Abdullah Saad

A few questions for Imran Khan

A few days back, I sent an email to Imran Khan, asking him a few questions through a certain friend of mine, regarding his stance against ‘War on Terror’. And that is because, while I usually agree to what Imran Khan says, I’ve always remained skeptical of his party’s stance. More so because, I am not really sold on the idea of suicide bombings being triggered by motives such as ‘revenge’ and not ideology.

So it is today, that I received a reply, though not written by him but by the Secretary General of Pakistan Tehreek e Insaaf (equally good for me, since I was interested in questioning their party policy to start with). Do keep in mind that while I am not completely satisfied by his answers, one of the points raised by him did in fact resonate with me i.e. Sri Lanka losing out in the long run, due to a prolonged counter-insurgency war.

Also, while questions raised by me were more of, what you might regard as tactical in nature, his reply to them is keeping in view the strategic reality of Pakistan. Read it in the same light and you’ll see what I’m getting at. What I’d like to know is what do you folks have to say about my questions and their answers.

Why these three questions? Well, that is because I’ve repeatedly seen him discussing these three points, in every single interview of his – where he gets to discuss war on terror.

Question No: 1 – Khan Sahib says that there have been no suicide attacks inside Pakistan, prior to 2001. And that the current phenomenon of suicide attacks in Pakistan is more ‘revenge’ oriented than people following a particular ideology. I find that assertion fallacious and misleading. Why? Because there have been instances of Shiite versus Sunni suicide attacks inside Pakistan, throughout the 90s. That phenomenon grew from killing each other’s doctors to full blown suicide attacks against Masajids and Imam Bargahs.

Now, committing a suicide attack, inside a settled area is not exactly a child’s play, as certain TV hosts would have you believe. It involves acts ranging from making of the bomb, its trigger, alternative blasting methods / strategies in case the primary trigger fails – just as we saw in the blast against Marriott – sending reconnaissance missions in order to know the target first hand, transporting the bomber to the target city, keeping him and the payload in a safe house until the time of the attack and not to forget taking care of all assorted logistical issues. Such a comprehensive action plan does not only need people with the knowhow of setting up IEDs (improvised explosive devices) but extensive ground information and a strong human intelligence network as well. How is it then AQ or Tribesmen from FATA were able to conduct such tactically well executed suicide attacks in settled areas of Pakistan in 2002, right after the start of Afghan war?

My explanation for that is that, the expertise that is needed in order to organize such attacks was already present inside the settled areas of Pakistan, through the very sectarian groups, that have for quite some time been finding protection in the lawless areas of FATA. And which have since joined hands with AQ and various factions of Taliban. Not much has changed since the 90s, it was the top cadre of these groups that was Punjabi and the pawns even then – as we remember – came from either FANA (Shiite) or FATA (Sunni). Ergo, most of these attacks are driven by ideology (religio-political) and not revenge.

Question No: 2 – Khan Sahib suggests that Pakistan should use FC, Khasadar and Police force inside the tribal areas, instead of combating this insurgency using the army. I believe, that what Khan sahib is forgetting here, is that is exactly what the government of Pakistan has been doing for the last few years i.e. pitching inexperienced and in-adequately equipped (you cannot possibly equip an army of 100,000+ men in a few years with top of the line gear and train them too, it takes some time) FC and Khasadar men in front of trained and war-hardened fighters from different Taliban outfits and foreign fighters allied with AQ. What happened? Those poor souls got butchered, literally.

The results were so horrifying that these forces had stopped putting up a fight altogether [I'm sure that all of us remember reading news about hundreds of FC men surrendering unconditionally], their morale had tumbled to the ground. How were they then supposed to bring peace to these areas? It’s not as if Taliban or AQ would give us a time out session – during which we could gather our FC / Khasadar forces, make them go through intensive counter-insurgency training and then put them in the battlefield.

How is such a stance, given our circumstances, justifiable?

