| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| The pakistan army, terror groups - friends or foes? |
| 2006-09-11 |
| Soon after the September 11 attacks, the United States forced the world's countries to make a choice: Cooperate with us against the Islamist global terrorism, or else be considered our enemy. Pakistan made its decision quickly and joined the U.S. in its "war on terror." Five years into the war, however, it is not clear where Pakistan really stands. Some facts are irrefutable and might be considered as solid proofs of Pakistan's loyalty to America's war on terror: a) About a quarter of all Al-Qa'ida members detained in Guantanamo Bay were arrested in Pakistan; b) Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers were killed during military operations against various Islamist groups; and c) Several assassination attempts have been carried out by Islamist terror movements against President Pervez Musharraf in the past few years. The United States considers Pakistan as an ally. In fact, it is currently conducting a joined naval exercise with Pakistan. So why, one might ask, should we even raise doubts as to the level of Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorism? To answer this question and to better clarify the relations between the Pakistan army and the various terror groups in the country, The Media Line (TML) spoke to several terror experts. The answers, as always, were varied, while the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. A terrorist and a freedom fighter usually use the same means to promote their cause. In fact, a terrorist is a freedom fighter, depending on which side of the fence you are on. We will return to this semantic difference after one short background explanation. In 1947 British India was dissolved, giving birth to modern-day India and Pakistan. From that period onward, Pakistan's first major regional dispute was born, as Kashmir, a disputed area between the two states, was given by the British to India. During the 1980s, Pakistan got involved in a second major regional dispute, this time, to its north. For almost 10 years, the Soviets were at war with Afghanistan. Wanting to prevent India from allying with Afghanistan against them, the Pakistanis aspired to the creation of an Islamist state in Afghanistan. The Pakistani state, which was ruled by its army for most of its existence, became highly involved in both these regional conflicts. The way it did so was by means of supporting and training local Islamist movements, to be used as proxies by the Pakistan army. Islamist groups such as Lashkar-e-Teiba (LeT) and Jeish-e-Muhammad (JeM) thus became freedom fighters in their quest to “free” Kashmir. At the beginning of the 1980s, Musharraf – then a colonel in the Pakistan army – became closely involved in the army's strategic aim of preparing Afghani Islamist fighters for their anti-Soviet war. These “freedom fighters” were known as Taliban, which later took control over Afghanistan, and their allies: a small group known as Al-Qa'ida. Geopolitical reasons may provide some explanations for the Pakistani support of Islamist movements. But that is not all. Speaking at a conference of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last year, Pakistani scholar, Dr Hussein Haqqani, told listeners that, for national unity, his country turned to Islam instead of the consensus of the people. "The search for identity and the need for an ideological base for the country… required a movement towards ideology. In the process, ideological Islamists became allies of the military over a long period of time." According to Haqqani, the infrastructure that was created to support Jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir is still intact to this day. After the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida were transformed in the eyes of Pakistan from freedom fighters into terrorists – at least that was the official line. After all, the equation was clear: If you were for Al-Qa'ida, you were against the U.S., and clearly Pakistan had made its choice. But did it? Editor of the South Asia Intelligence Review (SAIR), Dr. Ajai Sahni, believes it did not. "It is clear that Pakistan's principal interests are in continuing to exploit the local and regional terrorist groups, while it tries to control international terrorist groups," Sahni told The Media Line. "However, this distinction between the international and domestic [terror groups] is completely irrational. You can see that some of the arrests that have taken place…in the UK, in the U.S. or in Madrid – were of terrorist groups which are supposed to be local; for instance, Lashkar-e-Taiba." From his New Delhi-based office, Sahni explains that, "the moment you have a universal ideology such as extremist Islam, you cannot contain the consequences in a domestic or a regional context." This is where the Pakistani predicament begins. While it is fighting some terror groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida, the Pakistan army is much less determined when it comes to “local” groups such as LeT or JeM. The latter two groups are fighting India for Kashmir, fulfilling Pakistan's interests in the region. But for quite some time now, LeT and JeM have developed aspirations exceeding