Talking Pakistan to the military: An interview with a serving Pakistani army officer

[jaibi]

Talking Pakistan to the military

An interview with a serving Pakistani army officer​

This is an interview I did with a serving Pakistani army officer of a high rank who is a veteran of the Pakistani war on terror operations in the north of the country. For obvious reasons he shall remain anonymous. I thought it was best to release it right now as we talk about the current environment of the nation and the military.


Q. What do you think is the condition of the nation on the Taliban?

A. Honestly, being over at the hard areas most of what we get is from the papers and channels and I, personally, feel very offended. Peace can be a strategy but I am surprised that people think these people actually deserve a seat in the government and should have a say in our national interests. I’m just lost for words at that reaction.

Q. Do you support the American part in the war?

A. Absolutely not! I have no idea why everyone thinks this way, if you’re against these miscreants then automatically you’re with the Americans? No. I’m an officer of Pakistan; I fight for her, I think of her. I believe the Americans were fighting the war from their own perspective and just like the Soviet war they just want to leave the country in a state that works the best for them. However, we live across the problem and now with it so our strategy naturally has to be more involved and direct and essentially different from the American strategy.

Q. Specifically what parts should have been different?

A. My batch fellows (...) had to work on the air war for COIN Ops (refers to promotion process) and it’s something very different from what we’ve been taught on the doctrines of close air support and even air bombing campaigns (I believe he’s referring to the training of the air force officers in the latter example) and this is different. The Americans have experienced precision bombing at least since the first Gulf War; we here in this region have been training for a conventional war. The dreaded drone strikes are misunderstood by the people; they’ve been very effective and I believe they should be integrated more but from our side.

Q. Can you please elaborate?

A. It’s very simple, imagine you’re in KPK travelling from point A to B in a military convey and someone fires a rocket or bullets at you. You don’t know how many miscreants there are, exactly where they are, and how well armed they are. What do you do? You either dig in or you give them a chase. Initially, what they did was after a chase they’d ambush, textbook tactics and the army was well aware of that but other chapters like the FC (Frontier Corps) and even in a few cases the Police (is referring to security arrangements in Swat particularly) fell for these tricks. The easiest way to tackle this is to have no fog of war which can be provided by a UAV or a drone; we can easily look around us, see where the attack came from and perhaps even fire back.

Secondly, often the miscreants attack from well dug in positions where to just reach them we would have to cross a sea of possible hostile local populace, disturbing their peace and a lot of military resources. However, if you’ve a UAV you can easily attack within hours in a much more efficient and precise strike.

Q. Does not Pakistan have enough capabilities in the air to do that without drones or UAVs?

A. This is something that perhaps non-professionals confuse. We have enough air power but it is catered for a conventional conflict not COIN (counter-insurgency). I shall explain it a little further, first, the air power we possess is too blunt, for example if in the example I’ve illustrated we find out that a commander of the miscreants is based on this key position in a well dug in and remote position with some surrounding population (referring to non-combatants) and we send in the PAF to take care of it, as we’ve done, what would happen is that we would strike hard, too hard. The area of damage would be wider then our intent and it becomes a problem when these miscreants pick spots with the locals surrounding them. I want there to be no doubt in the minds of the people who have been stating that the collateral is too much that it’s more so because the miscreants are using the local civilians as human shields, I do not know why would someone who has supposedly taken arms to avenge his family’s death do that with any shred of honour, except that he wants to exploit the people.

Secondly, the helicopters we’ve been using also run the risk of being targeted by enemy anti-air and it is also a problem because there’s a human being within if it is an UAV then we do not have this problem.

Q. In essence, sir, you are saying that the drone strikes should continue but should be done by the Pakistani military?

A. Precisely. The UAVs should be flown by Pakistanis and heavily used against the miscreants. There’s a reason why they have jumped in against the campaign to stop these strikes: they work.

Q. Sir, are we winning this War?

A. Despite what the media would have you believe we’re winning this war. The miscreants have been reduced considerably. The Americans have been requesting data to study our methods because frankly we’ve been more successful than them. I’m not just saying this as I’m a serving officer I’m saying this as a Pakistani. Militarily these miscreants cannot threaten us but as is our history, the political part of it just astounds me: we’re ready to give them ministries!

