Time to change our strategic posture
By Jehanzeb Raja
IN the wake of the changing post-9/11 world, a rapidly changing international environment has been witnessed which is having an adverse impact on our military, political and social ethos.
Traditional conclusions drawn from outdated power progression scenarios in the India-Afghanistan-China matrix are also distorting our short-term and long-term strategic goals in the global and regional context.
Pakistan has traditionally followed an offensive-defensive doctrine vis-a-vis India while adhering to a defensive doctrine on the western front with Afghanistan in its land doctrine. The implications of such a policy dictate placing of defensive forces within striking distance of the borders while keeping large uncommitted reserves at strategic locations for counter strikes into enemy territory.
This not only ties down a majority of our forces on the Indian fronts which are inactive or are unlikely to change in the short term, but restricts movement of vitally needed forces elsewhere. The escalation of threats from both external and internal forces on the western front is increasingly restricting our military options and creating grounds for anarchy and social unrest. Should not therefore a review be carried out of our strategic posture?
The dynamics of the western front have changed dramatically. Nato and US forces are aggressively pursuing the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements within Pakistan’s borders, striking both from land and by air. The internecine warfare within Fata is being supported by both state actors and non-state surrogates with the intention of creating anarchy and despair.
While the army and paramilitary forces are increasingly being drawn into a long-term insurgency mode, the people are confused between tribal and national unity. Should they support the government now and be punished by the tribe later or support the tribe in the short term with long-term repercussions? They are lost between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The situation in Balochistan is no different, with the writ of the government being challenged at will by insurgents who choose the time and place of attack, resulting in the collapse of the social order.
Relations with our erstwhile foe, India on the eastern border, continue to improve both on the Line of Control in Kashmir and Siachen, where a ceasefire continues to hold since 2004, with no significant threat.
The present insurgency in Kashmir only hints at its past glory, where the Indian forces were actively engaged on numerous fronts with cross-border aspersions being cast on Pakistani infiltrators. This calls for a radical shift in orientation of not only our ground forces, but their relocation to new cantonments further west into Balochistan and NWFP where the threat is the greatest.
This will have the effect of not only projecting a military presence in the area but also demonstrate the logistic stamina to undertake long-term military operations when needed.
The presence of military forces in previously inaccessible areas of Fata and Balochistan will not only give active support to tribes loyal to the government, but provide the much needed security to foreign and local firms active in exploitation of minerals and oil. It will also free the paramilitary forces from protection duties along the numerous lines of communications where they are being frittered away. The presence of US troops and bases in Balochistan is the cause of the anger of local tribes and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan against the government and the army. There needs to be a reappraisal of the deployment of these troops in these areas where they are purportedly supporting the radical elements in the insurgency.
The Pakistan Army needs to take over these bases and garrison them for purposes of internal stability so that outside interference is minimised. If we accept the fact that state actors are actively supporting the insurgency and yet allow the presence of foreign forces inside our territory who then are we fooling? Only ourselves I am afraid. Lastly, the China question. We have repeatedly parroted the very close ties with China and the active strategic support we are getting from them without giving major concessions in return. China is constructing strategic dams, ports and power plants in the country with construction periods ranging from eight to 10 years. In the long term, the Chinese presence needs to be bolstered by giving them their own security arrangements in the form of troops and even bases at strategic locations, especially when a concerted campaign to eliminate Chinese workers is unfolding.Pakistan’s vision of being the gateway for energy and trade corridors from China and Central Asia can never materialise until we can provide the much-needed investment climate and security to foreign investors. Billions of rupees have gone into preparing the infrastructure for these very corridors, but their utilisation can never be economically maximised unless peace prevails in our region. If we can have US troops on our soil then why not Chinese troops? This paradigm shift in policy has to be taken if we realise that the allies across the Durand Line are not sincere towards the cause of Pakistan and are actively supporting insurgents to destabilise the region.
This will no doubt have a profound effect upon future US-Pakistan relations but will also test our allies’ true intentions in the region. If they are sincere towards our security and development goals then dramatic changes will take place at the government level both in Afghanistan and in India. The presence of Chinese troops will not only dissipate tribal anger but will have trans-border implications across the region.
The US is posturing to place India as a major regional power both against Pakistan, China and Iran. It will have to rethink its regional game plan. The threat to Iran from potential US-Israeli strikes is likely to recede dramatically bringing about a rapprochement between the two estranged friends, whose relations are badly eroded due to the power play in Afghanistan engineered by the US-led Karzai regime.
Afghanistan will have to very seriously rethink its foreign interests in Pakistan and the attendant cost with the presence of a major power next door. The Indian presence in Afghanistan is likely to reduce, especially with the likely withdrawal of allied troops in the not too distant future. With the change of leadership in Afghanistan the upside obviously would be elimination of support to the insurgents who will not survive indefinitely.
The opportunity is there for our policymakers, provided we have the will and courage to bring about the change in our strategic posture.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army


Night of long daggers
By Angelique Chrisafis
IT is an improbable saga featuring a celebrity break-up, back-stabbing, a Joan of Arc figure and a dangerously popular postman. Members of the bitterly divided French Socialist party gathered Friday night in the champagne capital of Reims to find a new leader to reverse their misfortunes and provide an opposition to President Nicolas Sarkozy.
As delegates browsed souvenir shops offering Francois Mitterrand and Che Guevara bookmarks, and neon jackets that boasted: “I drive on the right by obligation, but vote left by conviction,” a mood of frustration hung over the party.
Segolene Royal, the outsider who styled herself as a modern Joan of Arc during her failed presidential campaign against Sarkozy, has surprised critics in the party by emerging as frontrunner in the leadership vote next Thursday. But Royal does not have the backing of a clear majority — the woman who once declared “You should love each other!” to a party rally is now at the mercy of party hatreds and intrigue.
According to complicated party rules, leading Socialists spend a night — dubbed “the night of the long daggers” — in negotiations on whether to back Royal or form alliances to stop her. Royal, 55, has vowed to modernise the party and promote the next generation. She said: “I am not a woman of the political machine. I prefer contact with the people.”
She has veered left during the global financial crisis, suggesting heads of failed banks should be barred from working in finance and big oil companies should have their profits taxed in order to save struggling businesses. But she supports leaving a door open to alliances with French centrists, and critics accuse her of blowing left and right with the weather.
Royal’s public split with her long-term partner Francois Hollande, the outgoing party leader, is a spectre hanging over the battle.
— The Guardian, London