Kashmir. According to Sahni, one explanation for these aspirations comes from their core essence of being Islamist movements, which bear a universal ideology. But that is not all. Located in Pakistan, LeT is not only ideologically, but also geographically close to the International Islamist Front, led by Al-Qa'ida. Prof. Talat Wizarat, a scholar from Karachi University in Pakistan, presented The Media Line with a totally different view. In Wizarat’s eyes , Al-Qa'ida is not only an insignificant force in Pakistan, but it also has no connections with local Islamist groups. "As far as Al-Qa’ida is concerned, I seriously wonder if they still exist, because even their middle-rank leadership has been eliminated. If they are there, they have no means of communicating with each other. Although they might have plans to regroup, right now I do not think they are a fighting group, and if they have any linkages with other fighting groups, they are insignificant." Wizarat is employed in the International Relations Department of Karachi University. Experts outside Pakistan claim that the country's universities are controlled by the military regime. That may explain some of Wizarat's views and terminology. "As far as Lashkar-e-Taiba is concerned, it is a true freedom-fighting movement, supporting the freedom struggle of Kashmir. It does not have anything to do with Al-Qa’ida or other groups fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan or in Iraq," maintains Wizarat. She continues that the Pakistan Army is doing a remarkable job in its "so-called war on terror," which is very unpopular in the domestic front. Wizarat even asserts that, in her personal view, the army leadership is "unfortunately not drawing any distinction between the Kashmiri freedom fighters and other groups which the Americans accuse of being terrorists." While Wizarat places the Pakistan army and the Islamist groups on two opposite sides, others portray them as allies. India’s Sahni is clear on the subject: "The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI – the Pakistan Army's intelligence corps) constitutes the most significant terrorist organization in south Asia. All the other names that you will hear — whether it is the Taliban on the one side, or Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harakat-ul-Mujahidin and Jeish-e-Muhammad on the other side — all these groups are instrumentalities of the Pakistani state and are all directly controlled by the ISI." In 2003, Jeish-e-Muhammad, which, according to Sahni was a group supported by Pakistan army, tried to assassinate Musharraf. "Pakistan is trying to manipulate an instrument which is very imperfect," explains Sahni. "They do not have absolute control over all groups – even over those groups they themselves have created. And even within the groups they [seem to] control completely there are some renegade elements." This was done not long after Pakistan announced its alliance with the U.S, which is considered an enemy of Islam by some radical movements such as Jeish-e-Muhammad. Nevertheless, asserts Sahni, "Pakistan does not show any indication of disengaging from the terrorist groups, which, in its assessment, are serving the Pakistani state’s purposes and objectives." Sahni's views in this regard should be clear to the reader by now. But other experts The Media Line spoke to do not share these views. According to ICPVTR’s Gunaratna, "people in the West must get this right – they must support General Musharraf even though he is a dictator and even though there is a lack of democracy in Pakistan. They must work with Pakistan because it is now facing a severe problem… General Musharraf is doing a good job with the limited resources he has." Haqqani, who is the author of Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, also believes the United States must remain engaged in Pakistan. But in his opinion, it is keeping all its eggs in one basket. The U.S. "is putting all its confidence in one individual, and General Musharraf is expected to turn the Titanic in a very narrow stream. It is not easy and it is not going to happen. The Islamists and the Pakistani military have deep-rooted relations and the political generals in Pakistan also look at the Islamists as allies, both for domestic politics as well as for regional politics." "Al-Qa'ida is working very closely with Lashkar-e-Teiba,” head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), Dr. Rohan Gunaratna, told The Media Line. Gunaratna, who is one of the world's leading experts on Al-Qa'ida, asserts that the organization's real strength is in its "ability to work with different Jihad groups – in Kashmir, in the Philippines, in Chechnya, in Algeria, in Sudan, in Iraq and in other countries around the world. Al-Qa'ida multiplies its force by linking up with associated groups in Asia, Africa and in the Middle East, and certainly Al-Qa'ida has infiltrated some of the Pakistani groups," Gunaratna says. By Yaniv Berman on Monday, September 11, 2006 |
| Posted by:john |
| #2 Supermarket cashiers and deliverymen: friends or foes? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-09-11 20:01 |
| #1 The pakistan army, terror groups - friends or foes? How about "indistinguishable"? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-09-11 12:10 |