Q. Why aren’t we seeing this victory then, sir?

A. In my view it’s because that the people do not understand this conflict. The military chapter is a small part of it that we’ve succeeded at; the next part of simply ‘holding’ the territory and more importantly the people’s will with us is on the government. It is unfair to put that on the military shoulders, which the past government did and this government has done as well, invaribaly. It’s a tragedy, once the military asks input and directs the government they are blamed for interfering with democracy and if we don’t do that the government does everything it can to undo our success. There needs to be a civilian apparatus for the administration of each district we’ve cleared and that requires talented manpower and resources from the government. That is simply not happening and therefore we’re not seeing what we should.

Q. Can there be progress? It seems that for that we would need to work with the military

A. Here I’ve a problem. The military has done what it needed to now it’s being asked to do something that the government has the capabilities of and more than that it has the resources to do. We’ve discussed this often in causal gatherings and I would like to share this with you: after the Berlin wall fell the former West Germans paid a 5% development tax for the next 5 years to develop the former East German territory. Similarly, many West German companies volunteered to open up company outlets in the East to create jobs at the expense of their working. I’ve a question: cannot we do that? Cannot we pay; let’s say 2% tax totally for the development of these areas? Cannot the citizens ask that the implementation of this be done transparently? Cannot the big business of Karachi and Lahore, for example, open up chapters here with local help? Yes, we can. We went in with no excuses and when I share this with people I get bombed about how hard their life is. Well, we’re at war. We need to live like it and the basic thing we need to do is sacrifice to win. I do not see this happening. We discussed this once in a meeting with the civilian and military present I saw a wide-eyed CSP telling me that then the protection would be the responsibility of the army (referring to development projects headed by civilians, not government), I asked him what was the police therefore? He smiled and told me, for our support. It’s supposed to be the opposite! I know the pathetic condition of our police so I won’t comment on them those guys are stretched thin as it is but the bureaucracy wishes to hand over everything to the military and take a back seat. That’s the mentality and as long as it exists we’re going to lose the war no matter how many battles we win and I would recommend for the people who vote for such a system to wake up. I’m not saying that a takeover is a solution but how the hell is the army the villain?

Q. Sir, who do you believe should be the next Chief of Army?

A. Without a doubt it should be Lt. Gen. Tariq Khan.

Q. Can you please elaborate, sir?

A. Certainly, there are various types of individuals in the army and each type is best for a certain era. When we’re at peace we need someone well cut to handle the politicians, raise the morale of the people of how brand their military is. When we’re at war we need a warrior. Someone who is not afraid to bleed, gets dirty, and shoots at the enemy. That man is Lt. Gen. Tariq Khan; he is a warrior and we need him. I’m surprised at people saying he’s pro-US, did you know that when the NATO troops fired upon us, it was (Lt.) Gen. Tariq Khan who took it up against the upper echelons and got the supply suspended and got the US to file an inquiry and issue an apology? Is that man pro-US? He’s a soldier’s soldier: he stays away from politics and in the trenches and under him our army would handle the COIN aspects well and if there is any aggression from outside you can be assured that he would see that an appropriate response is initiated. I do not say that because I’ve served under him, I say that as an officer of the Pakistan Army; he’s the man who’d win in a landslide if this were an election.

Q. What should be the direction for the Pakistani military, sir, in your opinion?

A. I believe we should focus on greater joint operations the air force, army and navy working together as a well oiled machine. We are held back by the economical constraints but I believe we can work on greater integration of the military in operations and focus on the human factor, make each officer the absolute best that he can be. I’m glad to see us working in that direction.

Thank you for your time, sir.

My pleasure, and anytime

Comments please! @WebMaster @Aeronaut @Slav Defence @Hyperion @Marshmallow @Armstrong @fatman17 @Pakistanisage @Secur @Dillinger @niaz @Panther 57 @Alpha1 
@Oscar @nuclearpak @haviZsultan

 

[Liquidmetal]

Great interview and some hard hitting and direct replies. Proper replies from a soldier, not wishy washy bullshit we are getting from ganja and PTI. We need these armed drones as a priority and it angers me to see the us turn us down for their own expediency, hence we should be tapping the turks or the chinese, we need the drones for intel and precise attacks, then watch these murdering kaffirs come to the table.

