And Now Balochistan is in the Line of Fire

Faryal Leghari

Being a Baloch, my reaction to reports on planned US covert operations including airstrikes and possibly ground operations in Balochistan was immediate; one of rage. It does not mean that I am a Baloch nationalist, first and foremost I am a Pakistani and proud to be one. However, it is but natural that outrage is felt for external threats against a specific area one identifies with more emotionally than the rest of one's country.

What I am most concerned is about the reaction of people who actually suffer the consequences of such strikes, who have lost family members and seen the annihilation of their homes?

The drone strikes are not a new feature in Pakistan's now jaded experience of its fight against terrorism. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), bordering Afghanistan, have been subjected to the drone strikes since 2004. The Pakistan government under Musharraf had tacitly allowed CIA operated planes to carry out the attacks, against key Al Qaeda and Taleban targets.

The drone attacks that have seen a spurt since last year continue to rankle the people. Nonetheless, a growing immunity to the ongoing onslaughts against sovereignty has set in, thus suspending one in an inertial cycle of acceptance and protest. Charged statements from friends, raging from, "They will not dare! The Pakistani people and the army will never allow it" to "What do you expect? The government will agree to every thing the Americans say or want to do!" epitomises the polar dilemma Pakistan is undergoing in the war against terrorism.

Successive governments, both Musharraf's and the current democratically elected one, have gone blue in the face denying any tacit complicity in the strikes. The undoing of the great pretence however came from an unexpected quarter in Washington this year when the full knowledge - translate approval (grudging, forced, whatever) - of the Pakistan government was revealed. To make matters worse, disclosures of secret air bases within Pakistan that were being used for the strikes came about!

Apparently, the government is in full knowledge of the strikes, and has even facilitated the use of its own airbases to strike targets inside the country! This means that all those thundering warnings against 'violations of sovereignty' by a cross-section of political leaders had been nothing but an elaborate exercise in deception. Previously, the strikes were assumed to be carried out by automated Predator aircraft from across the Afghan border. The whole question of the territorial violations now hangs by a tenuous thread. Is it or is it not? Emotionalism aside, the question about the necessity of the strikes is an important one and needs to be weighed in the context of its implications.

If one looks at the logic and outcome of the drone strikes from a security perspective, one could argue that the strikes did result in eliminating high value Al Qaeda targets - US military commanders list nine Al Qaeda operatives in six years of strikes exceeding 60. Quite impressive! Military logic would probably argue in favour of the significance of the targets, something beyond the comprehension of the ordinary people. However, the justification behind the attacks that somehow legalises the 'collateral damage' of ensuing civilian deaths is not a ground enough for appeasement, neither will it validate a future theatre expansion for the US led operations.

According to a New York Times report, extending the covert CIA strikes to Balochistan and other areas is "necessitated" by the use of these areas by Mullah Omar's Taleban, to wage attacks inside Afghanistan. The area north of Quetta, allegedly being used as a base by the Taleban top command, is a heavily Pashtun populated area in Balochistan. The province of Balochistan that shares a long border with the south and eastern part of Afghanistan is a strategic nightmare.

Besides the cross-border traffic of insurgents, the borders with Afghanistan and Iran face heavy trafficking of narcotics, and other smuggled goods as well as human trafficking, owing to a number of factors. These range from a porous border, difficult terrain as well as the ethnic-tribal linkage between the people on either side.

The shift in focus in Washington on the war in Afghanistan has added further pressure on Pakistan that is considered a key factor in the stabilisation of the region. Obama's plans of sending 17,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan that would be deployed along the Pak-Afghan border is part of the Af-Pak strategic doctrine. Saner voices have called for a review of additional expansion of US forces in Afghanistan, a tactic not considered feasible given the nature of the insurgency and the historical evidence.

The new Afghan strategy that is to entail recommendations following the visit of Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy, to the region earlier this year was to also incorporate inputs from subsequent tripartite meetings involving Afghan, Pakistani and US officials. While Pakistan has repeatedly pressed the US to review its drone attack strategy, the current US policy is likely to continue and even expand to new areas.

The drone strikes targeting the insurgents in FATA as well as the Pak military operations in key FATA agencies have led to a shift in strategic bases of both the Taleban and Al Qaeda to other parts of Pakistan. The question is how far will the US extend the strategic ambit of its airstrikes?

The point is to try to fathom what the recommendations made by the US defence experts, would entail. Do the Americans intend chasing Taleban and al Qaeda all over Pakistan, from remote Balochistan to Islamabad? Though Obama is yet to decide a line of action on expanding drone strikes, war drums are already being heard loudly across Pakistan. It is madness to continue with this extremely dangerous doctrine. Though the Pakistan government has expressed alarm and hoped that such a possibility would not materialise, it needs to take stern action and tell the United States that further concessions in this ongoing war on terror will not be tolerated.

If Pakistan's stability is really the core issue, then this sort of approach has to be dropped. The trust the US military planners claim to have with Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani, and other top brass, should be demonstrated. This would require concerted coordination and joint planning based on increased ground intelligence. Any operations conducted inside Pakistan need to be done by the Pakistani forces, period. If drone strikes are necessary they should be publicly accepted and carried out by the Pakistan Air Force.

Pakistan's leaders must realise that they cannot survive in a rapidly evolving strategic environment without their people's support. They have to realise that Pakistani people and media have awakened to become a force, as was evident in the recent judicial movement. In short, future strategic doctrine in Pakistan in the war in terror will have to be shaped in the national interest and must take public opinion into consideration.

Faryal Leghari is KT's Assistant Editor. The views expressed here are her own. She can be reached at faryal@khaleejtimes.com