole point of having as painstakingly professional an army as ours was all about.
Lastly, to paraphrase (with great liberty) the Trotsky quote, you may not be interested in sectarian conflict, but the sectarian conflict certainly is interested in you. As much as we might think the conflict is tribal (and it is) in the perceptual map of the people in Pakistan, lines are already being drawn on sectarian grounds. Its fallout back home could be disastrous.
The Saudis have been our benefactors for a long period of time and far be it from me to suggest abandoning them. We haven’t. Back in the first Gulf War, when the Saudis were facing threats from Iraq, one Brigadier Jehangir Karamat (yes, the one you’re thinking of) was posted there with his men. We did our bit during the ‘79 siege of Makkah as well. And we would continue to do so in the future if there is an actual threat to Saudi Arabia. But to be involved in a war between Muslims is an exercise we should refuse to be a part of.
The Prime Minister couldn’t have forgotten the Islamic Summit that he conducted in March, 1997. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Rafsanjani of Iran came over. The former, then, invited the latter to visit his country. These weren’t good times between the two countries but Pakistan had a positive role in bringing the two countries together.
We should continue on that front. Not anything else.