Contingency

Thursday, December 03, 2009
Parvez Iqbal

More surprising than the recent statement of British prime minister Gordon Brown asking Pakistan to "do more" is the surprise that our Foreign Office has shown on this statement. Similar statements have simultaneously emanated from Britain's first cousin, the United States.

In a letter addressed to our president, personally delivered by Obama's national security advisor James L Jones, the US president has asked for Pakistan to take action against five extremist outfits: Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Haqqani group. He went on to say that ambiguity in Pakistan's relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored. This might well have been a ploy to becalm those in his own country who want to see an end to the Afghan conflict and were opposing deployment of additional forces. But the tone is too serious to be taken lightly. Jones has been quoted as saying bluntly that if Pakistan cannot deliver, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's borders with Afghanistan. "Any means" could obviously include movement of US troops across the border into Pakistan's tribal areas, or beyond if need be.

Add to all this the announcement by Obama about additional US troops for Afghanistan, and one does not then have to ask the US to define its future strategy for that country. Every piece of that strategy is falling into place. Remain ready to move into Pakistan if needed. Obama had just not being alluding to this possibility in his election campaign speeches and interviews, he had referred to it directly time and again. His broad smiles appear deceptive now.

Before our Foreign Office gets "surprised" again, we should have our own strategy and contingency plans ready for any eventuality that might develop with US forces moving across the border if Pakistan "fails to deliver." Our forces are already taking care of the TTP in South Waziristan. The other two groups, Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba, are underground and other than covert actions like physical capture or targeted killings through drone attacks, overt large-scale conventional military action against them is not possible.

So if the US military planners have been tasked to keep contingency plans ready for a ground offensive into Pakistani territory, it would most likely be initiated first into North Waziristan against the Haqqani group, which is being blamed for the attacks on US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. What would the options be for Pakistan's response, other than a statement of surprise from the Foreign Office, of course?

Protest statements, like those for the drone attacks, would be futile. Even school kids can by now tell us that. Military response? The army, already committed against the TTP, would be compelled to seek direction from the government to commit forces for deploying forces to stop the Americans. This would not be a matter which any sovereign country could gulp sitting back. Drone attacks are one matter, territory and sovereignty are another. To divert the attention of our military, even the smallest of misadventures by India on our eastern borders, with or without American elbowing, would really complicate matters. The dilemma, or call it a catch -22 situation, if you will, would be whether to continue the support to the US in its war effort, or openly tell them they are on their own. If the Haqqani group gives them a bloody nose, will we say "so be it"? The possibilities are more complex and more in number than a dice with six sides can cope with.



The writer is a retired commodore. Email: greenfields48 @yahoo.com