What COAS Meant by 'Entering Into Most Difficult Phase of Operation'?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

While speaking to the APEX committee KPK meeting in Peshawar, COAS has said that state is entering in the most difficult and dangerous phase of operation. He also said that return of Temporary Displaced People (TDPs) is top priority for Pakistan Army.

One may wonder what does "entering most difficult phase of operation" it actually mean.

The answer is simple. COAS has stated the obvious. Sanctuaries of terrorists in FATA have been practically eliminated and what now has been left of TTP is mainly consists of sleeper cells which work in coordination with group's top command hiding in Afghanistan. Tracking these sleeper cells in urban centers, eliminating the TTP's top brass is critical for the final success against TTP. 

"پاکستان کا نظریاتی المیہ"

وزیراعظم پاکستان جناب میاں نواز شریف کی جانب سے یہ تسلیم کیاگیا ہے کہ نیشنل ایکشن پلان کے چند ایک نکات پرعمل درآمد سست روی کا شکار ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ ماسوائے چند نکات کے، جن میں سے بیشتر کا تعلق پاک فوج اور حساس اداروں سے ہے، علاوہ کسی بھی نکتے پر عمل نہیں ہو رہا ہے بالخصوص جوابی بیانیے کے نکتے پر۔ اب صورت حال یہ ہے کہ بہت سے پڑھے لکھے لوگ بھی یہ مشورہ دہتے ہوئے نظر آتے ہیں کہ مذہبی دہشت گردی اور اس کے بیانیے کا سدباب صرف سیکولر اقدار کے اپنانے میں ہی ہے جب کہ ملک کی اکثریت اس بات سےمتفق نہیں مگر یہ بھی نہیں جانتی کہ آخردہشت گردی کے خلاف بیانیہ دے گا کون؟ علماءیا پھر ریاست؟

Indian Rafale Deal and Pakistan's Options

By Shahzad Masood Roomi


India and France on Monday inked an inter-governmental MoU on the sale of 36 French fighter jets. According to a statement of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, financial aspects and details of the deal are yet to be worked out. It means technically, both parties have finalized the details of the deal.

Why Gen Raheel's Decision of Not Taking Extension Is Right One?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

So, it is official now!

COAS Pakistan Army, Gen Raheel Sharif does not want extension in his service and will retire on due date according to DG ISPR Lt. Gen Asim Bajwa.

According to DG ISPR, COAS has made it clear that he believed in Pakistan army as strong institution.

Pakistan Army is a great institution. I don’t believe in extension and will retire on the due date. Efforts to root out terrorism will continue with full vigor and resolve.

Why Saudi Led Military Alliance Is Not a Good Idea, Strategically!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi  

Though the contours of recently formed 34-nation strong military alliance by Saudi Arabia are not clear so far, but the way it has been announced and the way US and UK are reacting on it is something which gives rise to some critical questions;

1. What will be mandate of this alliance as far as territorial integrity of member states are concerned?

2. What will be the formula of sharing the troops in its operations?

3. How the alliance members would decide to conduct an operation or against it if there is a dead lock between the member states?

4. Who will bear the expenses of operations of this alliance?

5. Why this alliance has a clear sectarian overtone in its formation? Why Iran and Syria are not part of it?

6. How this alliance would overcome the impression of being a Sunni alliance especially in Iran and Syria?

7. Which terrorist outfits apart from ISIS this alliance has identified as threat and with which criteria?

8. How can Saudi Arabia unilaterally include or exclude countries in this alliance? Has Saudi monarchy given that mandate by rest of the Muslim World?

9. Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, said the coalition would share intelligence and deploy troops if necessary. If that is the case, why there was no meeting of all military or intelligence chiefs from member states? How this understanding was reached (if there is an understanding at all)?

10. The way US and UK have welcomed the announcement of this alliance, it implies that now ‘troops on ground’, in Syria, would be from Muslim nations. Who they will be fighting against and under what mandate?

These questions are critical. Each and every one of them and needs to be answered honestly and urgently. This requires an in-depth analysis of this Saudi idea of forming a Sunni military alliance and possible strategic repercussions it can have for Muslim World and for Saudi Arabia itself.