Question No: 3 – Khan sahib says, that India hasn’t attacked Kashmiri militants with its air force or gunship helicopters. What he is forgetting here, is that India has had the luxury of concentrating man power and its land forces on its western border alone. We do not. While their primary enemy is on their western front, we’ve been flanked by enemies at either side of our borders. We cannot send in another 80, 000 + soldiers to our western border without removing forces from the eastern front. And the fact that India had landed its forces in Kashmir, in 1947 and has since the time to set up bases and prepare ground for military infrastructure in Kashmir. While we had to push inside our tribal areas, from our positions, in settled areas. I do not know why would Khan Sahib have us send in men, with no air power backing them up against entrenched fighters? For it would amount to sheer suicide. Basic military doctrine dictates that air power is to be used in order to consolidate lack of man power.

And when Khan Sahib talks about Pakistan military using F-16s or Mirage fighters against militants, he forgets that these are the only planes in our entire aerial arsenal capable of firing precision guided weaponry. Why else do you believe we’re using our already aging bunch of F-16s and Mirage fighters instead of F-7PGs or even A-5s? If Pakistan military machine were to knowingly conduct genocide in these areas, as portrayed in our media at times and supported by certain politicians – wouldn’t they be better off dropping dumb bombs, NAPALMs and Cluster bombs (remember Israel – Lebanon war?)? For, they can prove to be far more successful in killing a large number of people, very easily.

Reply by Secretary General, Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf:

Dear Saad,

Your points are valid. You have drawn the attention to Shia Sunni suicide bombings ( I don’t remember many before 9/11). Khan is talking in the political sense but you may be academically correct. There is enough evidence in history that terrorism cannot usually be controlled by military force. A July 2008 study by Rand Corporation should open our eyes that only 8% terror organisations have been defeated in the last 60 years. That too where the country is stable, has no divisive tendencies inside and no foreign players. Majority of terror organisations about 58% (I do not remember figures exactly but can send you this 250 page study) become part of the political process after negotiations, and about 20% just die of when the issue dies.

You pick the best solution out of that and I will agree. Very strong principles cannot be applied on the Pakistan landscape. We are too weak, too divided, with Mohajir, Sindhi, Baloch and even Pathan history of perceived and actual deprivations, and religiously fragmented to develop a very strong reaction to bury the Taliban forever. Even US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan could not fight terror because they are augmenting it by force. The primary issues which are creating these nurseries must be handled. It requires carrot and stick but the US and Pakistan are doing much more stick and little carrot. We do not agree with the balance as is being practiced.

However if you think they can be handled in any other way you have another think coming. I have predicted in TV interviews etc. over the last 4 months that the bazaars, hotels, and western interests shall be bombed. I am depressed to say that I was right. Having said all this please do not think that I am justifying these actions. No I abhor it, but I must try and remove the cause. For some it starts in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, and in Iraq. I cannot do much about it, but for US actions sake in Afghanistan we are not ready to import it. Families have lived across these borders for hundreds of years. Military handling of terror creates chaos.

Of course these are well trained people. But when you send your forces, then you send your bombers as you rightly said to protect them and the best of technologies still allows hundreds more to be killed in collateral. Sri lanka is a good example of a prolonged terror war which reduced a country with Singapore like potential in the seventies (98% literacy) to what it is today. Those settlements which could have been made in 1985, both parties would grab it today with greed had it not been for the bitterness created in the last 25 years. So also for Palestine. So also for Afghanistan (Mulla Omer offered in the last days to give up Osama if he is tried in a neutral country, would not US grab it today). The list goes on.

I am attaching an unfinished article for you (will be sent out to the press shortly which delves on the civil war I see emerging). Collateral damage multiplies it. The US and UK within their countries can handle it terror differently as their population is totally united behind them, they are not aggrieved and have no polarization. The prescription should be according to the patient and what is possible. All this has nothing to do with Islam. Mr Khan therefore is talking in a bigger context and has to use all the arguments which come to mind.

It can take hours to discuss this, and my intention is never to convince but to let people know why I, and Mr Khan like so many others are taking these positions.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Arif Alvi,

Secretary General,

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf