Sometimes you do get what you want. The U.S. government had been strongly pressuring Pakistan to take direct military action against the Taliban, which had come to dominate in some non-border areas, including areas not far in miles from Peshawar and Islamabad.
As a result, the Pakistan Army has mobilized formidable power against the militants in the Buner and Swat districts. Both are in the NWFP province, but neither are border areas. In the fighting thus far, estimates are that about 1000 militants have already been killed. No one has an estimate of the number of civilians killed because, as usual, the press are banned from the area.
In the meanwhile, there are now 1.5 million civilians who have fled those areas now living in relief camps, according to estimates from the UNHCR:
The announcement of further aid came as the Office of Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), announced that the number of registered refugees since May 2 had reached 1,454,377.
A statement from UNHCR said that “humanitarian workers were struggling to keep up with the size and speed of the displacementâ€.
Guterres told reporters on Sunday, “It’s like trying to catch something that’s moving ahead of us because the number of people on the move every day is so big and the response is never enough.†“Leaving this population without the support they need – with such massive numbers – could constitute an enormous destabilizing factorâ€, he said.
UNHCR’s chief spokesperson, Ron Redmond, said on Tuesday, “We haven’t seen anything so big and so fast in years.†(link)
And when they say, “We haven’t seen anything so big and so fast in years,” they mean 15 years, to be exact. As I understand it, the last time a displacement of this magnitude happened was 1994, in Rwanda. You break it, you own it. In recent years, the U.S. has proven very effective at breaking it, but ineffective (probably by design) at owning it. Here, the Pakistani army is probably doing the right thing by forcing this show-down*, and the U.S. government probably did the right thing to make them do it.
But now we own it. The U.S. is pledging $110 million in humanitarian aid for the displaced people — good. Let’s hope that money reaches its destination. I’m also hoping this fight ends very soon, so the displaced people can go back to their farms, harvest their wheat, and feed themselves this winter.
(*) A qualification: As President Obama acknowledged a few weeks ago, it may be that the government of Pakistan is in this mess partly because, for all sorts of reasons, it has been failing to win the ‘soft’ (media and PR) war on Islamism in NWFP. I talked about one facet of that problem in an earlier post here.
The behaviour of the US government does not surprise me…Looking at the approach to the situation in Pakistan and Sri Lanka:
President Obama, in a statement made on the 13th of May, has requested the government of Sri Lanka to “stop the indiscriminate shelling that has taken hundreds of innocent lives, including in several hospitals.� But with regard to the U.S. air strikes that regularly kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which includes women and children (according to the International Red Cross), President Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, ruled out ending air and drone strikes on the grounds that “we can’t fight with one hand tied behind our back.�
Meanwhile, the Obama administration in April chastised Pakistan for its attempt to appease and negotiate peace with the Taliban. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, had this to say about Pakistan’s strategy to avoid war: “I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists.� Pakistan finally caved in to the pressure and launched a massive offensive against the Taliban that has created a humanitarian catastrophe of monumental proportions, displacing 1.3 million people in the Swat Valley. Satisfied with the new offensive, Hillary Clinton said, “I’m actually quite impressed by the actions the Pakistani government is now taking.�
State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood echoed this sentiment when he told reporters that the Pakistani offensive is a “very, very positive� development but must be sustained. So positive, in fact, that the U.S. is considering a major boost in assistance to Pakistan-$1.5 billion a year (while U.K. Foreign Minister David Milliband is blocking the SL government’s request for aid from the IMF).
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/05/14/the-wests-bogus-concern-for-human-rights/
this time, they are not making the mistake of routing the money through the pakistan govt. almost all the money is being routed through the un and other intl dev organizations. they are also piloting a grassroots type thing where people can donate $5 to the effort by txting a number – 20222.
If the Taliban loses, it will be a tactical victory for India but a strategic loss. A winning Pakistani army will get even more funding which will be diverted to the “freedom struggle” and the Kasabs and LeT’s of the world. In international forums it will be “India this”, “Kashmir that”. Business as usual.
If the Taliban wins, it will be a tactial loss for India but a strategic victory. A winning taliban will rapidly paralyse and destroy the fabric of Pakistan. It will be the whole nine yards: Beheading school girls, hanging soccer and cricket players, controlling the resources of the Pakistani army, threatening India, Israel, Afghanistan, China, Iran and Mars. There’s no way the US/West, Israel, China will sit by and watch this. They will have to move in very quickly and take over the country after a very bloody conflict. Most likely it will be partitioned into four-five countries each with a German/Japan like status: You are a country without your own military. We’ll manage your defence needs. India will be spared of a huge thorn on its side. The stock market will jump another 20%.
