While Pakistan suffers

22
208

While it is important to detail the Mansoor Ijaz story – damn good story it is too – it is equally, in fact more, important to not get involved with the trees and miss the forest.
Ijaz’ counter thrust should, by now, leave no doubt about at least the partial veracity of what he wrote in the Financial Times. Even former Admiral Mike Mullen, after the initial memory lapse, seems to recall receiving the memo which Ijaz alleged in his Oct 10 FT op-ed was sent from the Presidency to Mullen. Ijaz has already put out some information from his emails, telephone log and BBM messages, redacting names and numbers etc for now. That has shaken many blokes and helped jog the memories of others.
Much more is likely to come out and the final story promises to be very juicy. Those who stood by Ijaz’s version got it close to the bull’s eye. Those who thought it was codswallop because the Presidency couldn’t be so stupid didn’t remember the tested fact that the two elements most abundant in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. They also ignored the clichéd adage that a drowning man will catch at anything. Finally, as stupidities go, a monumental one still walks around and is called Mian Nawaz Sharif.
So, while the story is juicy, at the level of what this means I almost have no interest in names. Who fathered the idea, who sold it to the President – that is, if it was someone other than the President who came up with this clever-by-half idea – how it was processed etc. Knowing Washington and quite a few people there, I have many names, official and unofficial, who go around to various shops and tell the Americans how important it is for their (US) success in the region and democracy in Pakistan, both presumably interlinked, to ‘defenestrate’ the Pakistani military. This secret memo business is just a more high-level, cloak-and-dagger stuff than those constant efforts.
The common themes that now run through the American and Indian thinking have mostly been culled from the ‘expert’ opinion of Pakistanis. Just take care of the military and Pakistan will be fine. Of course it helps to have a military that has its own impressive list of monumental stupidities.
This saga then, as other episodes of making appeals to official and unofficial America, presents to us all that is rotten in the state of Pakistan. That is what interests me because that is what I have so very often talked about as our biggest threat – we are at war with each other. A state which is at war within doesn’t need to fail. It has failed even when many of its organs seem to function.
This memo business came after the May 2 episode. Of that, at the time I wrote in this newspaper under the caption At war within the following:
“Imagine a scenario. US Special Forces raid a target in India, complete the operation and successfully extricate. What would the discussion be like? Would you have Indians arguing that there is no point in invoking sovereignty against the US because India’s sovereignty has been undermined in every third district by the Naxals every day for decades? I don’t think so.
“Yet, in this country, this very argument has been trotted out by sections of society that are educated and liberal, and by being so are best placed to advance the interests of this country. Why would educated people make such error of conflation?
“Somewhat simple, and here we get into the definitional problem of what is best for this country. These sections do not think that the manner in which the idea of security has been conceptualised traditionally in Pakistan is the right one. They aren’t too wrong in this but given the sharpening of the fault-line(s) they tend to move away entirely from realpolitik.
“But this is not the only problem with their approach. The bigger problem is that even in trying to reclaim the state, even if conceptually, they end up mixing up the concept of the state and how it has to operate in an anarchic world with the ‘establishment’ that remains in occupation of the state and which they oppose for its worldview. And such is this opposition that they are prepared to accept the violation of state sovereignty by another state, putting a moratorium on the fact that sovereignty is a core concept for the very existence of a state entity.”
Such is the civil-military fault-line that, going by this saga, the Presidency, the symbol of the federation of Pakistan, sends a request to a foreign, interested power and promises that “The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.”
Can such a state function in any viable, coordinated manner? It cannot. As a realist, I find it appalling that the civilian principals should have appealed to a foreign power. But equally, as a longtime critic of the military I insist that such behaviour, no matter how unacceptable, must be placed in a context: do we now consider the military charged with safeguarding the state as a bigger threat than external actors? Are we prepared to ally with external, interested players to act against our own military because we think, as civilians, that this state cannot be run with this military around?
It does seem to me to be a fair assessment. And therefore the military, as I have argued repeatedly, needs to take a good, hard look at itself and if it believes it knows how to analyse threats, it should realise that, regardless of this or that reason, the civilians now consider it the primary threat to this state. This fact cannot be ignored even if it can be proved that the civilian leaders are corrupt and inefficient and would do anything to save themselves. Today it is the PPP government; yesterday it was the PML(N) government. Something about the military makes civilians very jittery.
Yet, reclaiming space requires honest civilian leadership because the military would not leave unilaterally. The AKP in Turkey is a superb example of how a party can rise from the political sidelines and put a very powerful military in its place. Far from appealing to foreign powers, reclaiming space requires leaders who take pride in being Pakistanis and who will never compromise on the state’s sovereignty. Does this leadership evoke such confidence? No. The result: the principal contradiction persists and the sufferer is Pakistan.

The writer is Contributing Editor, The Friday Times.

