Who Are We Kidding?
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008A while back David Ignatius wrote an article about a quiet deal taking place between US and Pakistan, regarding the drone attacks in Pakistani administered areas – this was on the 4th of November. Since then, we’ve seen a number of stories springing up about this ‘tacit’ understanding … All the hoopla about Pakistan’s sovereignty is gaining momentum.
As much as I hate to say it, I find it very difficult to believe that we were ever a sovereign state. Yes, maybe for the first few years after partition; but the more I find out about our history (more from people, than books – which sadly have been written with major biases), the more I wonder about the real reasons why this partition took place, and whether we were actually meant to be a sovereign state.
Secondly, given our 60 year long dependency on America, militarily and economically, this cry for sovereignty seems to be nothing but lip service to appease the (assumed) ‘uninformed’ masses of this country, and also to all those who still honestly believe that we are a sovereign state.
Ok, let’s avoid sprinkling salt on our wounds and talk about deliverables.
What’s the objective here? This War on Terror … what do we want out of it? I think we do share a common objective with the Americans/Nato: to get rid of terrorism. It is also quite clear that both, the American drone attacks and the ‘Military-cum-Tribal Lashkar’ operations are pursuing this very same goal.
Let’s consider some facts now:
The Military-cum-Tribal Lashkar operation is taking place mostly in the Bajaur area. The actors in this conflict are a) The Frontier Corps/Military, b) The Tribal Lashkars and c) The Islamist Militants (mainly Taliban). The scale of this conflict is widespread and the pursuit here is to dismantle the infrastructure set up by the Militants.
The fact however remains, that in most cases, whenever the armed forces have succeeded in dismantling the militant posts, they have done so after majority of the militants have already escaped their premises. Let’s also not forget that these are trained guerilla warriors who know how to reinvent and relocate themselves, and hence, if they are not captured/killed, their chances of rejuvenation are still pretty high.
No doubt there are militant casualties, and that they are increasing as the learning curve grows for the state-backed forces, but there is also a casualty count of the armed forces, and then a civilian casualty count also (although these figures usually tend to be underestimated, once again for the sake of lip service), and then finally, when the militants strike back, usually with a single suicide bomber, they kill on average 5-6 people, many of whom are key players/elders/leaders in the conflict. Click here for a recent example.
To summarize, the situation in Bajaur in one of civil war, where damage spreads across 3 different forces involved in the conflict, combined with civilian casualties.
Now consider, in contrast, the US/Nato backed drone attacks. These have taken place mostly around the Waziristan area, which by the way is a much stronger hold of the Militants. There is also a supposed ‘no offensive’ deal between the Pakistani State and the Baitullah Mehsud led Taliban in this region. I guess that explains why the forces (FC and Lashkar) have not been as active here as compared to Bajaur.
In the drone attack zones, the actors are only two: a) the Militants and b) the Drones. And even among these, the latter is the more active player as it usually catches the Militants by surprise. Yes, there is also the fact that in some cases, due to faulty intelligence, the casualties have mostly been innocent civilians, but generally speaking, these attacks have been quite efficient and accurate – not only in dismantling the militant posts, but also in getting rid of them.
My hunch is that the damage caused (in terms of casualties, and in terms of unwanted casualties) is much less in the case of the Drone Attacks as compared to the one taking place in Bajaur. I am calling it a hunch, because I don’t, as yet, have the exact figures to back this argument. But this is, objectively speaking, a very reasonable hunch, and I will soon be verifying it (as an add-on to this write-up) once I get hold of the figures. (If I am wrong, I will delete this post; as simple as that. But I highly doubt that will be the case)
So now I ask, what’s all this drama about? Who are we kidding here? And why are we being so unintelligent about all this?
While the drone operations seem to be far more efficient and less damaging than the State backed operations, we (and that is not just our government, but even the media and its commentators) seem to be far more concerned about a ‘sovereignty’ we have hardly ever had. We so conveniently forget that we are trying to solve a problem here, a problem we do, in all reality, share with the Americans; a problem which is much more ours (now) than it is theirs.
I am not going to get into all the discussion about ‘going the peaceful way’ and that ‘a military solution is not the best solution’. I know (and agree with) all that. I am just comparing two situations and then pin-pointing at our all so common stupidity. In trying to protect an illusion we have about ourselves, we turned the greater evil (in terms of the ‘real’, and not hypothetical, damage caused by it) into the lesser and the lesser evil into the greater.
When will we stop making fools of ourselves?