 

[Chak Bamu]

An excellent post @jaibi. It cleared a misconception I had about PAF capability in controlled lethality of a surgical strike. Per this interview, a UAV could do a better job than a PAF jet and probably at a cheaper cost.

Now that the peace process is pretty much dead, we need to go in with full force and clean up. I have never said this, since I wanted to give peace a chance, but when we see continued belligerence in face of an offer of peace, then there is no choice.

The officer's idea of improvement in development spending is very realistic, but the tribal areas are unlike the settled areas and unique in some ways. There needs to be a good deal of thought put into any such plan. If a movement is made, I believe the various Chambers of Commerce in larger cities would support such a plan. But trust is the key here.

Also, I did not think much about COAS appointment. But seeing the logic behind support for Gen Tariq Khan, I agree that he should get this important post.

 

[jaibi]

Thank you Liquidmetal, I hope more people would read this and realise what truly is the problem.

Great interview and some hard hitting and direct replies. Proper replies from a soldier, not wishy washy bullshit we are getting from ganja and PTI. We need these armed drones as a priority and it angers me to see the us turn us down for their own expediency, hence we should be tapping the turks or the chinese, we need the drones for intel and precise attacks, then watch these murdering kaffirs come to the table.

 

[niaz]

Couldn’t agree more.

If Pakistan is to progress, we must have law & order. To have law & order GOP‘s writ must be established and all elements who are openly anti Pakistan State such as TTP and all their allies have to be eliminated.

I have always maintained that one can only negotiate from strength and not thru begging. Currently the two of the largest parties PTI & PML-N are competing with each as if trying to prove that one is more pro terrorists than the other. Even an idiot will conclude that these parties are scared stiff and have no spine to match the brutal single minded Taliban.

It is particular insult to the brave jeans of security forces and the police who are dying to save the cowards political leaders from terrorists.

I quote a poignant editorial from Dawn

Terms of engagement
MUNIR AKRAM



Published 2013-11-10 07:58:57
WHEN a US drone killed Taliban leader Hakeemullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s interior minister proclaimed it had killed the chances of negotiating peace with the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

In fact, Pakistani reactions to this event have laid bare the confusion and contradictions within Pakistan on policy towards the TTP and security policy in general.

The TTP is an umbrella group of jihadist organisations with elements of the Mehsud tribe at its core. It is credited with the killing of hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and thousands of civilians.

By all accounts, Hakeemullah Mehsud was a particularly vicious killer, resorting to gruesome beheadings of Pakistani security personnel and attacks that slaughtered men, women and children indiscriminately.

The TTP is involved in all forms of criminal activity: drugs, kidnapping, extortion.

Notably, its shock troops are Uzbeks and Chechens. Hakeemullah Mehsud’s relative was recently caught by US forces in Afghanistan plotting with Afghan intelligence to escalate terrorist operations against Pakistan. Could Indian intelligence have been far behind?

Thus, while the government’s pro forma protest against US violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty was de rigeur, Pakistani leaders should have been pleased with the elimination of this vicious enemy of the state. Instead, we witnessed the interior minister’s outburst, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) leader’s threat to close US transit through Pakistan, and the call by one of his party members to shoot down US drones. The defence ministry, on the other hand, reported that, incredulously, there had been no civilian casualties from recent US drone strikes.

There could be various explanations for these incoherent responses: playing to the popular hostility towards the US; avoiding being outflanked by political rivals; fear of the TTP’s revenge; a genuine, if naive, belief that negotiations with the TTP can lead to peace.

Negotiating peace with the TTP will be nigh impossible within the present parameters.

Firstly, the TTP’s demands — for (Sunni) Sharia rule in Pakistan and the creation of an Islamic Emirate in Pakistan and Afghanistan — are not negotiable. We had a glimpse of such rule when the TTP controlled Swat. Even partial acceptance of the TTP’s demands would negate the basis on which Pakistan was created. It would prevent Pakistan from emerging as a modern country.

Second, the experience of negotiating with the TTP has not been a happy one. Accords with the Mehsuds in South Waziristan and with Mullah Fazlullah in Swat were failures. Each such arrangement resulted in emboldening the extremists.

