Unrest in Waziristan

[font=Times New Roman]Though it is lengthy but please read it and give your comments. **
[font=Times New Roman]
**
[font=Times New Roman]****
[font=Times New Roman]**Unrest in **Waziristan
[font=Times New Roman](Dawn – 2/09/05)

[font=Times New Roman]By Amir Usman

[font=Times New Roman] [font=Times New Roman]WAZIRISTAN is once again in the news. Every day there are reports of rocket and missile attacks ? 45 in one single night recently ? the ambush of army conveys, killings of prominent tribal elders including former senator Malik Faridullah and other pro-government tribal elders, demolition and destruction of tribal dwellings and numerous detentions and arrests.

According to government statistics, 300 civilian have been killed and about 800 injured so far while the number of dead army personnel is more than 250 and more than 600 have been injured. Only in July this year, 41 persons were reported killed; 24 by the US-led allied forces and 17 by Pakistani forces.

Recently, the authorities warned the tribesmen not to come near military installations otherwise they could be killed. This has now been followed by the imposition of dusk to dawn curfew in Miranshah and the surrounding areas.

The unfortunate part of this bizarre saga is that despite the government抯[font=Times New Roman] claim that the situation is under control and the local population is cooperating with the army, the unrest, which was earlier confined to South Waziristan, has now spread to North Waziristan, and has the potential of spreading to other areas also. The government抯[font=Times New Roman] claim is also not tenable as recently it was announced that an additional 4,000 troops will be sent to the area making the total number 74,000 as against the government抯[font=Times New Roman] claim that the number of the insurgents is between 70 and 80. Is it not the right time for the government authorities, particularly the army higher-ups (as the governor and the political administration have been sidelined long ago) to pause and reconsider their strategy that has not produced the desired results? If anything, the situation has worsened.

A pertinent question is why is all this happening when before the military action early last year everything was normal and peaceful in the area. The para- military forces that had been in the area since independence were respected. They mingled freely with the tribal population. Similarly the political agent, who was the head of the administration and a venerated figure, was considered by the tribesmen as the custodian of their rights and privileges.

At present, the military personnel dare not come into civilian areas without heavy escort and the political administration is working under the protection of the military. The current situation has been described by an English language daily as comparable to the 損[font=Times New Roman]re-independence crackdown? because of its ferocity and bloodletting. Can any one be proud of this state of affairs 58 years after the former colonial power had left the area?

The main reason for the crackdown in Waziristan is the failure of the American and the Afghan forces to control the insurgency on their side of the border particularly in Khost, Paktia, Zabul and Paktika as these provinces have always been the most volatile and nationalist-minded in Afghanistan and have never accepted any foreign presence in their areas ? in fact they are violently opposed to foreign presence anywhere in Afghanistan.

To hide their failure the Americans particularly their former ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and their Afghan surrogates had been accusing Pakistan of harbouring hostile elements who had allegedly been launching attacks across the border.

Pakistan as a faithful ally of the Americans had been launching military operation in Waziristan resulting in the killing of hundreds of civilian and military personnel. Even if it is accepted for argument抯[font=Times New Roman] sake that some sympathetic elements on our side of the border had been assisting the Afghans to help them get rid of the occupying power, is it not the responsibility of the forces on the Afghan side, who are better equipped than the Pakistani forces, to interdict the so-called infiltrators and destroy them?

Another reason for the failure of the government to pacify the tribesmen is their widely held belief that Pakistan is doing all this only to please the Americans. The Americans have been confirming this themselves through the statements of the former commander of the American forces in Afghanistan General Barno and others including Colonel Crawford, the director of military operation in Afghanistan who recently told a breakfast meeting in Washington that the Pakistani forces were helping to direct artillery fire at suspected hideouts inside Pakistan. Unfortunately the Pakistani government has not been able to dispel this impression.

The other reason for the mistrust of the tribesmen is the frequent flouting of the understandings and agreements that the army authorities had repeatedly reached with the tribal elders. The Shakai agreement, which was signed between the authorities and the tribal elders in April last year, could have been a precursor for better relations, had it not been violated with the killing of Commander Nek Mohammad, his influential host Malik and his two sons. I wish our military had drawn lessons from the British who always avoided killing influential tribesmen as according to them a 揹[font=Times New Roman]ead tribesman is a far more dangerous enemy than a living one.?

The authorities have to understand that the tribesmen put full faith in any understanding that they reach with their interlocutor whether an individual or a group of people. Even now, one抯[font=Times New Roman] word is considered as sacrosanct as a written agreement. Once this is flouted or broken, the tribals consider themselves free to go to any lengths to redeem the situation.

