Obama’s double standards?

Seven years of leading America – and to a large extent the world – from the White House may have sobered Barack Obama but his tone has hardly changed. The consequences of his policy of disengagement from the two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been disastrous but not as catastrophic as the death and destruction wrought by the neo-cons’ decision to invade the two countries.

By the time Obama retires, he might fully grasp that an imperialistic retreat is no less hazardous than an imperial overstretch.

The US president’s interview to the Press Trust of India to mark India’s republic day is likely to reconfirm our grievances over Obama’s sisterly treatment to India and the ‘mother-in-law’ attitude towards Pakistan. It is the ‘do more’ recipe once again, peppered with Obama’s pet phrases like “disrupting and dismantling” terror networks. But a new term of “de-legitimising” has been added in case we Pakistanis were having a vocabulary problem in dealing with killer organisations.

What is likely to further hurt Pakistani feelings is Obama’s tendency to readily link groups based in Pakistan to the attack in Pathankot while ignoring a similar link between the attack in Charsadda to the Pakistani Taliban operating from sanctuaries in Afghanistan. Not to forget that for years, the US kept pressurising Pakistan to deny sanctuaries to the Afghan Taliban for launching attacks in Afghanistan.

It is tempting to consider this American posturing as a case of double standards, the usual ‘do as I say, not as I do’ attitude. However, the recrudescence of terror attacks in the new year has also raised questions about lacunae in our strategy to fight against terror. There is a consensus that the armed forces have carried out a highly successful operation to – borrowing from Obama’s phraseology – ‘degrade’ the TTP and allied networks, a great deal remains to be done to fully dismantle their infrastructure to minimise the risks of further major attacks.

The enemy has reasons to be satisfied with the first major terror attack in 2016, which was followed by the ritual of condemnations, VIP visits and compounded by a huge wavela on TV. Claims and counter-claims about who did better and who could have done well joined the cascade of reactions. Others begged to differ with the army spokesman’s banter suggesting that they were pretty much on top of the situation.

The big power double standards continue to undermine the principles of a fair international order. But all said and done, there is one inference to be drawn in the aftermath of Charsadda attack. We play into the enemy’s hands by demonstrating mass panic. This gives the killers a second advantage after causing death and injury on a large scale. Their mission of terrorising a whole country is accomplished.

Unfortunately, this ritual-ridden republic neither changes nor learns any lessons. Rather than drumming up rhetoric about success and threats about wiping out the enemy, the civil and military leaders could have shown some sign of sobriety and modesty. ‘Respect thy enemy’ as they say – especially when he has delivered a nasty blow.

Our civil administration suffers from habitual lethargy and inaction on cracking down on criminal and terrorist gangs. Had they been up to the challenge, there would be no need to hand over the Karachi operation to the corps commander and the Rangers. There is the additional problem of some networks being considered as assets by the establishment or political parties. No surprise then that those who have made terrorism their way of life keep striking back to inflict more pain on the nation and its vital institutions. They have financial and logistical support to stay in business.

It is also noteworthy that terror attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India follow a certain sequence. It would be naïve to think they are not interconnected. As long as the principals try to hit or hit back through proxies, the menace of terror may be curbed but not eliminated.

Debate and controversy like that seen after the Charsadda attack often turns into endless lamentations followed by blame game. These are not signs of a mature society. While nobody’s saying that ours is a mature society but we should at least not turn the whole thing into a farce. There is need instead to understand the limits of what a state can achieve by way of controlling organised crime, which now includes terrorism.

No state has been able to control drug, arms and human trafficking, or prostitution and gambling syndicates. Terrorism, which used to be seen as a method of promoting politico-religious causes, has morphed into a criminal enterprise where foot soldiers are provided all kinds of enticements including financial benefits for the family. Indoctrination and intoxication are systemically used to dull the potential killers’ faculties to think in a rational manner. The nexus between terror networks and other criminal gangs is also well known.

Pakistan has made major gains in the fight against terror since the commencement of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. However, the ‘jihadi’ masterminds retain the capacity to launch killer attacks from across the border through local facilitators. The basic mission of the federal and provincial administrations and intelligence agencies is to intercept the enemies’ lines of communication to prevent attacks. We are told that a considerable number of plans are thus thwarted but the system is not fail-proof.

It is time to devise a media strategy with the help of state institutions and media-owners to give advantage to the national interest and not to those hell-bent on undermining state and society.

Email: saeed.saeedk@gmail.com