Civil and military leadership has to work together
The Corps Commanders Conference chaired by the Chief of Army Staff on November 10, 2015, has sent a clear and unambiguous message. The message is that governance initiatives need to be taken if the gains of the military operation are to be sustainable and enduring over the long term. Progress on the National Action Plan implementation, finalisation of Federally Administered Tribal Areas reforms, and priority completion of all pending Joint Investigation Teams were identified as issues that could undermine the effects of ongoing operations. Also included in the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) post conference press release was “the urgent need to expedite return of the Temporary Displaced Persons, overcoming obstacles hindering development works in affected areas and rehabilitation of displaced families”. The message implies that the military has eliminated the terror infrastructure at enormous cost but the civilian authorities have not acted to consolidate the gains and this lack of action could undermine the entire counter-terrorism effort. The Corps Commanders Conference was held a day after the Army Chief attended a top level meeting chaired by the Prime Minister and four days before the Army Chief embarks on an official visit to the US.
Twenty six hours after the ISPR press release, the government spokesperson ostensibly responded with a statement that sought to include all the institutions as well as the entire nation in the implementation of the National Action Plan and it lauded the efforts of all institutions including the military for their efforts. It emphasised the government’s determination to act in keeping the national interest uppermost and also advised all institutions to remain within their constitutional limits.
These developments sparked a debate in Parliament with one lawmaker stating that the military had transgressed its constitutional limits and the Opposition Leader advising the government to ‘heed the signal that had been given to them’. Other than this not much was said in the Parliament that itself came under fire for a lack of quorum and absence of ministers. Understandably the media shifted into top gear with news bulletins, video clips, debates and discussions that will probably go on for a few more days — at least till the optics of the Army Chief’s US visit take over. The bottom line was that those out of government lashed out at the government for not implementing the National Action Plan and creating a situation where the Army had to go public with their views. There were others who deduced that there was a civil-military divide that indicated that they were ‘not on the same page’ with one anchor predicting ‘major events in late November or early December’. Most took the statement-counterstatement event in their stride and felt that what was needed to be said had been said and that the message had registered where it was meant to register. No one expects an upheaval or some kind of confrontation.
The situation does call for some introspection. The Army Chief is answerable to the half million men he commands, especially when the military is fighting a war to deliver the country from the scourge of extremism and terrorism. The men who are putting their lives and limbs on the line expect that their sacrifices will not be in vain and that their leaders will ensure that an environment is created that leads to sustainable and enduring peace. So the top leadership of the military institution has to be seen and heard as they command, lead and work to ensure the orchestration of state power in pursuit of the objective. This is especially important when the only visible progress has to be attributed to the military with serious delays and shortfalls in other areas.
The government has constraints because it has to ensure political survival, economic viability and above all develop capacity to ensure that military gains made at enormous costs are consolidated for long term sustainability. The government needs to be seen and heard as it fields credible competent teams that can deliver. In the type of war being fought in the urban and border areas, the civil and military leadership has to continuously work together through all existing structures and institutions and build up the needed capacity. There is no space for incompetence and lack of action.
The logical conclusion is that there has to be a forum where input comes from multiple sources and where there can be formal institutionalised civil-military interaction to monitor, review and develop responses as well as assign responsibilities. Such a forum exists in the form of the National Security Committee. It has a secretariat and now there is a dedicated National Security Adviser. This forum should not be sidelined for fear that one side will be taken to task by the other but rather as a trust and confidence building arrangement that is in the best interests of the country.