The lack of trust in the government was recently voiced by a tribal jirga where the tribesmen vowed that they would not cooperate with the authorities either in maintaining law and order or in the implementation of development work as the government had repeatedly been breaking its promises. A list of Maliks who had been cooperating with the government was circulated with a warning that they would be eliminated unless they withdrew their support from the government. To make the threat a reality, a number of pro-government Maliks including ex Senator Malik Faridullah were assassinated.

Side by side with these negative developments, the tribal elders have been offering pragmatic and positive advice to the corps commander, Peshawar, who is in charge of the operation. He was told that the tribesmen should be taken into confidence before any military action is taken in their area. And no searches of homes particularly where there are womenfolk, should be carried out without the presence of the tribal elders and ulema of the area.

Will the government heed this sanguine advice? I have my doubts. The government抯[font=Times New Roman] argument is that they cannot do so as whenever they have told the tribesmen of an action it has been disclosed to the other side. This happens owing to lack of trust to which I have made a reference earlier.

The government has to understand that they can undertake collective territorial responsibility only when the nature of the offence has been disclosed to the elders of the area, and then they are given enough time and full opportunity to apprehend the culprits. If they refuse to do so or are unable to deliver, then the government is free to take punitive action in which the tribal elders would generally participate on the side of the government. The current policy of the government to shoot first and then consult is not working and will not work in the future.

The army can take a lesson from the time-tested mechanism which the British followed in such situations. When the tribal elders failed to persuade the erring tribe to give up the culprits or pay the fine imposed by the government, the political administration would warn the tribesmen, of the area through red-coloured leaflets dropped from aeroplanes that action would be taken after 72 hours and that they should vacate the area.

This warning would be repeated after 24 hours, this time with white leaflets. After the expiry of the deadline, action would be taken to demolish the dwellings of the culprits and arrest them. In many cases the tribesmen would agree to release the kidnapped persons and pay the fine, whatever the case, before the action was initiated. After the desired action, the government would then reconstruct the demolished area and business would resume.

In essence, the problem in Waziristan is the lack of trust and confidence in each other抯[font=Times New Roman] word and actions. The interest and involvement of foreign elements has further complicated matters. Unfortunately, the government has, for reasons best known to it, abandoned time-tested methods for dealing with the tribesmen through jirgas consisting of the acknowledged representatives of the people and respected ulema.

At times, the government goes through the motion of holding a jirga but usually after military action has been taken and involving only pro-government elements. In good old days, the government, recognizing that all matters pertaining to the tribal areas, even those of law and order were basically of a political nature would handle it through political authorities under the guidance and supervision of a civilian governor who was designated (and continues to be so) as agent of the central government for the tribal areas. Military action was the last option which the government would consider and that also only after the tribal elders had been taken into confidence and if possible after gaining their support. Even during military action, traditions, customs and the sensitivities of the people were a prime consideration.

Abundant patience is necessary for the success of negotiations with the tribesmen ? even if these negotiations drag on for days, until such time that the tribals are exhausted, become impatient and consequently are amenable to accepting some reasonable solution.

The current strategy that the government is pursuing is totally devoid of this important element. Usually one witnesses a high-up going in a helicopter either to Wana or Miranshah and after addressing the jirga of those loyal to the government, hurrying back to Peshawar. Alternatively, the tribesmen are chaperoned to the provincial headquarter, addressed by some high and mighty official, given a meal and then sent back. This is unsatisfactory. The grimness of the current situation proves this abundantly.

The writer is a former ambassador.

[font=Times New Roman]

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Link? Date of the article?

At any rate, this isn’t the first time this kind of thing has gone on. Pakistan’s history is full of conflicts between the Federal government and tribesmen in this area. Yes, you get a few years of conflict, but most of the time things are peaceful.

This situation will probably blow over in a few years like it has in the past.

At any rate, the article had at least one fallacy in it. The writer claimed that The Shakai agreement, which was signed between the authorities and the tribal elders in April last year, could have been a precursor for better relations, had it not been violated with the killing of Commander Nek Mohammad, his influential host Malik and his two sons.