ANALYSIS:

Saudi Foreign minister, while talking to media in Paris, also sighted “the threat of terrorism and state failure on the rise, and a growing leadership vacuum in the Arab and Islamic world” as primary drivers behind Riyadh’s announcement of this military alliance. Question remains, if Riyadh is so concerned about these things within Muslim world, why no initiative has been taken by Saudi government to form a body to seek the root causes of these threats and to contemplate strategies to mitigate the threats by developing solutions for long term instead of trying to play leader by an attempt to “institutionalizing cooperation in combatting terrorism”?

As it is evident that there are too many questions which need to be addressed and answered else this military alliance would fail even before its very first operation. Furthermore, the impression that Saudis are forming this military alliance on the behest of US and the West must be eradicated through transparent announcement of scope, goal and rationale of this alliance.

Ironically, Pakistan has announced to be part of this alliance but at the same time has also said that the quantum of its participation will be determined later on when more details about the objectives of this alliance would be available. Clearly, by blindly accepting to be part of this military alliance, Pakistan has made a desperate attempt to not to disturb Saudis this time like it did to them on Yemen issue.

But question remains is it a wise strategy? Not at All!

Pakistan is venturing into a military alliance whose actions in Middle East could have serious sectarian backlash at home and then there is our own precarious security profile which already presents a bleak law and order and security situation where the state is struggling to grapple with its own internal and external security challenges. With a restive Afghan border in the west, a belligerent India on the east, Baluch insurgency in the southwest and urban law and order break down in Karachi in the South, it is very difficult to fathom that how Pakistan will manage to help this military alliance expect intelligence and knowledge sharing.

Strangely enough, UN is not even concerned and this leads to a bigger question that why an issue like terrorism is not being debated at the global forum like UN? There is no definition of terrorism. There is no consensus over the root causes of global terrorism. There is no classification about types of terrorism (like state-terrorism, Non state actor-terrorism, financial-terrorism etc.) so that, in order to find its solution, policymakers and academics can understand what lies within these definitions and categorization. It is my firm belief that unless and until this debate is not initiated in the UN, global terrorism will prevail. Muslim world is the most affected part by terrorism and yet the silence and inaction, within Muslim comity of nations, on taking the issue of global terrorism to the UN is complete and total. Completely ironic!  

“The Saudis feel they are under attack from the media suggesting they are responsible for Daesh (Isis),” said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Centre, which often reflects thinking in Riyadh. “They felt a need to answer this not by counter propaganda but by a realistic project.”

And then there is an equally important question is of terrorists’ ideology which is not being addressed or even debated anywhere in the world not even within Muslim World. And among other factors, this is yet another reason why this military alliance by Saudi Arabia is not a very good idea to combat ISIS. What Saudi strategic community (if there is one) is not realizing is that in modern incarnation of warfare (4^th and 5^th generation warfare) the ‘narrative’ is the ultimate weapon which lies at the heart of any effective response strategy against organizations like ISIS who harvest its power from distortion and misinterpreting of the Islamic political ideals like Caliphate. But it seems that even after witnessing the failure of military-oriented strategies of the US and West in the Middle East, Saudi intelligentsia is advising for a similar military-oriented response strategy.

The Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black has quoted Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center, which often reflects thinking in Riyadh, saying, “The Saudis feel they are under attack from the media suggesting they are responsible for Daesh (Isis). They felt a need to answer this not by counter propaganda but by a realistic project.”

 “The nature of terrorism is changing. It is not only hit-and-run. It is not only suicide bombings. Its objective now is state-building. If you want to fight Daesh in Iraq you can’t send police or security people. You need to send real military forces.”

If Gulf Research Center is really that influential as being claimed by Ian Black, then it is evident that major flaw is within Saudi strategic community who is not addressing the core issue of ideology and propaganda but is suggesting a more kinetic approach to handle terrorism; a failed strategy to start with!

Actually this military alliance is an attempt by Saudi Arabia to position itself in the Middle East as a leader against growing influence of Iran and to dispel the impression that Saudis have a role in rise of ISIS. If Saudis will try to achieve these geopolitical goals through this military alliance it is again a plan destined to be doomed sooner than later. Saudis should have learned from Russia how to deploy the media to counter the propaganda and present their own narrative across the globe. There is no scarcity of resources to Saudi government. But it seems that Saudis are more interested in power display to both Iran and to strengthen its authority among ‘Sunni Muslim states’ after it is diminishing within ‘Muslim World’.

