Resisting aggression & instability

Expecting nations to resist aggression and instability is in a sense to create further vulnerabilities and risks, which could reshape the history and future of next generations of a country. When the dust will settle over Afghanistan, the probability of further regional conflicts would still not be lower, although preparedness and mobilization can administrate “high consequences risk” scenarios. The stated risk perspective means that as soon as the US/NATO withdrawal completed, the peace process that has been placed between India and Pakistan since 2003 could truly become problematic.

This conceptual framework is being considered in the backdrop of incidents of terrorism, presence of foreign sponsored militant networks in Pakistan and, continuous cross-border violations from the side of Afghanistan and India. As always, allegations and counter-allegations and calls for a ceasefire were prevalent after Indian Army killed two Pakistani soldiers in unprovoked attacks on a military posts at the Pakistani side of the border. Fundamentally, the timing of such incidents is awkward, which practically undermines the long-standing policy ofrestraint. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Indian aggression at the Line of control (LoC) is a tactic to engage Pak-army, in order to mount another national security challenge or these incidents were just aimed to divert domestic/international media attention from Delhi “rape incident” and the subsequent protests against the government.

In the case of Afghanistan, recently (January 10, 2013),Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hailed and what he called “the last chapter” of a long and costly struggle to ensure that Afghanistan can govern itself and avoid reverting to a haven for terrorists. President Karzai too gave his version and stated that “he could assure Americans that Afghanistan will soon be able to provide for its own security. And he said it will never again be threatened by what he called “terrorists from across our borders.” The impact of such claims and statements toward the end of war are hardly helpful because the inconclusive nature of fighting, especially when the so-called victory is not in sight creates further strategic deception for Pakistan and other regional players. Primarily, due to negotiation process with Afghan Taliban, and because Pakistan is a key player, reportedly released Taliban leaders so they can participate in Afghan-led peace solution.


Also, people of Pakistan, military, ISI and other law enforcement organizations have sacrificed more than 45,000 people including soldiers and security personnel, it is even crucial to avoid popular statements, especially the way diplomatic atmosphere is expected to be shaped in the post-2014. It is highly prudent that President Karzai takes the basic decision, and should refrain from presenting a” fake” picture of “good governance” in Afghanistan. Moreover, it is absolutely vital conclusion that if Pakistan’s security considerations and territorial integrity is ignored, then a governable Afghanistan might not evolve in practice. This assessment is interconnected with absence of a clear exit strategy and not linking policy objectives with means of broader international security strategy. Ostensibly, if policy formulation is all about “playing hardball” with Pakistan then such a program will only result into a manifestation of the policy disconnect, which often occurs toward the end of a long war. The case in point is war in Iraq where the US strategy against Iranian influence raised more questions about the credibility of an exit strategy, and thus leaving brutal sectarian and ethnic wars behind.

Setting aside the subject of rhetoric, the passive US policy is also partially to be blamed for growing tensions between Indian and Pakistan. Although the US demands both governments show restraint, but very rarely it intervenes in the interest of a wider stability in the region, that is, to play a critical role and go to great lengths to facilitate the peace process between two of the important countries in South Asia. If one assesses the risk scenarios then the fact is that today Pakistan is facing remarkable burden of war on terror, economic hardships– and simultaneously countering internal security threats and resisting aggression from across its western & eastern borders. On the whole, the outbreak of cross-border clashes are particularly appears to be part of psychological warfare in which bitter propaganda campaign by bias sections of press can endanger the ongoing trade and sports relationship between the two neighboring countries. Therefore, under the current circumstances, the interpretation of peaceful existence of two nuclear powers should be reaffirmed through consolidation of people-to-people contact including building of solid and trustworthy ties between two armies and diplomatic quarters.

To be concluded, the region of South Asia, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan face unusually difficult threats today. A third regional player’s (e.g. Indian) intervention would create even an unprecedented complexity for the US and NATO countries, especially when they are preparing for a successful withdrawal in 2014. Moreover, the repeated failures of the US/NATO in containing the new form of asymmetrical warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere is typically posing dire dangers to the national security of countries with less modern weaponry and professional training. This problem can be fixed by upgrading their capacity and meeting their demand for a new and more efficient war technology.

As demonstrated by effective and peaceful discourse between India and Pakistan, that popular and necessary expectations can be met through peaceful processes. Alternative approaches would represent risks, economic sufferings and underachievement for the billions of people of South Asia. In concluding, a few notes of caution in order. There is no such aggression, which simultaneously imposes conflict and still remains clinically detached, but there are guarantees for peace and stability if effective decision-making is being implemented for the sake of future generations. Afghanistan, India and Pakistan should recognize this historical opportunity.