In fact, Nek Mohammad had violated the Shakai agreement first by preventing the registration on non-Pakistanis in the area, one of the terms of the agreement. His termination was the result of his violating the treaty and threatening to attack the government if it resumed foreigner registration operations.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/11/top3.htm

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Actually whereas clashes between the Trbals and Pakistan Army were quite rare, as according to the agreement between Quaid-e-Azam and the tribes ..the Army was not there to impose it's will..and more particularly the Pakistan Army has never launched a full scale operation in FATA at the behest of another nation..not even during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

The tragedy of Waziristan is the indifference and brutality of the fighting that is going on ..without any independant inquiry into what is really going on..there have been cases of children and women killed and being secretly buried..whereas the general public have been told they were combatants

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Zakk you are losing it now. Russian invasion meant flow of money to all the tribals willing to support Pak army, ISI, MI5, and CIA. Tribals were more than happy to oblige. The trouble came when they obliged Arrabobs against the directions of Pak army, ISI, MI5, and CIA.

Tragedy of Bhaatttoo’s Balochistan clearly showed that old ways of tribals shooting their 303’s on aircrafts and gunships is a lose lose game. Waziris refuse to learn their lesson and the useless killing goes on.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

^ not really anti..there was no sepparatist movement in Waziristan..you are confusing the religo-secular argument for the national self respect argument. At least you can argue that the Military operation in baluchistan in the '70's was based on an open challenge to the state..and was done to in the national interest (even if it was a flawed assumption)...the Waziristan operation was done on US prodding and hundreds of Pakistanis died for another nations interests.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Repeating the lies of lefties and commies? Getting rid of Arabs and other foriegn terrorists was long overdue. Pakistan expected just a little favor from Waziris to kick out these trouble makers. But no, Waziris were so much under the contorl of Arrabob masters that they let these Arabs kill their Afridi brothers from FC.

Why are you forgetting these Arrrabob butchers who killed 64 of FC jawans in one night? Never again these stupid Waziris be allowed to spill the blood of Pushtoons. Damn followers of the MAToos.

Blame US as much you want. That is a really old commie ploy. Reality is that Waziris have to pay for the cold blood murders of FC’s Afridis.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

^ again this has been discussed endlessly..anyone who knows what happened in Waziristan knows that the operation was done under pressure from the yanks..and the fact that yanks were "helping" the operation is also well known..you can't defend the indefensible..if there was a problem in the area there could have been an operation years ago, in true Musharraf style things are always done when there is no option...and for that hundreds of people died...

As far as the whole arab issue ..my argument was one of national self interest not of secular and religious arguments..as far as punishing those who brought in non locals into the area..do you really want to get into that argument? After all everyone knows who pulls the strings ..and they usually have nice posh houses in the capital.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

So it was ok to go launching an operation against rebellious Balochi’s, but not rebellious Pashtuns? Ever since Musharraf came to power, way back before he aligned with the US he has been warning fanatics and terrorists, and this operation was well over due. Let us also not forget that it is Pashtun soldiers themselves who are fighting these miscreants and traitors, and only one or two of FATA’s agencies are involved. Even the religio-political parties are pretty much silent (or supportive?) on the operation, after a few earlier show-baazi protests, and if we go back to the days of the Sharif government even they (Shahbaz) were warning these people to get their act together or else they faced severe action.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

^ no the killing of civilians is not right in any circumstances..but at least one can argue that putting down an insurrection was done in the national interest..how does one justify fighting a war for Dubya and co? It's not like the Americans gave two hoots about hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and civilians dead..

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

This is the wierdest logic used by an otherwise sane guppie. FC’s afridi soldiers were killed by Arrobobs while Waziris looked on. This is the biggest crime by one Pushtoon vs. the other. Those Afridis are going to kick waziri butts until these waziris agree on badal.

**Waziris biggest crime was to allow Arrabobs launch attacks across the border in Paktika. ** That is a big no no after Ruskies were kicked out.

We have had cantonements in Para Chinar / Tull for ages now. The military has been there precisely to do one thing. Keep the “wayward” tribals in check. Bringing W or V or X from America is just a useless yet emotional ploy that happens to be very popular among Kabuli commies and their beardo cousins across the border.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

I disagree..if there were foreign troops people present in Waziristan it could not have occurred without the knowledge of the local administration..there has been a massive troop presence on the border since 9/11..how did hundreds of people slip through? A clean up operation could have been conducted anytime after or before 9/11..why did it happen at that specific time? It happened solely because the PM wanted the yanks to be kept happy..ironic isn't it? I wonder how many people were told that their loved ones died because George Bush said so?

The cantonments were not there to keep the tribes in check.. that is the logic of brown sahibs..the cantonments represent a position where troops are allowed to concentrate..often to keep warring tribes in check

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Zakk we can go on in this Mulakhara forever. If your eeman is so kamil in Hazrat Bush, hey more power to you.