Last but not the least, if at any point in near future, this alliance decides to send forces to Syria there would always be a high probability that the entire Muslim world will indulge into a grand sectarian war where Iran, Syria, Iraq will be on one side and this Saudi military alliance on the other. Zionist forces will be more than happy to push the regional scenario in that direction as well because this will make their plans to redraw the map of Middle East much easier.

These are distressing times for Muslims. There is a complete and total collapse of leadership in Ummah due to which it is heading towards an implosion which will only result in formation of many smaller and weak countries based on ethnic, sectarian and linguistic divide and a very powerful Israel!

It is a very realistic near future scenario for the entire Muslim World, Pakistan must initiate aggressive military-diplomacy in order to warn Riyadh about its dangerous miscalculations on strategic issues. So far, Pakistan has done good to not to say a straight no to Saudis in order to prevent a more aggressive response from Arab world like we saw from Abu Dubai after Pakistan refused to send troops to Yemen but no way Pakistan can afford to let Riyadh go with this self-destruct strategy of forming a Sunni only military-alliance to counter Iran under the pretext of fighting terrorism. This is a dangerous trap set for the every noticeable Muslim nation. Time to act is Now!

Analysis - Resignation of Afghan Intelligence Chief Rehmatullah Nabil

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Afghan intelligence chief, Rahmatullah Nabil, resigned on 10th December 2015. Differences with President Ashraf Ghani on his efforts to forge closer ties with Pakistan is described the reason for his resignation.

Prior to his resignation, he was staunch opponent of the idea of any kind of diplomatic ties of Kabul with Pakistan. He consistently blamed Pakistan for every law and order or security related incident in Afghanistan. His opposition to engagement with Pakistan is said to be the main cause behind Afghan government's decision to shelve a key intelligence sharing agreement between Pakistan's ISI and Afghan NDS. Both organizations signed a MoU for close cooperation in May earlier this year. It is being reported that Rehmatullah Nabil and many of his deputies in NDS were against any such arrangements.

Under the authority of Rehmatullah Nabil, NDS released the news of death of Mullah Omar just before the start of second phase of Afghan peace process between Kabul and Afghan Taliban earlier in July this year. This news not only derailed the talks but also created serious frictions within the Afghan Taliban. Combat commanders began to ask why such critical information was kept hidden from them and they began doubting the loyalty of their superiors with them and to the movement. Afghan Taliban divided to a considerable extent on the question of nominating new 'Ameer' (chieftain) as well. NDS presented these developments as major successes to President Ghani who then started to get cold footed about his own initiatives to engage with Pakistan on diplomatic level in order to find a political solution to the Afghan crisis. Afghan media began Pakistan bashing on the behest of NDS at the same time. Actually, it was believed that that charisma of Mullah Omar was the sole factor behind the cohesion of Taliban as resistance force and once the news of his demise will be made public, Taliban will wither away easily. Seriously, this proved to be a dangerous strategic miscalculation on the part of Afghan intelligence and political leadership.

Revelation of two years old death of Mullah Omar in Pakistan and it being kept from combat commanders created serious problem for senior Afghan Taliban leadership. In order to prove their cohesion as a well-organized resistance force, Taliban not only appointed a new Ameer quickly but also began what can easily be categorized as the most daring assaults and attacks on Afghan/NATO bases. They were able to capture the Kunduz city in October, earlier this year as well, from where they retreated later on as part of their war strategy. All of this was happening amid an extremely volatile security environment where ISIS/Daesh was also making its presence felt. Some Afghan Taliban joined the ISIS in Afghanistan. Majority of them were those who didn’t like the appointment of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor as new leader. TTP had already announced its allegiance to Daesh in Afghanistan and their sympathizers in Pakistan also began threatening the expansion of IS in Pakistan. This threat was not taken lightly in Pakistan and COAS Gen. Raheel Sharif had to issue statement with a commitment that Pakistan Army will not allow Daesh even to cast its shadow on Pakistan. This threat still persists.  

