« | Home | »

Selective Counterinsurgency

Tags: | | | | | |

The Obama administration has applauded the Pakistan army’s offensive to oust the Taliban from Pakistan’s Swat Valley. It’s gingerly being heralded as a change in army thinking that no longer sees the ‘mortal threat’ as nuclear India to the east but a spreading Taliban insurgency to the north and west, which – if a BBC map is true – now controls most of the tribal areas on the Afghan border.

The scale of the operation is immense. Up to 1.5 million people could be displaced by the fighting, if the current civilian exodus from Swat is added to earlier ones from the tribal areas.

Pakistan’s federal and provincial civilian governments have given unreserved political authority to an operation devised wholly by the army. Opposition parties, the media, religious leaders and 70 per cent of the people (according to polls) all support it, aware, finally, that the savagery of the Taliban’s rule in Swat posed a graver threat to Pakistani democracy than to American imperialism or Indian hegemony.

The army does seem this time to be going after the Taliban’s core leadership in Swat, dropping commandos into guerillas’ mountain redoubts rather than simply (and uselessly) pummelling shells into cities like Mingora. The army’s failure in earlier operations to capture or kill such Swat Taliban leaders as Maulvi Fazlullah raised questions as to whether it and its intelligence agencies were in league with them.

And yet a counterinsurgency that relies so much on artillery and aerial
firepower against a mobile guerilla force may prove no more successful
than past campaigns. Twice in the last 18 months the army has wrested Mingora from the Taliban only to see the militants return after it withdrew. With an administration in shreds and a police force demoralised, few expect better this time.

The real question is whether, having pacified Swat, the army will take the fight to the tribal areas, the hub of the Afghan Taliban/Pakistani Taliban/al-Qaida nexus. To do so – and hold ground in Swat – it would have to move troops from its frontier with India. General Ashfaq Kayani reportedly told the Americans he would do this if Delhi did the same. India’s response was to hold three days of war-games on the Pakistan border. Although some of Pakistan’s army reinforcements have come from the Indian side, most have been from the tribal areas.

Until the cold war with India ends, Pakistan’s counterinsurgency will be
selective: combating those Taliban that threaten the state, as in Swat, while accommodating those who seek only a haven to fight Nato and America in Afghanistan.

Comments on “Selective Counterinsurgency”

  1. k0204865 says:

    Graham, you are right about the need to combat the beyond-parody reactionaries in the tribal regions but when is anyone going to discuss the complacent corruption and feudalism of Pakistan’s Punjabi-dominated body politic? How come a state with nukes can tolerate dark-ages throwbacks in the tribal regions? Why are these regions neglected of education and female-empowerment? Blame the Punjabi elite who are only obsessed with India because they understand Delhi better than they understand NWFP.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...
    • Geoff Roberts on What happened in Cologne?: The most surprising thing about the events in Cologne (and the most disturbing) is that some 600 incidents of theft, harrasment and rape were reported...
    • EmilyEmily on What happened in Cologne?: The author's argument is straightforward: Sexual violence is one beast; fears about migrants is another - let's not confuse the two. Alfalfa's poin...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement