ROVER’S DIARY: Idiot bomber and Hillary —Babar Ayaz

When Pakistan, which had installed the Taliban in Afghanistan and supported it financially, morally and militarily, asked Mullah Omar to choose between Osama and Pakistan, he opted to side with Osama

“Sub-prime bomber” and “an idiot bomber” is how Faisal Shahzad, who tried to blow up Times Square, has been labelled by the US media. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) proudly owned the ‘idiot’. So far nothing is surprising if one understands the complexities of the ongoing jihadi streak among rabid Muslims across the globe.

But the knee-jerk reaction of an otherwise mature politician, Hillary Clinton was indeed surprising for many Pakistanis who expected sagacity from the lady Secretary of State. Her tough statement did not help either the US or the Pakistanis who believe that the war against jihadis is the war of the people of Pakistan. Such a hawkish view in the US has been rightly questioned by Robert Wright, the author of The Evolution of God, in his article, ‘Jihadi intent and the making of a terrorist’, in the International Herald Tribune (IHT). He has rightly maintained, “They (American hawks) need to seriously ask whether the policies they favour have, while killing terrorists abroad, created terrorists both abroad and — more disturbingly — at home. These possibly counterproductive hawkish policies go beyond drone strikes — a fact that is unwittingly underscored by the hawks themselves.”

Interestingly, the military leadership in the US has shown more restraint in issuing hawkish statements against Pakistan. One view is that maybe this is because the US military, which is already involved in an operation in Afghanistan, understands the ground realities more than the civilian leadership in Washington does. This may be correct. But another reason for not shooting out harsh statements by the US military leaders is that they are engaged closely with our army chief, General Kayani. Every other day we host either General McChrystal or General Petraeus. So this is the better communication that helps.

Back home, broadly speaking, there are four positions taken by the intelligentsia about the Afghanistan imbroglio since 9/11. First, the point of view is that of rabid Islamists who say that Pakistan should not have given in to American pressure and should have continued to support the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The advocates of this policy option live in their ideological trance and are disconnected from reality. No doubt that the American reaction on 9/11 was rash and unbecoming of a superpower; one would have expected sagacity and statesmanship from the US leadership. But having said that, once the US decided to go after Osama bin Laden, the Taliban were given a fair chance to disassociate themselves from the global jihadi mission of al Qaeda. The supporters of the Taliban in Pakistan should recap recent history post-9/11. When Pakistan, which had installed the Taliban in Afghanistan and supported it financially, morally and militarily, asked Mullah Omar to choose between Osama and Pakistan, he opted to side with Osama (is this not a sour dividend on our heavy investment in building strategic assets in Afghanistan?). In this situation we can blame Musharraf for his other sins, but we cannot question the policy of withdrawing support for the Taliban, at least officially. The consequence of resisting the US would have been disastrous for Pakistan economically, politically and militarily.

The second position is bewildering and ‘seth-ish’. It states that Pakistan has sold itself too cheap and should have asked for much more. Interestingly, the protagonists of this position easily swim to and fro between Islamic morality and pure materialist narratives. Pakistan may not have milked the Americans and western countries as much as these people wanted, but the fact remains that much of the Musharraf era high growth was because of the deal struck by his shrewd Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. He had all the bilateral debt rescheduled for 35 years and at a minimal cost. The fiscal space created by this move stabilised the Pakistani currency and allowed a substantial rise in the development spending that fuelled the economy.

The third position is that Pakistan should not have taken any action against the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban in the country. The supporters of this view are often found arguing in the media that till the time we did not go after these Taliban and other jihadi outfits, the country was not facing terrorism. Now this is in complete disregard of international law and the fact that Pakistan is bound to act as a responsible country. No civilised and responsible country in today’s world can afford to breed and nurture terrorist organisations that can destabilise neighbouring countries. The UN can impose strict sanctions on any such country. There was peace in the country because our establishment was covertly abetting the terrorist organisations. As a matter of fact, the empirical evidence is that they still follow this policy selectively and support some organisations that cooperate with them.

This brings us to the fourth position, which is taken by saner segments of society. The fact is that the holders of the above three positions should first do some introspection. If the policies suggested by them and their mentors were in the interests of the people, then why are we suffering today? A dispassionate study of our past policies of hunting with the terrorists shows that the whole game of using non-state militant groups to further the country’s national security interests was counterproductive. Today we are reaping the harvest of the sordid policies of our establishment in the killing fields of Pakistan.

Whether there is a realisation in the establishment that this dangerous policy has to be changed by 180 degrees or not, is not certain. My friend, former ambassador Zafar Hilaly, says that the policy is changing. “It is like a huge passenger liner where the tail of the ship takes time to change direction,” Zafar says whilst drawing an analogy. I hope that he is right because he has access to the establishment’s top bosses. Sitting at a distance and analysing on the basis of available facts only, unfortunately, I am not that optimistic.

The writer can be reached at ayazbabar@gmail.com