Afghan Taliban attacks on NATO/ANA bases continue to grow and NDS’s analysis was blown in their faces. Not only Taliban were able to keep its cohesion but it also become more secretive in its planning and communications and result was one assault after another. This string of attacks still continues. It has been reported that after these attacks, President Ashraf Ghani asked Rehmatullah Nabil to resign and made it clear that he will continue to pursue his earlier plans to engage Pakistan in order to find a political settlement with Taliban (though it will always remain a tough job for both Pakistan and Afghanistan to make Taliban compromise on some of their demands like complete withdrawal of foreign forces).

From the hindsight, resignation of Rehmatullah Nabil puts turbulent bilateral relations during the last year or so into a perspective which vindicates the assertion that NDS was not happy with President Ashraf Ghani's outreach to Pakistan, ISI and NDS mutual intelligence sharing agreement and peace process with Taliban and Pakistan’s role in it. But the ultimate question remains that who was gaining from this growing disaffection between Pakistan and Afghanistan on diplomatic and operational levels?

US and China were also backing the Afghan peace process so it is prudent to think that both these stakeholders were happy with the direction of developments in Afghanistan. In fact, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest called the meeting between Taliban and Kabul representatives in Pakistan “an important step toward advancing prospect for a credible peace.” As it has been said earlier, this breakage of dialogue only complicated the threat matrix for Pakistan. But, India was the only state where the breakage of Pakistan led Afghan peace process was taken as victory of Modi’s diplomacy to isolate Pakistan.  

Regardless to the fate of Afghan peace process, the agreement of mutual intelligence sharing between NDS and ISI is something which can pave the way forward for a durable peace in Afghanistan, FATA and to keep Indian intervention in Pakistan through Afghanistan in check. Resignation of Rehmatullah has already begun proving this true.

“Killing of a key TTP commander, Saeed Daur alias Aryana, in a gun battle with Afghan special task force at Pak-Afghan border the day the Afghan president agreed to renew the efforts to jointly counter terrorism, can be called the first informal sign from Kabul to hunt down Pakistan’s wanted terror targets,” wrote The Nation’s columnist Jawad R Awan while quoting the security services sources.

It was also reported that Duar who was killed in Paktia province of Afghanistan, was a close confidant of former TTP chief Hakimullah Mehsud. He managed to cross over to Afghanistan when the operation Zarb-e-Azb reached Mir Ali tehsil of North Waziristan. 

Such developments can ensure a lasting working relationship between ISI and NDS despite all the political impedances during the coming weeks and months. This partnership is crucial for regional stability as through this professional arrangement the secret services of both the nations would understand each other better and would also able to devise common strategies to secure the respective sides of Pak-Afghan border. Previously, Pakistani intelligence and Army was used to be viewed through Indian lens which caused serious trust deficit between the two neighbors.

   

Pakistan and US Agree on Eearly Resumption of Afghan Peace Process

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and the United States have agreed to work together for an early resumption of the stalled Afghan reconciliation process.

Both countries reached to this understand during the COAS Gen Raheel Sharif's recent visit to the US where he held extensive discussions with key figures of the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.

“There is a sort of agreement that there is a need to move on the Afghan reconciliation thing very quickly depending on the conditions,” a senior diplomatic source, who had been briefed on the trip, told Dawn in a background briefing on Saturday.

Pakistan believes that there can be no peace as long as Afghanistan remains volatile that's why Afghanistan was the main focus of Gen Sharif’s visit, during which other issues related to Pakistan national security an regional stability like Pakistan’s strained ties with India, military cooperation, strategic (nuclear) issues and other regional matters were discussed.

According to the sources privy to meetings between COAS Gen Raheel and American interlocutors Pakistani military leadership quite candidly conveyed its political and strategic perspectives on various issues related to Afghanistan to concerned quarters in the US.  

Gen Sharif is believed to have communicated Pakistan’s fears in accepting the facilitation role that it is expected to play for reviving the process. The Pakistani side is primarily concerned about the Afghan security establishment thwarting a renewed process.

Military spokesman Lt Gen Asim Bajwa, too, had in one of his tweets on the army chief’s visit said that “requirement of conducive environment for re-initiating Afghan peace process” was emphasised.

Pakistan is very clear about the issue and is certain that there are elements within Afghanistan government and NDS who don't want to let the reconciliation process start. These elements want to protect their political interests by denying any political role of Taliban which they may get as result of an agreement with Kabul.

