Terrorism: Policy and Strategic Alternatives for AF-PAK REGION

Terrorism: Policy and Strategic Alternatives for AF-PAK REGION

Muhammad Arif Tangi

ariftangi@gmail.com

Now that President Barack Obama has announced the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan till the end of 2014, the uncertainty in the AF-PAK region has increased manifold. The growing crises on many fronts within Afghanistan and Pakistan have been disillusioning many as more questions are being raised on the commitment of the international community for bringing peace to the region and ensuring human security. The spectrum of threats is such that no saner mind can look towards future with optimism.

As the US is failing to win the so-called war against terror amid ever-increasing militancy and terrorism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and as she is looking further for a compromised settlement of the Afghan stalemate by opening avenues for dialogues with the Taliban, the outcomes of US withdrawal would seem more like a defeat for the mighty United States. Alternatively, this would be considered a victory for Islamic militants and their political supporters across the world who disdain US hegemony as major hurdle in the propagation of Islam and the establishment of Islamic Caliphate. Consequently, the world would be preparing itself for the worst nightmares ahead—global Jihadi outfits with renewed vigor. This would also raise many questions on the efficacy of international peace organizations such as the United Nations and the Security Council for failing to ensure global peace and security.

While the AF-PAK region will largely decide the course of history in the times ahead, analysts would remain engaged in gauging the efficacy of the existing policies and strategies to look for alternatives. These analyses would largely be done in the backdrop of the threats this region is facing and how effectively or poorly these threats are being mitigated.

The Threat Factor

The threats in the region are such that even one with common sense could predict a complete collapse of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Worst apprehensions are such that either the Jihadi outfits would completely overthrow both the states (Pakistan being a nuclear power) or they would find safer havens to attack their enemies across the world. It would, therefore, be important to enlist some of the primary threats vis-à-vis the existing policies and strategies in order to save the world from the menace of terrorism.

Militant ideology is gaining strength mainly because of a simple reason that the militants have been sustaining the so-called global Jihad against the United States and its allies. The United States’ direct but failed military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has actually increased militancy manifold. Firstly, use of coercive force cannot be calculated precisely and collateral damages are always greater. Secondly, overthrowing a regime is mostly followed by compromised political setups in the name of political stability. Thirdly, reviving a war-ravaged economy is not an easy task as peace precedes investment. Fourth, the common people desire radical and substantive changes to their living standard which could not be made without a massive civilian aid. Fifth, the more time passes by the more disillusionment one could see and which can often result into widespread resentment. Thus wining a war is actually winning the hearts and minds of the people which the US failed to win in Iraq and which we could see in Afghanistan as the US is planning a pull out while leaving behind a big mess.

The militants cannot operate without an ideology. Ideology could not gain strength save public support for it or if public is neutral and not opposing militancy. It should be reminded that in both Afghanistan and Pakistan we are facing a generation which was ideologically nurtured by the US during Cold War. This generation finds pride in global Jihad and this faith system is equally accepted by all and sundry to a greater or lesser degree. It is no surprise that despite of spending billions of dollars on this war the states and society in both Afghanistan and Pakistan remain hostage to this ideology. More surprisingly this ideology has virtually paralyzed the Pakistani state while Afghanistan is relatively less contagious.

The AF-PAK region will mostly remain ambivalent towards militancy. Firstly, countering militancy would require the governments and security apparatus to wage a war against itself which is like cutting a cancerous parts of one’s body. Secondly, the will, commitment, inspiration or motivation for such a fatal surgery would only come through a deeper understanding of the impending catastrophes to the states and society at the hands of the militants. Thirdly, those who have this deeper understanding are fewer in number, having less capacity and are mostly outside the power structures with little say in the affairs of state and society.

Now that the US is pulling out from Afghanistan and that Pakistan is completely engulfed by terrorists the only ray of hope is to understand the fundamental flaw in countering terrorism. This flaw is lack of understanding of the militants discourse. Even if this flaw is understood the problem will not be solved overnight. We need to have fresh policies and strategies as a new beginning for bringing peace to the region.

Policy and Strategic Alternatives for Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Irrespective of the reasons why the international community is fast losing its commitment for the AF-PAK region and realizing the deadly implications of an impending pull out by the United States, both the country should work out policy and strategic alternatives with a focus on saying a big “NO” to the US for dictating policy guidelines for the region. This is the first and foremost step towards developing an indigenous counter-terrorism mechanism by taking into consideration the national sovereignty of each country (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and respecting the same for reducing the trust deficit. Surely this is a long journey but setting up a right direction would itself mean covering half of the distance. Both the states must peruse independent and sovereign policy alternatives with or without mutual cooperation but with a focus to understand terrorism as major threat to the survival of both the countries. The policies would only find public supports if they are detached from the US as majority of the people are already suspicious about the US’ role in the region.

The policy alternatives shall also be having a religious or Islamic context. Keeping in view the widespread perceptions against the so-called “infidel west”, the policy alternatives must redefine the very meaning of Jihad. This could only be done if we rely less and less on our “friends” in the Middle East who support extremist Wahabi interpretation of Islam which form the core of militants’ ideology. The religious scholars must come forward with innovative ideas for peaceful propagation of Islam and coexistence through laws, foreign policy, administration, education system and media.

On strategic level a direct military action against the terrorists shall be accompanied by a psychological warfare which aims at destroying support base for the militants. This would mean deconstructing the militants discourse aggressively and ensuring a foolproof society where terrorists’ ideology could not permeate. Much has been written on the constituents of this discourse. It is now time to act wisely, firmly and with a broader vision.