In Swat, the torture inflicted by the TTP was so abhorrent that public sentiment called for intervention by the armed forces. Many lives, soldiers and civilians, had to be sacrificed in the subsequent military operations to undo the ‘peace’ negotiated with Fazlullah. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of madness.

Third, Mullah Fazlullah, upon assuming the mantle of the TTP’s leadership, has rejected negotiations. The last elected Awami National Party government in Peshawar pressed for negotiations and its leaders lived (or rather, died) to rue their decision.

Finally, negotiations cannot succeed unless they are pursued from a position of strength. The TTP’s response to appeals for negotiations from the governments in Islamabad and Peshawar has been to escalate attacks, including the murder of PTI leaders, a church bombing and the assassination of a general. Lessons should be learned from some recent examples of successful counter-insurgency operations, such as in Sri Lanka and Colombia.

The present elected leadership should evolve a coherent counter-insurgency and counterterrorism strategy, perhaps within the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. This strategy should incorporate what I would call, the six Ds for success.

One, dictation. The government should set out the parameters for negotiations, including: acceptance of the Constitution, surrender of all heavy arms, expulsion of foreigners within the TTP, end to collaboration with external powers. It should not allow the TTP to set the agenda.

Two, defeat. The TTP must be put on the defensive. Unlike the foreign forces in Afghanistan, the Pakistan Army has the numbers and capability to conduct multiple and simultaneous operations to kill or capture TTP militants in Fata, Swat, Peshawar and Karachi. It should be authorised by the civilian government to do so. Three, division. The TTP is an association of extremist groups. Under military pressure, and with appropriate incentives and disincentives, some of these groups or elements within them will accept the government’s terms. It will be easier to deal with the smaller number of insurgents.

Four, decapitation. Groups depend on leadership. Charismatic leaders are not easy to replace. Those TTP leaders who remain recalcitrant would be legitimate targets for elimination. Pakistan’s security forces should acquire the capabilities to conduct such operations. We can then stop complaining about US intervention.

Five, demotivation. The TTP’s rank and file and some of its leaders can be persuaded by ‘carrots and sticks’ to disengage from their violent course. The state has vast reserves of both.

Six, deradicalisation. Now that Pakistan’s military ‘alliance’ with the US is ending, there is no ideological justification for the attacks on the Pakistani state. Over the longer term, many of those amenable to the TTP’s brand of extremism can be turned to more positive paths through education, jobs and other opportunities. This has been tried with some success elsewhere.

There is, of course, an external dimension which must be addressed. Islamabad will have to convince Kabul to end its collaboration with TTP elements. In turn, Pakistan will need to cooperate more actively to promote reconciliation between Afghanistans fighting factions, including the Afghan Taliban.

If the present elected leaders in Pakistan are able to execute such a coherent and effective security policy, it will open the doors to foreign and domestic investment, economic growth and employment generation. It will reinforce democracy.

If it fails, extremism, violence and terrorism will spread further in Pakistan, turning it into an Iraq or Syria and, ultimately, either an Egypt or Somalia. This is a moment for rational determination; not hyperbole and hysteria..

Terms of engagement - DAWN.COM

 

[jaibi]

I agree, Chak, before talking to him even I had this misconception about having PAF then why should we need the drones? Perhaps then the people would think it's the PA and not the US behind the strikes but this makes sense militarily and it would save lives both uniformed and civilian in the long run. So I'm for it too now.

I also think that COAS is also very important and it makes sense to have Lt. Gen. Tariq Khan in the seat, he'd do what needs to be done.

I also believe that the reason why the US is not giving us drone technology due to Indian pressure as it would give Pakistan a technological edge though I think the military would use it against the terrorists it's easy to counter drones with an air force. Anyways that's my two cents.

An excellent post @jaibi. It cleared a misconception I had about PAF capability in controlled lethality of a surgical strike. Per this interview, a UAV could do a better job than a PAF jet and probably at a cheaper cost.

Now that the peace process is pretty much dead, we need to go in with full force and clean up. I have never said this, since I wanted to give peace a chance, but when we see continued belligerence in face of an offer of peace, then there is no choice.

The officer's idea of improvement in development spending is very realistic, but the tribal areas are unlike the settled areas and unique in some ways. There needs to be a good deal of thought put into any such plan. If a movement is made, I believe the various Chambers of Commerce in larger cities would support such a plan. But trust is the key here.