In this regard, at least three major initiatives – the first attempt in February to kick-start the reconciliation process, the ISI-NDS (the Afghan intelligence agency) cooperation agreement in May, and the reconciliation process itself –, Pakistanis believe, failed because of conspiracies hatched by these elements within Afghanistan establishment.

There was no time frame of this process was set though.“It would have been imprudent to set the timeframe without getting the Afghan government and China on board,” the source explained.

It is also expected that a “lot of ground would be covered during the Heart of Asia Conference”, which Pakistan is co-hosting with Afghanistan on Dec 7-8. It is being speculated that President Ashraf Ghani would visit Islamabad on this occasion.

Chinese Special Envoy on Afghanistan Ambassador Deng Xijun, who visited Pakistan last week, too had offered to facilitate the Afghan dialogue, provided other stakeholders agreed to the proposal.

A concerted diplomatic push for resumption of reconciliation process is clearly afoot.

An early resumption of peace process in Afghanistan is in interest of both Pakistan and the US. Pakistan cannot consolidate on the gains of Operation Zarb e Azb without brokering a peace deal between Afghan factions. On the other hand, President Obama wants to bring Afghan war to a logical conclusion so that it does not eclipses his legacy as President.

Indian factor is also important in Pak US overtures in Afghanistan. India sees any peace reconciliation process in Afghanistan as a negative development for its own interests in Afghanistan. After the renewed resolve to kick start Afghan reconciliation process, it is believed in Islamabad that Indians may quietly be told to let US, Pakistan work out Afghan peace policy. If it is true, then not it is obvious to hope that not only US would push Afghan government to produce a conducive environment for reconciliation but Pak-US bilateral relations would also come out of shadows of mistrust regarding former's role in global WoT.

TTP's New Strategy Across the Ungoverned Open Spaces Across the Durand Line

by Shahzad Masood Roomi

Seven Frontier Corps (FC) personnel were killed, in Angoor Adda, early Tuesday morning as unknown militants open fire from the Afghan side of the border.

According to ISPR, “The firing occurred on an FC check post northeast of Angoor Adda in South Waziristan,”. As per media reports, apart from 7 killed, 3 other FC soldiers sustained injuries in the attack. Pakistan has condemned the firing incident very strongly in which 7 FC personnel were killed.

The attacks on Pakistan army from Afghanistan have increased during the last few days. Militants, most probably from TTP, have adopted  a new strategy of hitting Pakistan army check posts on Pak Afghan border from within Afghanistan where TTP has established strongholds after they were pushed out from North Waziristan by Pakistan Army. This strategy is working well so far for TTP and other hostile elements as Pakistan Army cannot chase them in Afghanistan without crossing Durand Line as doing so would be a direct violation of international law. Previously, TTP militants used to mount physical attacks on Pakistan check posts. Such attacks always resulted in heavy TTP casualties in result of Pakistan Army’s retaliation. On some occasions, suicide attacks were also launched on Pakistani troops at Durand Line.

The latest attack on FC post is not an isolated incident highlighting a change in TTP’s tactics but is continuation of series of attacks which started few days back. Earlier on Sunday, at least four soldiers of the Pakistan Army were killed and four others were injured as militant groups fired rockets from across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Khyber Agency.

“Four Pakistan Army soldiers were killed and four others injured due to rocket fire,” an ISPR statement said. “According to reports, rounds fired from Afghanistan side opposite Khyber Agency by terrorists hit a 8,000 feet high Pakistani post in Akhandwala Pass,” the statement added.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan has no control over vast swathe of open border between the two countries. Terrorists are taking advantage of ungoverned spaces available to them on Pak-Afghan border. Due to these open spaces, this region has been described as global risk.

These attacks are taking place at a time, when Pakistan's PM Nawaz Sharif has just returned from the US where Pakistan was asked to 'do more' in fight against terrorism. While Pakistani delegation failed to raise the issue of presence of TTP and its attacks on Pakistan from Afghanistan. Apart from it,  Pakistan's dossier about Indian involvement in Pakistan from Afghanistan also failed to trigger any US action against Indian or Afghan government. This is not the first time Pakistan shared any vital evidence with the US about Indian involvement in Pakistan, earlier this year, COAS Gen Raheel Sharif also shared the similar evidence with the US authorities in January when he visited the US. But no initiatives were taken by the US government to address Pakistan's security concerns. This inaction by Washington is also an encouraging factor for all the anti-Pakistan entities operating in Afghanistan. Furthermore, these attacks and violence in Afghanistan are affecting Pak-Afghan relations adversely.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani earlier reiterated his call on Pakistan to adopt the “same definition” for terrorism for attacks in Afghanistan as it does for attacks across the Durand Line.

