Back to the barracks

CONSCIOUS of the imperative to retrieve and refurbish the image of Pak Army, the General Headquarters seems to be shedding its civilian orientation, a development rightly attributed to the new army chief, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani. The latest move in this direction is the ISPR clarification that the task of conducting elections is the sole responsibility of the Election Commission and that the army would stay away from the electoral process. A few days earlier, the new chief had written to all in-service personnel not to get involved in political affairs and shun meeting political leaders. In line with this policy, the military personnel are also being recalled from the civilian autonomous and semi-autonomous organisations they had been assigned to for various reasons over some time. These moves have received wide public approbation, because over the time, particularly since the flawed parliamentary elections of 2002, impression was gaining ground that the armed forces manipulated political process for the material good of the top brass. There was resentment against this also for the growing perception that the military tends to undermine its professionalism when its officers get involved in civilian affairs. The strongest objection to civilian role for the army, however, stemmed from the country’s political opposition which had made it a question of life and death to get President General Pervez Musharraf out of his uniform. The move to pull the forces out of the elections is also timely, in that even with conditional participation in the February 18 parliamentary polls, the opposition would not hesitate in blaming the army for its debacle. With the army out of elections exercise, except for its constitutional role to help the civilian administration in maintaining law and order, the Election Commission of Pakistan has been clearly marked for its responsibility to hold free and fair elections, free of pre-and post-polls rigging. How well equipped is the ECP for such an onerous duty only time will tell. But the exercise to de-hyphenate the armed forces from politics, should not end at this. Of course, for the Military Intelligence (MI) which works directly under the GHQ, there would be no problem in living up to the new directive of shunning political mindset. In fact, there is no such thing as its involvement in civilian affairs. But the problem is with the role of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate which has a queer organisational structure.
It is supposed to be under the civilian Chief Executive but it is manned by the uniformed officers from the three services. Over the years because of its nose-poking in political affairs - thanks to this additional role bestowed upon it by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the name of strengthening internal security - the ISI is cast in the image of a godfather ensuring the ‘correctness’ of national politics. Therefore, much of the murkiness of electoral politics, rightly or wrongly, is attributed to the ISI, which then finds way to the GHQ as the outfit is headed by military officers. It would be, therefore, fair to expect that the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate would jettison its political wing and revert to its mandated role of gathering inter-services intelligence. That General Kiyani, in one of his first orders, declared 2008 ‘Year of the Soldier’ amply reflects his concern over the dwindling popularity of the armed forces over the years. Not that those earlier stints of military rule were popular; the one ushered in by General Pervez Musharraf has the uniqueness of being the most destructive. Now that the ‘golden era’ of his good governance is drawing to a close one witnesses in the country a comprehensively devastated place akin to a tornado-hit town.

We thought America did not torture!

US ATTORNEY-General Michael Mukasey’s defence of controversial CIA interrogation techniques that came to the fore after 9/11 is yet another testimony to the low regard the Bush administration accords to overwhelming international and domestic opinion. Actually, the Bush White House’s failure to come to terms with reality, the inability to meet set targets despite two terms in office, goes to show just why Washington has been so unsuccessful in the so-called war against terrorism. Just when the world was beginning to notice signs that Washington might be diverting a little from its high handed brute-force approach that has typified its post 9/11 policy, the president himself in the state of the union address and the AG before Congress have proved that little has changed in the official position. Ideological and long-term as this war is, most observing and engaged in it have embraced the realisation that dealing with the militant-terrorism menace would require more than war. It entails going back to its roots, displaying a thorough understanding of its growth, and then halting further spread before moving to pluck it out altogether. It requires a parallel battle of minds, but not one fought with armies. Unfortunately, even though tanks, bombs and torture techniques have only distanced Washington from its goal, it is as if the Bush administration does not even notice how far it has drifted from the original objective, still expressing confidence in its methods. The occupiers’ prison abuses that made headlines, and CIA torture techniques that the world got to know of later received widespread condemnation not only because they were inhuman, but because as flag-bearer of the free world, the US was expected to do better.
Close to bowing out, President Bush’s team was expected to do a de-briefing where ‘hits and misses’ would be scrutinised. From the looks of it, it has sidestepped such subtleties. If it had taken the trouble, it would have noticed how in reacting to extremism, its approach became pretty extreme itself. And rather than accept blame and make post-election transition easier, the administration has come out strongly in favour of its defeated policies. Few expected them to admit the Iraq occupation was off the mark. But in defending their policies since the insurgency, they have tried to justify the prison excesses, extreme torture techniques, the secret bases outside the US, especially Gitmo, and suppressing rights of anybody not of their liking. It is little surprise the AG has ruled out appointing an independent counsel to investigate destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. Judging from the manner of the cover up, it seems hard to presume anything other than the line that what was erased had sanction from very high offices.

—Khaleej Times