You are negating yourself zakk. Get some rest, have a glass of water. Sitting in front computers in an airconditioned room and worrying about poor Waziris can take its toll.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Putting down the Balochi rebellion is acceptable, but expelling foreigners who came illegally to FATA well after the Afghan jihad had ended i.e. post 1996 after Bin Ladin set up base in Afghanistan is not acceptable? Weird logic indeed.

Even the Sharif government threatened to take out these people if they did not stop fuelling sectarian attacks in Pakistan, and the Musharraf government negotiated with them for months and years, before the launch of the operation. Those are the hard facts, and that is why no political or religious parties will come forward and support these people, save for a few show-baazi statements as I said previously. I was reading the other day that FATA tribals had told the ‘nationalist’ ANP to butt out of it’s affairs, after they said the region should be merged with NWFP/Pakhtunkhwa. It seems there is a silent consensus among all quarters (the military, religious and political parties, and even in NWFP) that the region must be cleared of foreigners, and brought into the mainstream.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

^ came illegally? guys..being a chamcha of Bush and supporting his policy (despite there being many other option) of making Pakistanis die for his war on terror is not a crime..it just means you aren't pro Pakistani :)

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

antiobl is ghay he has a problems spelling arabs and mullah. It's so fooking annoying and after god knows how many months still at it

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Zakk is a reasonable person, you should all listen to him.......
I certainy agree the point that delegating George Dubyas policies does nothing for us... Also being "pro-Paksitani" should not be a veil that covers us from recognizing wrong when it happens.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

  1. So Kabuli Kommies are OK if Bush rules their behinds in Kabul.
  2. Kabuli commies are OK if My-Man-the Mohan signs sepecial deals with Bush
  3. These leftiyas are OK if China exports $100s billion stuff including chamchas to Bushes country

But heavens will open if Pakistan cleans up its tribal mess. Three years of negotiations, Minnat and Tarla by Islamabad didn’t work., all the tax payers money to FATA’s FAToos didn’t work, even threats to these beardos didn’t work, and finally FC had to be sent in.

  1. Sure Wana waziris kill 64 Afridis of Frontier Core (FC), this must be due to Bush.
  2. Wana Waziris help kill Afghan Pustoons in Paktika, this must be due to Bush.
  3. This one-legged Naiku carries out murder and mayhem; this must be due to Bush.

Is Bush your God O Kabulis? Does Bush comes to you in dreams and tells you to destroy Peshawar, and Kohat, and Bannu in terrorists activities? Tomorrow you will say, Bush asked Talibobs and their Arrabob master to destroy Afghan heritage in Bamiyan.

You will also say Bush is responsible for Saudi Waha-bibis destroying Muslim heritage including the house of our messenger saw.

See how these Kabuli Kommies find Bush behind every bush :wink:

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

I dont know what nonsense is going on. Master US, said there is Jihad in Afghanistan and the servant invited thousands of Pakhtoons and other nationalities to Holy War (as declared by Master US), motivating them and giving them training. Now Master US coined new terminology by calling Jihad "Terrorism". Now the obedient servant also took a U-Turn and started killing those people they were giving training for Jihad. Only an Atheist like Antiobl can defend this indefensible.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

Hmm! these “thousands of Pakhtoons” lost their heads? Were they brainless toads who simply said “yes Masta”?

You want to blame one party and yet the willing accomplices are given a break just because it fits some MAToo or some Kabuli Kommie’s blabbering?

Every party in Afghan Jihad used their will and joined in to kick out Ruskies the Masters of Kabuli Kommies. The problem started when these Jihadis didn’t want to stop.

These Kabuli Kommies brought in death and destruction from Ruskies, and now they are actively encouraging death and destruction for Waziris.

Re: Unrest in Waziristan

[QUOTE]

Every party in Afghan Jihad used their will and joined in to kick out Ruskies the Masters of Kabuli Kommies. The problem started when these Jihadis didn't want to stop.

[/QUOTE]
While barking so loudly, I thought you must be having some knowledge, but you are totally a dull minded. Now you will say Pakistan has never supported your favourite Taliban (after Russian withdrawal), who have probably tortured you somewhere in your child age. You will say, Pakistan has never supported Ahmad Shah Masood, Gulbadeen, Rabbai etc just to ensure that there is no peace in Afghanistan.

Please give it up, go to Library and read the books of Sulman Rushdee (of your interest)

[font=Times New Roman]