It is evident that Pakistan will have to adopt according to the fluid security environment of the region. It demands combination of hard and soft power. Border security measures and diplomacy will have to be deployed in tandem. This border must be mined and fenced as well despite the opposition of Afghan government and the US. Pakistan's security must be paramount for the national security managers. But highlighting the ground realities on Pak-Afghan complex security scenario is more important task for Islamabad. In this regard, the appointment of Gen (r) Nasir Junjua as National Security Adviser (NSA) by PM Sharif is a step in the right direction. Being involved in sensitive Baluchistan province -a part of Pakistan worst affected by Indian backed insurgencies -he will be in a position to present Pakistan's case on international forums more appropriate manner.

I was aware that the conflict was not against ‘our own people’: Gen (r) Tariq Khan

Decorated with a Hilal-e-Imtiaz (Military) and a Legion of Merit, recently retired Lt Gen Tariq Khan commanded several operations against Taliban and other militants, including the Battle of Bajaur, or Operation Sherdil. Ali K Chishti spoke to him about militancy, defense policy and civil-military ties.


You transformed the Frontier Corps into a fierce fighting force and won the Battle of Bajaur? How was the experience fighting the war?

A conflict in our own area is hardly a war, and a military success on one’s own territory is a no-winner. Success is measured in other terms. The military can only create conditions for those measures to be put in place that contribute to real victory.

Fighting in FATA was a new experience for me. It involved me in a conflict in an area in which I was one of the people and very close to them. Being familiar with the geography and the peculiarities of the area, I was aware that the conflict was not against ‘our own people’ but against elements who had forced themselves on the population through coercion and violence. In my experience, the people felt abandoned and neglected, so the battle we were fighting was to establish the lost writ of the government as well as to empower the people and the tribes to take control of their own area and their own destiny. It was tragic in that the fallout of battle touched the lives of many innocent women and children, who became anonymous casualties of war. We were restricted in our use of firepower to avoid collateral damage.

How can we achieve that ‘real victory’?

There are many angles to the problem.

There is a military angle, in which success against any insurgency and controlling the militants is measured in four critical ways – Do you control the roads? Is the population supporting the military? Are government offices, such as the political agent’s office and the courts, functional? And lastly, do you have visibility on the area’s exits and entries?

Then there is a social angle to it – that the local populace has the confidence to reject the ideological or political agenda of the militants. Ideologically, it is important not to allow hostile narrative and propaganda to be broadcast uncontested. The radio station run by Mullah Fazlullah, popularly known as Mullah Radio, and effective use of international press by Muslim Khan, are two such examples. Their narrative was not countered. This problem still persists.

There is also an administrative angle, which involves equal opportunities, justice and fair play, even distribution of resources, and development. Without these, parallel systems emerge and non-state actors fill up the vacuum.

There is also a political angle to the problem. Some of our politicians played to the galleries. Extremists and militants found a political face in various parties, which afforded them greater political space and relevance.

Poor governance creates an environment that is exploited by hostile agencies. International funding, external interference, and political interfacing (such as Baloch separatist movements in the UK) also provide resources and legitimacy to militancy.

In order to succeed against militancy, we will need tangible steps and a firm resolve demonstrated through improved governance.

The threat from India is permanent

And is our number one enemy internal or external? Has the army’s security doctrine changed in the recent years?

It is not one or the other. Our external threats are limited to India, who we consider an enemy state, and who will always undertake activity to undermine our stability just as we would, given a similar opportunity.

Insurgency and militancy must be dealt with at our earliest, but it is a situational feature and not a permanent one. We cannot remove India from the map, and so the threat from India is a permanent feature. This threat needs a response in the form of deterrence.

When I was in the field, I had evidence of Indian support to militancy in FATA and Balochistan. They fund and resource militancy in a big way. I fail to understand the international indifference to the numerous Indian consulates along Pakistan’s Western border in Afghanistan. Surely they are not in the business of processing visas.