M. Nam
Thanks, Amardeep for writing this. This is a very serious humanitarian crisis. According to the NYT, it’s the biggest displacement of people in South Asia since Partition.
Perhaps the fear of this displacement was one reason why the Pakistan Army was so reluctant to launch an offensive in Swat. However, once they decided to do so, they should have first made some arrangements for these people, who are not “Taliban” or to blame in any way.
Speaking of which, what the heck is India doing not leveraging the situation? This would have been a perfect time to say to America that unless we get some serious results in reduction of terrorist camps set up by the Pakistani army in POK, maybe some concessions on Kashmir, etc; India ‘to protect it’s borders’ would be compelled to move more troops on the Pakistani border. Both the US and Pakistan can hardly afford their army being distracted on the India border and India could get something out of this. And if we get nothing, move the troops anyways citing rise in terrorist insurgencies (even if not true, not very difficult to doctor).
I don’t think this is a given and India should not hope for it since India would also be in deep do do until the situation stabilizes in Pakistan which again is not a certainty. In the meanwhile millions suffer.
Not so sure about that, as long as those deterrent nukes are sitting there, you can bet Obama loses a percent of his nightly sleep for every bullet that goes off in Pakistan. Thus, the very nukes which make Pakistan such a global migraine also make this a far more predictable situation.
Ardy, I don’t think India moving more troops to Pakistan’s border would be a good idea. I think the current government is doing the right thing not to raise tensions. As everyone is well aware, the Pakistan Army is very serious about protecting the eastern border. Former president Musharraf was on Fareed Zakaria’s show a few days ago and he clearly said that Pakistan will not move its troops from the eastern border while India’s troops are there. Even if they are fighting in Swat, the Pakistan Army is going to be cognizant of any perceived threat from India.
Anyway, that’s not the point of Amardeep’s post. The innocent people being displaced from the NWFP are not responsible for any Pak-India tensions.
Kabir – I have nothing against the people of Pakistan but am coming from a India centric point of view.
That is exactly the idea. Obama, the Pakistani army and all others involved are very cognizant that if India attempts to do that, it will sabotage the effort against the Taliban and thus India can definitely get something strategic out of this. As Moornam said, a Pakistan where the headache of Taliban does not exist means the powerful army is free to wage covert war against India. What has India got from Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks? I am also not too worried that a unstable Pakistan means an unstable Sindh or Punjab and hence overflow into India – the Pakistani army would never let that happen.
I am all for peace between India and Pakistan but unless the Pakistani army is made less powerful by the people of Pakistan, it wont happen since war with India is an existential issue for the Paksitani army’s prime position. And since that is not happening, India can ill afford to not use whatever opportunities it gets.
Sorry for the digression y’all. Back to topic on the humanitarian aspects of this crisis.
I totally agree with you that the Pakistani people need to make the army less powerful. I don’t think that would happen though, if India used this opportunity to attack Pakistan or build up forces at the border. After all, the Pak Army’s very justification for it’s existence is that “India is the enemy and they want to attack us.” If India is seen to be raising tensions or mobilizing, would that not prove the Pak army right?
I think the best thing India can do (now that we have a Congress govt. it might actually happen) is not raise tensions. Obama expects India to help the US with it’s Pakistan policy. I don’t think he would take kindly to India racheting up tensions.
Ardy, This article, Let’s call Pakistan’s bluff is calling for the exact opposite of what you are proposing. So feel free to poke holes in it.
Kinda shows why the overall media coverage of the Indian Subcontinent stinks, and more specifically why NYT would be privileged to serve as toilet paper.
It should have been obvious to anyone that it is not the biggest displacement of people: 1971 Bangladesh anyone??
Or for that matter cyclones that left millions homeless? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Bhola_cyclone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Orissa_cyclone etc, etc.
The US owes NOTHING. The US has given Pak billions, either directly, or through proxies to avoid this situation. Pak took the money and avoided doing anything constructive for years. (while they continued to push nasty stuff, like the Afghan embassy bombing) If they go through turmoil, it is the least of what they deserve.
The time for Carrot has ended. At a time that US is going through economic turmoil, gifting money away to the same stock that the Tailban comes from is a horrible waste of money. More stick time from now on.
