No more terror havens in Madrassas, please

A visibly saddened President Pervez Musharraf has spoken to the nation explaining the indispensability of action against the Lal Masjid-Jamia Hafsa complex. It was a state within a state, had become safe haven for terrorists and when challenged to surrender its leaders asked for a blanket amnesty for all its occupants who allegedly included foreigners, he argued.
He regretted that action had to be taken against our own people and that calls for introspection why things came to such a pass. But, the President was equally firm in his resolve to deny the use of religious schools to extremists and terrorists. He sought cooperation of the Wifaqul Madaris to support the government to deal with terrorism and religious extremism. In his relatively brief but frank speech he regretted the loss of innocent lives and adopted a conciliatory tone seeking help of all sections of the society to help in curbing extremism and rooting out terrorism. One thing that came across through his 33-minute speech loud and clear was that he would not like the repeat of another Lal Masjid. As the aftermath of the operation against the Lal Masjid-Jamia Hafsa complex unfolds one finds little in terms of support for all that this outfit stood for before the operation was launched on July 4. All across the spectrum of public opinion there were no takers, be they religious lobbies or civil society or political parties, of the antics thrown around by the Lal Masjid management. In fact, there was a long standing public demand for action against the management and when it did not take place the government was accused of conniving at the “topi drama” of Lal Masjid managers, to divert public attention from more serious issues like the judicial crisis. But the way the operation was conceived and conducted resulting in horrendous bloodshed, made gorier by the denial of information, sometimes as innocuous as ‘can you tell if my son is dead or living?’ raised a storm of resentment against the government. If the plan to take action against the Lal Masjid management was conceived six months back, and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was “proud of the plan”, as he informed media persons in a briefing two days before the assault on the complex, what then went wrong?
Or, were the planners absolutely ill-informed of the things inside the mosque-cum-seminary? What was achieved in the end was a Pyrrhic victory for the government. Pakistan cannot afford to have one more such victory. This was the last wake-up call. There are many questions that need to be answered in order not to have more Lal Masjids. Last week in this space, we had suggested setting up a high-powered judicial commission which should hold an inquiry into entire imbroglio of Lal Masjid to fix responsibility for this tragic happening. We would like to repeat that suggestion. The commission should comprise members of superior judiciary and its terms of reference should include inquiry into how a mosque, supposedly run by the government, became the hub of terrorism. The commission should also propose a mechanism of oversight and on the spot inspections to ensure that the madressas are not infiltrated by extremist elements. Mere registration of these schools, as is presently the practice, is not enough, and as the President in his speech hinted, the Wifaqul Madaris should be brought into the loop. Without a clear verdict on the entire Lal Masjid episode by an independent inquiry, there would be no escape from the blame game that can only be allowed to go unchecked at great risk to national integrity. An inquiry is also essential to “clear” the involvement of the law enforcing agencies and military personnel in this incident which in general perception was an attack on a mosque by the armed forces, although the fact is that they were called in and were acting in support of civil authority.

No logic

President Bush believes that, given time, the war in Iraq can be won. He believes it because he needs to. He will be judged on Iraq and with just 18 months left to his presidency he does not want to go down in history as a failure, a president who led the country into a war it lost. There is no logical basis for his bullishness. No amount of military muscle and billions of dollars thrown at Iraq are going to make for peace and stability there. Thanks to four years of grossly mishandled occupation, it is too late to even think about victories. The US-led military presence is now part of the problem, not the answer. The battle is no longer a military one, it is one for hearts and minds — and it is a battle long lost. The longer US troops stay, the greater the resentment.
It is all very well saying that this is a war that has to be won. That is a wish, not a cold assessment of fact. Wishful thinking does not win wars. There comes a point when facts have to be faced and decisions taken, no matter how uncomfortable. That is the politician’s job. The argument that Iraq will be in a far worse situation if the US forces pull out may be true but it cannot be the determining factor in deciding whether they stay or go; to stand by it is to deliver the White House into the hands of Iraqi politicians who use the American presence as both a safety net and an excuse for not making their own uncomfortable decisions. The only others who gain from a continued American presence are those who have been helping themselves to the treasure troves of US dollars that have poured so ineffectively into the country and who will be the first to head off to wealthy exile when US troops finally leave. Thursday’s vote in the US House of Representatives for a pullout by April next year shows that the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds is not the only one that the White House has lost. If the Senate does likewise, Bush will of course veto the legislation. But he would be wrong because the vote, the third by the House this year, provides him with the only honorable exit strategy in town. The House does not envisage a total pullout; some Americans would stay to train Iraqi troops and carry out counter-terrorism operations. The plan offers Bush the chance to be still there and yet not be there. He could then claim that the job has been done, Iraq is now standing on its own two feet, but that the war against terrorism is still being pursued with vigor. It is an offer well worth taking. Regardless of what he wants, a pullout is going to be decided within the next 18 months. If he does not order it, the Democrats will after they win the presidential election, which they will on present form. Better for him that it is done during his presidency with some measure of dignity, rather than by his successor who will be only too happy to let the world know about the mess that has been inherited, which has to be cleared up and how much it has all cost.

—Arab News