Thus, Pakistan’s external and internal threats both gravitate towards India.

So are we going after all the militant organizations, including those fighting against India and Afghanistan?

It is only the state’s prerogative to declare war or project an aggressive or friendly posture towards any other country. This right does not belong to any individual or community, or ‘non-state actors’. If one does not agree with a government’s stance, in a democracy it can be voted out of power.

If we try and find justifications for such individuals or groups, or afford platforms for their apologists, we will not become a strong state. As such, there is no room for such Jihadists in a modern state.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have been accusing each other of allowing their territory to be used against each other. How can we overcome this mutual mistrust?

Pakistan has taken the brunt of the blame for the international failure in Afghanistan, and failed to present a counter-narrative for the better part of 14 years to the one-way harangue it suffered at the hands of an international media fed by hostile agencies.

The relief and rotation plan for the ISAF forces in Afghanistan allowed failures to breed. In their six-month tenures, how could commanders come to grips with battleground and geography, let alone a subtle understanding of intelligence matters? All these international groups used interpreters and intelligence provided by the Northern Alliance, which has always blamed Pakistan for supporting the Taliban. These contingents carried home a poor image of the Pakistan and broadcasted it all over the globe. This was worsened by ISAF troops’ unprecedented military defeat in Afghanistan. Pakistan was a convenient scapegoat.

I have such evidence as Indian shell dressings and medicines, and even a captured Indian vehicle with Hanuman painted on the door. But the evidence we present is explained away as being taken away from kidnapped Indian road workers. It is important that the people we present the evidence to, are willing to acknowledge your suspicions.

We did not need a National Action Plan to arrest criminals

The new Indian government has been hostile towards Pakistan. How should Islamabad respond?

We have no plans or stated intent to attack but India wishes to conduct a military offensive if and when they think it is ‘cost effective’; and are always threatening to do so.

A passive response to India’s aggression will only lead to more aggression. This is not bravado, or India-centric thinking. This is a logical response.

Why should we allow India to shoot across the Line of Control and what possible justification allows a civilized country to do that?

What are your views on the newly formulated National Action Plan? And has the military’s policy changed all of a sudden?

So far, the National Action Plan appears to me as more of a publicity stunt. Its success is being measured in terms of arrests of criminals. We did not need a National Action Plan to arrest criminals, but to simply implement the law as it exists.

What we need is depoliticizing the police, judicial reforms, madrassa reforms, reigning in the Maulvis, immigration control, dismantling banned outfits, arresting those responsible for sectarian conflict, stopping the free flow of funding for terrorism, and disbanding private armies and unauthorized armed guards.

As for the military’s policy, nothing has happened suddenly. Of the 48,000 square kilometers of combat zone, 35,000 were cleared during General Kayani’s time. North Waziristan was not taken on for a host of reasons and one of them was lack of political support.

Similarly, in Karachi, the government was uncomfortable with an Army-led response to the lawlessness in Karachi. Even now there is a sizeable resistance to these operations mounted by some political parties, specifically those that prevented them during their tenure when General Kayani was the COAS.

The institution has remained consistent as far as its functional philosophy is concerned. Its performance may have fluctuated on account of varying influences, but its intent must never be put to question.

There is talk of a serious mistrust between civil and military leaders. Is this a soft coup?

In my 37 years of service, I have never seen the Army conduct itself the way it has in the recent past, bending over backwards to avoid interference in the government’s affairs, even when the conduct of the government necessitated it. I know this because of my presence on many occasions where the government had asked for a foreign policy paper from GHQ when it needed one. Incidentally, it usually contradicted any suggestions or recommendations in their subsequent actions. I have met ministers who have pleaded for a briefing before a foreign visit and visited GHQ incognito to get direction. I can assure you that the Army has neither been interested nor overbearing in these matters.

The Karachi Operation is an outcome of the government’s request and not an Army initiative as some have come to mistakenly believe.

It is important that a forum be organized where the public be informed about the civil military relationship; and to define who is responsible for what and who must be held. Without such a forum, governments will continue justifying their own failures by blaming the Army for not allowing them the space they needed to perform.

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/gen-r-tariq-khan-interview.405099/#ixzz3paENZ0ib