22 COMMENTS

  1. If a student works hard ona subhect ,but scores very poor marks in an exam, the student is considered failed.
    Similarly, however justified the army maybe in forumalting its policies & strategies, however patriotically it strives to protect its borders & interests —– its been over 60 years of failure.
    So yes, keeping on doing the same thing over &over again while expecting different results each time is the definition of stupidity.
    Unless this is acknowledged nothing will change.

  2. The army is tied to Pakistan like a second skin. Unless Pakistan can do what the snake does- moult and shed its skin- the army will continue to squeeze Pakistan. This incident is the latest effort to force the army to let go, and, as in the past, it has failed.

  3. The article is about the incumbent government and Mansoor Ejaz with military tied into it. What was the point in the throwing in a line bashing Nawaz Sharif. Is there a link???

  4. Pakistan army has not run Pakistan for 60 years, 30 at most even then it was differ t people we I t have. 1 gaddafi ruling for 40 years

    Pakistan trouble started first with zia and then benazir and nawaz sharif who whee both corrupt , now corrupt politicians are not unique to Pakistan , a country under on the front line against terror the effects are more

  5. the military is running the show behind the scences…but when the consequences of thier stupidity come face to face…they put the blame on civilian government…Kargil was Musharraf/military idea,,,the result, packing of Nawaz Sharrif's government…sheltering Haqqani and Osama was Military idea…. the result ….civilian government take the blame of lack on sovereignty…language rights…military action in Bangladesh….result….bhutto was responsible for the division of Pakistan…nawaz defied military in his second tenure…he was out for 10 years..and now Imran was unleashed…to counter Nawaz.

  6. The argument that true leadership like Turkey shall emerge is not impressive…Bhutto stood against the military…result….hanging,…..benazir defied musharraf dicatation to not come back to pakistan before election…result….assasinated because of poor security…..Nawaz fired army chief….result….overthrow of his government and exile for 10 years…..and now Imran khan to break PMLN votebank.

  7. It is statusquo between corrupt politition n civil n military eristocracy n we common people are suffer it turn wise.

  8. we have two governments side by side a weaker political and stronger military. so this will happened to any one who 'll come through elections, new target is imran and we see his future,
    HH was civilian ambassador.

  9. He writes " as a longtime critic of the military…."
    Mr Haider, you need to look up what critic means

    • That was a typo at the least or most possibly a conspiracy. He meant to say " as a long time cleric of the military …"

  10. Pakistan is basically a militaristic 'quam'. Military will be always remain in the centrestage of national affairs. Offspring of Marauders and Invaders, what else they will do ? the best they can do is to destroy or snatch…thats what they are doing. But they can never run the affairs of a state in a civilized manner…no matter what..Whatever Pakistan has run is due to inherent tolerance and wisdom of Bhattis, Maliks, Bhatts, Raos etc those whose fathers were converted to Islam but they had Hindu values in their genes.. otherwise Pakistan is far worse than Afganistan.. So Mr Ejaj, Military or Civilian . it is no difference..

    • oOMG Jai, such disdain for a whole lot. Are you the Hindu Taleban or Al Qaeda. What's the difference between you and them in terms of thinking ?

    • Except then back then the invaders could overpower india on account of its small population compared to size and islam's role in uniting MENA region thus blocking all advancements into india from outside. Today the situation is reverse. We can get anything we want and pak army despite all its islamic spirit will be beaten against a far more powerful india. So the army feeds on its own hapless nation. The jf17s stands no chance against MKIs or MMRCAs.

  11. Mr Ejaj Haider,

    Your comment “Imagine a scenario. US Special Forces raid a target in India, complete the operation and successfully extricate. What would the discussion be like? Would you have Indians arguing that there is no point in invoking sovereignty against the US because India’s sovereignty has been undermined in every third district by the Naxals every day for decades? " does not hold water and l will explain why. Pakistan cannot claim it's sovereignty and the rights that go with it, at the same time it goes about violating the sovereignty of others. Pakistan's sovereignty was and is compromised by the fact that Osama, a known criminal, who violated the sovereignty of US by way of 911 attacks was found living here, when for 10 years the GOP kept denying his presence. If it was by design (courtesy of ISI and this will come out sooner or later), then Pakistan was complicit in violation of American sovereignty. If it was not, then Pakistan failed the sovereignty test by not exercising control over its territory. And this is not an isolated case. It has been proved beyond doubt that Lashkar-e-Toiba is involved in fomenting and executing terrorist attacks in India, of which Mumbai attacks in November 2008 were only the latest depredation. These attacks are a violation of the sovereignty of Indian state and Naxal issue has nothing to do with it. Naxals have local grievances and they are fighting for it. They are not executing terrorist attacks in New York or Karachi. Similar attacks with ISI support, guidance and direction are being launched from Pakistan in Afghanistan.

Comments are closed.