Dirty Politics Affecting War On Terrorism
Muhammad Khurshid
September 20, 2008
There will be no denying the fact that rulers of world have been playing a dirty game on the war on terrorism and this is the reason that this menace has been growing despite huge losses of human resources. The role of rulers of Pakistan always remained very negative. It seems that they have been breeding terrorism in their country. Terrorists have been facing a very hard time after the US drones attacks on their positions in tribal areas situated on Pak-Afghan. Whenever terrorists feel the real threat they ask their supporters in Pakistan to build pressure on the government of Pakistan and US administration to abandon the action. But now this is the demand of people of tribal areas badly affected by terrorism to finish this war at the earliest. Now, according to them, there will be no talks with terrorists or militants.
According to a newspaper comment, it would appear that there remain a few oases of common sense in the administration of President Bush. John Negroponte — deputy secretary of state, the second-ranking official at the State Department and overseer of US diplomatic policy towards Pakistan — has stated the obvious: unilateral American strikes inside Pakistan are not a good idea. But a closer reading of Mr Negroponte´s statement shows that what the Americans give with one statement, they take away with another missile. The crucial caveat reducing the force of Mr Negroponte´s statement? Unilateral strikes are not a viable solution "over a prolonged period of time". Mr Negroponte did not explain what he meant by a prolonged period of time. Was the diplomat calling for US strikes inside Fata to end immediately? Or was he merely advising the next US president, who will take office in January, that continuing with President Bush´s policy of unilateral strikes will not be such a good idea? Pakistan cannot afford to wait for months to decipher what Mr Negroponte meant.
The clearest indication of what the US is hoping to achieve in Fata was given by the CIA director, Michael Hayden, earlier this week when he said that the US is trying to "tickle" militant groups in Fata, hoping to learn more about the whereabouts and patterns of movement of the militants. Director Hayden was essentially saying that the US is shaking the tree of militancy and then inspecting the fruit that falls to the ground to learn more about the militants still hiding in the tree. What the Americans are of course overlooking is that in the process they are also stirring up a hornet´s nest of Pakistani public opinion — which is becoming more stridently anti-American with each passing day. US strikes inside Pakistan are a bad idea. Period. Only Pakistan has the wherewithal and the potential public support to strike inside Fata.
The Pakistani government no doubt has an immense task to hold back an American administration running out of time and ideas. However, why is our government not trying to win over the public by taking the lid off on the goings-on in Waziristan? Why has the government not launched a concerted campaign to educate Pakistanis about the risks they face from militancy? Most Pakistanis do not know the difference between Matta and Miranshah or Angoor Adda and Khar. Lack of information makes it impossible for the public to understand the virtue in striking back against militants. Earlier this year, former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar marshalled facts, figures and graphs excellently to explain our economic predicament to the nation. Cannot the mass of PR and defence experts in the civilian administration sit down and draw up a similar campaign to educate the public on the militancy threat?
The End
According to a newspaper comment, it would appear that there remain a few oases of common sense in the administration of President Bush. John Negroponte — deputy secretary of state, the second-ranking official at the State Department and overseer of US diplomatic policy towards Pakistan — has stated the obvious: unilateral American strikes inside Pakistan are not a good idea. But a closer reading of Mr Negroponte´s statement shows that what the Americans give with one statement, they take away with another missile. The crucial caveat reducing the force of Mr Negroponte´s statement? Unilateral strikes are not a viable solution "over a prolonged period of time". Mr Negroponte did not explain what he meant by a prolonged period of time. Was the diplomat calling for US strikes inside Fata to end immediately? Or was he merely advising the next US president, who will take office in January, that continuing with President Bush´s policy of unilateral strikes will not be such a good idea? Pakistan cannot afford to wait for months to decipher what Mr Negroponte meant.
The clearest indication of what the US is hoping to achieve in Fata was given by the CIA director, Michael Hayden, earlier this week when he said that the US is trying to "tickle" militant groups in Fata, hoping to learn more about the whereabouts and patterns of movement of the militants. Director Hayden was essentially saying that the US is shaking the tree of militancy and then inspecting the fruit that falls to the ground to learn more about the militants still hiding in the tree. What the Americans are of course overlooking is that in the process they are also stirring up a hornet´s nest of Pakistani public opinion — which is becoming more stridently anti-American with each passing day. US strikes inside Pakistan are a bad idea. Period. Only Pakistan has the wherewithal and the potential public support to strike inside Fata.
The Pakistani government no doubt has an immense task to hold back an American administration running out of time and ideas. However, why is our government not trying to win over the public by taking the lid off on the goings-on in Waziristan? Why has the government not launched a concerted campaign to educate Pakistanis about the risks they face from militancy? Most Pakistanis do not know the difference between Matta and Miranshah or Angoor Adda and Khar. Lack of information makes it impossible for the public to understand the virtue in striking back against militants. Earlier this year, former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar marshalled facts, figures and graphs excellently to explain our economic predicament to the nation. Cannot the mass of PR and defence experts in the civilian administration sit down and draw up a similar campaign to educate the public on the militancy threat?
The End
Print
Email
