Pakistan’s counter-insurgency quandary

The residents of Sheikh Yasin camp are not celebrating the inauguration of Pakistan’s new president.

The army’s killing people because America gives it money to fight terrorists, so it has to show it’s doing something Taher, a farmer now resident in Sheikh Yasin camp

They jostle each other as they wait for hand-outs of bread and queuing for soup, ladled out from huge vats under a canvas tarpaulin crusty with flies.

More than 2,000 people have fled to the camp to escape an army bombing campaign against the local Taleban in the Bajaur tribal area near the Afghan border. More civilians were killed than militants, they say.

For many Pakistanis, this is what the “war on terror” has brought: displacement and death. There is resentment and anger.

Double game

Despite, or perhaps because of, the high price that Pakistan has paid since 9/11, there’s no consensus in the country about how to confront Islamist militancy.

Now with a new president and a relatively new government, once again questions are being raised about the country’s counter-insurgency policy.

Pakistan’s former military leader Pervez Musharraf swung between military offensives and peace talks with militants.

Neither worked, and the general, although a key American ally, was accused of playing a double game by maintaining links with the Taleban.

It’s not clear if it will be any different under the new civilian President, Asif Zardari, who took the oath of office this week. During his party’s short six months in government, it has also tried both war and peace.

But at his inaugural press conference, Mr Zardari seemed to signal a new line. He shared the podium with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president who has accused Pakistan of harboring and supporting the Taleban.

They pledged co-operation against the militants, something for which Washington has long been pressing.

‘America’s man’

“I think so far Mr Zardari has been more forthright and more articulate [than Musharraf] in his belief that the war on terror has to be fought with greater intensity and sincerity,” says Tariq Fathimi, a former ambassador to the United States.

“He has also been very categorical in stating that the war on terror is something that’s in the interest of Pakistan, and that must be something that pleases the Bush administration.”

For Sheikh Yasin residents, the ‘war on terror’ has brought only misery

But for many in Pakistan, his performance has only strengthened impressions that he’s America’s man, and that’s a problem.

Most Pakistanis are opposed to their government’s participation in what they call America’s war. And a recent surge in US air strikes against suspected militant targets in Pakistan’s border region has not helped the new government.

“It is making things rather impossible for us,” says Rehman Malik, head of the Interior Ministry, “because when the people hear of an alien attack, nobody likes it, we’re talking about the sovereignty of our country.

“So we are fighting our war… and now we are asking the international community to help us.”

It’s not just the people – Pakistan’s army is also angry, and it’s still the country’s most powerful institution. Any new policy or approach by Asif Zardari would need its backing to be successful.

Analysts say the army is unsure about Mr Zardari but willing to work with him, especially if he can deliver clear parliamentary support for military action.

The army is eager to get the government’s support

That source of popular legitimacy was sorely lacking under the previous administration. But the US air strikes complicate the relationship with the government.

“Within the army there is strong thinking that we are being let down by the government if it doesn’t respond,” says retired General Talat Masood.

“Because then, what would the people of Pakistan think about the army, which is just allowing national sovereignty to be violated in such a gross manner?”

There’s no doubt Pakistan is facing a huge problem of Islamic militancy. But many are convinced it can’t tackle this if it’s seen to be acting at America’s behest.

“Probably the only way to reverse it is to initiate a parliamentary debate,” says Zaffar Abbas, the Islamabad editor of Dawn Newspaper, “to have a home-grown policy to deal with militancy and religious extremism, which is somewhat de-linked from the American demand to have an international campaign against terrorism.

“Unless they are able to do it, it will be nearly impossible to deal with this menace of terrorism.”

Asif Zardari may have signalled that he’s willing to work closely with America. But as a democratically elected leader, he also says he’ll be directed by parliament.

How he handles that is crucial. His challenge is to truly make this Pakistan’s war.

S bomb ‘kills five in Pakistan’

Tensions in the border region are rising At least five people have been killed in another suspected US missile strike on militant targets in Pakistan’s border region, Pakistani officials say. Officials said a missile was launched by a suspected US aircraft in the North Waziristan tribal area. Pakistan’s army says it is investigating the incident. It would be the third attack in three days allegedly carried out by US forces, who have not officially confirmed their involvement. Unilateral strikes Some reports say Islamist militants were killed in Friday’s attack, while local TV channels said women and children were among the dead. Witnesses said missiles fired by an unmanned aircraft hit one or two houses in the village of Kurvek, about 30km (18 miles) west of the main town of Miranshah in North Waziristan. “Two drones were flying in the area. They fired three missiles,” one unnamed witness told Reuters news agency. Several people are reported to have been injured in addition to those killed. Pakistan’s military spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas said reports of the incident were being investigated. “Pakistani forces did not carry out any activity in the area,” he told the AFP news agency. This would be the third such attack in three days, including an unprecedented ground assault allegedly carried out by American commandos. In recent months US forces have stepped up unilateral strikes on Taleban and al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s tribal areas. They say Pakistan – a key US ally in the “war on terror” since 2001 – is not doing enough to stem the flow of insurgents across the border into Afghanistan. Pakistani security officials suspect the Americans are trying to hit senior al-Qaeda targets ahead of forthcoming US presidential elections, our correspondent says. Targets At least two senior al-Qaeda figures are believed to have been killed in US missile strikes on Pakistani territory this year. A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, was reported killed in February, while Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, described as a leading al-Qaeda chemical weapons expert, died in July, reports said. It is not clear who the targets of strikes this week might have been. On Thursday, at least five people were killed in a missile strike in the village of Mohammad Khel near Miranshah. Officials said all five were low-level militants of Arab origin. Meanwhile, large numbers of people have decided to leave their settlements near Angor Adda in South Waziristan. The town was attacked on Thursday by foreign troops carried across the border from Afghanistan by helicopter, Pakistan’s government says. Officially, the US military has no knowledge of such an incursion, but Pentagon sources have confirmed that US commandoes carried out the raid. Pakistan responded furiously, summoning the US ambassador and calling the attack a gross violation of its sovereignty. Pakistan’s army has warned that such direct US action could rally more tribesmen behind the Taleban and incite a wider uprising.