Livemint, thanks for the link.
The basic premise of the article is that India play puppy dog and then try to extract a bone from Uncle Sam and co. I actually agree with some of the points made
Pakistan probably does not have the capacity to target the Taliban alone. Their army is ill trained for this kind of warfare (the terrain, guerrilla tactics,etc). Plus they do not consider it a serious situation and thus would be reluctant to spend the time and energy required to equip their army with what is required for such kind of warfare. They’re using the money to increase/maintain their nuclear deterrence, something which Haqqani does not deny. It is well known that elements in their army still consider the Taliban as allies against India. Plus, surveys out of Pakistan indicate that Taliban falls 3rd or 4th after concerns such as inflation, governance etc and thus no one really cares as much. Yet!
That reducing troops on the border may be dangerous to India.
However, I am not convinced that we will get anything substantial for our good behavior. What did we get for restraint after Mumbai? Despite all the noise about unity in anti terrorism (both US and Pakistan) even those arrested were let go after a few days and I do not recall reading about anyone important being arrested, leave alone being handed over to India. Even in SWAT, JuD is helping in the relief efforts. Plus, we have all this activity happening right in our neighborhood and our involvement is next to nothing though it affects us much more.
The problem is that Pakistan has a carrot for the US and so we figure low on the list of priorities. This changed especially with Obama who has a much greater focus on wrapping up Af-Pak and interest to not let it go the Iraq way. Thus, I doubt we will be seeing any nuclear deals till this mess is resolved, which may take a while. Currently, the US has nothing to lose by ignoring India and this is what needs to be changed. Through hard diplomacy, we can still play nice if they pay attention to our interests – give us more involvement, accept bilateralism on Kashmir, seat on the security council, forcing strong action against anti India terrorism in Pakistan, or something useful but if they don’t, we should throw in the caveat of there being consequences. Of course care needs to be taken on how this is demanded. I suspect that done right through a combination of aggressive diplomacy and willingness to cooperate, this may yield better results than being the puppy dog.
Many indian analysts believe that pakistan is using the wrong military strategy, based on use of high-tech weapons and airpower to deal with this civil-war type situation. This is, of course, based on the training these folks get from the west. Needless to say, the “collateral damage” (crappy way of saying a lot of people are being hurt) is very high and continue to be so for a long time.
In this article, Hardeep Singh argues that the Pakistani Army should use the models evolved by the indians to deal with insurgency:
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/HarinderSingh010509.htm
Thanks for the link, Livemint. I think the authors generally have the right idea. In my opinion, if India increases troops at the border, it plays right into the hands of those in the Pakistan Army who make the case that India is really the “enemy” and not the Taliban. If it removes some of those troops, then this would make the Pak Army’s case weaker. Also, India would keep the moral highground. I don’t think being agressive toward Pakistan would look good right now.
I question how well India has truly dealt with its own insurgencies. There’s a model there, but whether it’s optimal is rather open to debate. After all, maoists/naxals still control a shockingly large % of indian territory.
Frankly if it weren’t for the al qaeda/international connections, people wouldn’t be paying much attention to this. they’d just be another rebel group like the baluchis. from the west’s pov, i suppose all we really want is to sever that connection; we don’t really give a damn about internal-only insurgencies obviously.
huh? who funded the taliban and the islamicization of pakistan under zia?
kinda shows why people should read before making bombastic statements. the nyt said this is the biggest mass migration in pakistan since partition – million plus and counting as of a few days ago.
it’s not that either alternative is great, pakistan is doing great by the short hairs strategy – as in it has the u.s. and india by their short hairs, and really, what both countries can do is pick the least bad choice. given all the risks and consequences of war, and not even remote certainty of achieving success/objectives (no way are we going to be able to wipe out lashkar/jud/al-q strongholds in any permanent manner, and the nuclear reprisal threat is serious given the difference in sizes of the countries), i think india’s best strategy to deal with pakistan at this point is strong security and defence, not offense. i really do not see what an attack, targeted or otherwise, will achieve as regards the end goal of wiping out terrorist hideouts – all that it does is some saber rattling to make hawks on the Indian side feel good, and of course, it would be a boon for a large part of the pakistani military-political establishment.
I though, post the events of the past few days in Sri Lanka, we were in a new era in South Asian geopolitics, where one could no longer credibly make such assertions.