Also, I did not think much about COAS appointment. But seeing the logic behind support for Gen Tariq Khan, I agree that he should get this important post.

 

[Liquidmetal]

Thank you Liquidmetal, I hope more people would read this and realise what truly is the problem.

@jaibi your interview was excellent, it was good to read clear and cogent views direct from the military. The politicians are being snakes as usual and it angers me that they mismanage the country so much. Unfortunately we have no choice but to live with the din of democracy and hope natural selection weeds out the bad managers.

 

[jaibi]

Exactly, sir, I'm offended for siding with these parties and the way they've bent over for the TTP, for the lack of a better expression! Decimate their ability to launch an attack and then we can think of reintegrating them here we're begging them to stop! Plus, I don't get why the media doesn't focus on them using the locals as human shields? Isn't that a dirty tactic? Isn't that more deplorable?

Couldn’t agree more.
,,
Terms of engagement - DAWN.COM

 

[Side-Winder]

Great post @jaibi
thanks

 

[jaibi]

@Zarvan would you like to add somthing?

 

[Slav Defence]

Shabash meray bhai..very well done..
This interview is indeed the greatest need of hour,when our political establishement is not representing clear picture of the scenario and our media is only whining upon perception,rather then describing facts and displaying the actual picture of story.
When this anonymous military representative concluded that we are winning this war,you have no idea that,he has given us an elixir of life-that is hope,which we are loosing day by day.
However he has spoken loud and clear,and I agree with him,that reason of our failure is due to collapse of military and civil sectors.
Indeed,I agree with him,and I suggest that the greatest need of hour is to settle those differences to avoid collapse at least.

 

[jhungary]

The problem with the current war on terror is, Pakistan and the US wanted two very different things

While the American interest turn from a manhunt (OBL) to Afghanistan's own stabilisation, Pakistan want a stabilised border and a stabilised country.

While we have a common enemy (Taliban) sad truh is, what US wanted sometimes to always go against what Pakistani want, and vice versa

Fact is, when the US beef up the operation level in Afghanistan, Taliban would retreat and withdrew into Pakistan and make trouble, then when the Pakistan step up, they ran back to Afghanistan and stir trouble there.

Sad truth is, you cannot fight an enemy have entrenched relation from both side, you either fight both side at the same time or you merge two battlefield into one. Talked to senior NATO officer once, he expressed that we can only gain progress when we left Afghanistan, then the problem will become a local afghan and Pakistan problem. The US and NATO does not have enough trust to have the afghani fight on our side, and simply, we saw only destruction, local afghani saw their home, we don't have a reason to fight, they do

 

[jaibi]

I absolutely agree jhungray what we need is greater collaboration between various players of the game. A collaborated simultaneaous operation from Afghanistan and Pakistan hunting them down can break their backs

The problem with the current war on terror is, Pakistan and the US wanted two very different things

While the American interest turn from a manhunt (OBL) to Afghanistan's own stabilisation, Pakistan want a stabilised border and a stabilised country.

While we have a common enemy (Taliban) sad truh is, what US wanted sometimes to always go against what Pakistani want, and vice versa

Fact is, when the US beef up the operation level in Afghanistan, Taliban would retreat and withdrew into Pakistan and make trouble, then when the Pakistan step up, they ran back to Afghanistan and stir trouble there.

Sad truth is, you cannot fight an enemy have entrenched relation from both side, you either fight both side at the same time or you merge two battlefield into one. Talked to senior NATO officer once, he expressed that we can only gain progress when we left Afghanistan, then the problem will become a local afghan and Pakistan problem. The US and NATO does not have enough trust to have the afghani fight on our side, and simply, we saw only destruction, local afghani saw their home, we don't have a reason to fight, they do

 

[Srinivas]

I think Drone dreadfulness has to do with the people on the ground fearing when the next drone strike will come. This does lot of physiological damage to ordinary folk living there in those tribal areas. I think the person giving the interview has not addressed this issue.

He just told his narrative in a military perspective.

 

[Malang Badshah]

I think that if this Gen. Tariq is appointed he would prove to be a bigger disaster for Pakistan than Musharraf. Ganja would sign the death warrant of his 3rd term now if he falls for this man.