😉
this war could not have happened if the ltte was (a) a recognized state, and (b) nuclear armed. also the pakistani state is nowhere near as bad for the pakistanis as the ltte was for the tamils – even if you wanted to go with trying to justify the willy nilly massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians and their relief structures in pursuit of military aims.
i dont know what this means – “stock that taliban comes from”, but the obama administration is being smart about the humanitarian aid, directing it specifically through the un and international relief orgs and NOT the pakistani govt.
no the pakistan army was reluctant to launch an offensive because (a) they are conflicted about how much these people should be deterred, and (b) preparing to fight a non-existent war with india is far less risky than actually fighting a difficult real war with militants.
Pak Army should finish the job quickly to avoid this humanitarian crisis to get out of hand. But they’re not known for professionalism since most of the time they were busy in running (aka looting) the country.
You do know that Bangladesh in 1971 was East Pakistan, don’t you?
Since you consider NYT to be a worthwhile source of news, feel free to write to the NYT corrections. 1971 migration was several millions — see the link I sent. in my previous comment.
(P.S. the commentator I responded to made an incorrect statement which I took at face value, since no article was linked to. It is just amusing that you took offense to it without realizing either that or the fact that the NYT was still wrong!)
Taliban was Pak funded /trained. The Taliban came well after the US had lost interest in Afghanistan (The Mujahedeen were US funded).
Anyway, if your point is that historical US policies have contributed to make Pak what it is today – I agree.
But you can say that about just about any country. the US impacted other countries — Iran, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala, Haiti, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc far more than Pak. You do not hear people say that the US owes these countries anything. If anything you will hear calls for the US to Nuke these countries.
Also, Pak govts have manipulated the US far more than the other way. Musharaff was certainly shunned by the US, when he came to power — but he had the support of the Pak People. And Zia was not the prefernce of the US either — he got support from the most morally oriented govt in the history of the US (Carter’s). Bhutto was elected by the people.
Ultimately thew Pak people are responsible for the state of Pak, and the US by now knows it has been manipulated, so
If US helped create the Monster Pak, the main contributor was still the people of Pak, and they have taken US for a ride ever since 9/11. If anything what the US owes pakistan now, figuratively speaking, is a silver bullet between the eyes.
i believe that the nyt believes that bangladesh today is an independent country, not east pakistan. i will correct them on this front.
you hear calls for the us to nuke everything that moves or doesn’t. that doesn’t make it right in the least.
it is well established fact that the taliban was funded through zia’s isi which funneled us arms to it during reagan’s presidency. in fact, even robin cook, blair’s secretary of state for foreign affairs, has explicitly mentioned the fact that osama was funded through us supplies and this was a very bad miscalculation. this is not some conspiracy theory, rather it is evidence from many different independent sources.
and this was followed by george w bush’s addled response to 9/11 by taking the fight from an insecure afghanistan to an irrelevant iraq. if the us was manipulated by musharraf, george bush has as much to do with it as musharraf for going along with the malfeasance even in the light of events such as kargil. my point is not the pakistani people do not bear responsibility, but the biggest reason for the success of military dictatorships, the strengthing of the army and the isi, and the overthrow of multiple democratically elected govts is tacit and overt support by the us establishment, without which the army and the isi would not have the force they have in pakistani politics today. and islamicization under zia was explicitly endorsed by reagan as a way to fight the ussr in afghanistan.
There is problem In Afghanistan and who knows its deliberate.
26 Neena, Looks like the US military-industrial complex has a robust future even under the Obama administration. Those who have lost jobs in the US would be advised to look for employment in the defense sector.
If Pakistan fails, then this could be horrible for India. There is a greater chance now that Pakistan is to fail. It seems that it’s inevitable now, and moreover, the people of Pakistan are HARDWIRED to cause a national failure or promote a failure. It’s just inevitable. Moreover, I know Pashtuns here in Boston, and they are all pro-Taliban. This Taliban is basically Pashtun expansionism, and they were started by the Pakistanis to help conquer Kashmir. Ironically, it started as a Pakistani expansionist tool, but now, it’s going to be a Pakistani minimizing tool.
Also, I believe that Indians should help the Pakis out as much as they can. This is a shared disaster for all humanity. Finally, the Pakis tend to blame everything on the Mossad, British/Americans, and Indians, and many of them are blaming the Indians for this crisis!
great going, keep working. I will return so0n and wants some new….