Pakistan divided on fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda

ISLAMABAD: An unusual parliamentary debate designed to forge a Pakistani policy on how to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda has exposed deep ambivalence about the militants, even as their reach extends to suicide attacks in the capital.

Calls for dialogue with the Taliban, peppered with opposition to fighting what is perceived as an American war, dominated the closed-door sessions, according to participants.

After seven years of military rule under General Pervez Musharraf, the new civilian government initiated the debate in an effort to convince the public and the political parties of the necessity of the war against the militants. Musharraf – who had been both head of the army and president, as well as an important ally of the Bush administration – never consulted Parliament.

The new president, Asif Ali Zardari, pledged a strong effort by Pakistan against terrorism during his visit to Washington earlier this month, and stressed the contrast between his civilian rule and that of his military predecessor.

But the tenor of the parliamentary proceedings, including criticism by politicians of a lengthy military briefing by a general on the conduct of the war, showed that members of the political elite have little stomach for the fight against the militants.

The Pakistani military launched a campaign against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda backers in the tribal area of Bajaur two months ago, an effort that American commanders have applauded as a way to stop the militants crossing into Afghanistan and launching attacks against American soldiers.

At a news conference in Islamabad on Monday, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asia, Richard Boucher, called the “tough actions” of the Pakistanis “very impressive.”

In a sign of the mood in Parliament, Nawaz Sharif, leader of the opposition party Pakistan Muslim League-N, sent a letter to the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, on Monday calling for dialogue with the militants. The letter suggested a halt in military operations while negotiations were given a chance, according to Ahsan Iqbal, an aide to Sharif.

In an interview last week, Sharif said: “What is wrong with talking?”

Pakistanis who support a tough fight against the militants have been surprised that the suicide bomb attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, which killed more than 50 people last month, has not produced more resolve in Parliament.

“I thought the Marriott would change everyone's attitude, but it has not,” said Farook Saleem, a prominent newspaper columnist.

The sentiments in the speeches in Parliament were so opposed to fighting the militants that it was doubtful that the ruling Pakistan People's Party could engineer an “appropriate resolution,” said Sardar Aseff Ahmed Ali, a senior member of the party and a former foreign minister.

A religious party, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl, which serves in the coalition with the Pakistan People's Party, had voiced particularly strong opposition to the war against the militants, Ali said.

“They want the army to pull out of everything and start talks with the militants in North and South Waziristan, in Swat,” Ali said. The army is fighting the Taliban in Swat, a settled area of North West Frontier Province, and has fought the Taliban in Waziristan, an area of the tribal belt.

It was possible, Ali said, that divergent opinions within the coalition could produce a parliamentary resolution that was “so hugely diluted that the whole exercise is left futile.”

Behind the scenes, the idea of a parliamentary debate was encouraged by the head of the Pakistani Army, General Parvez Kayani, as a way to garner political support for the efforts of his military, according to two Pakistanis familiar with the general's thinking.

At a cabinet meeting attended by Kayani in late July, the civilian government gave the military permission to go ahead with operations against the militants.

But Kayani wanted more than cabinet approval, and was eager for a parliamentary debate that would show the army was responding to civilian rule, according to the Pakistanis who spoke to Kayani.

In that vein, General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of military operations for the Pakistani Army and the next head of the powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency, briefed a joint session of Parliament two weeks ago.

The presence of a senior general in Parliament was viewed in much of the Pakistani media as an encouraging, if fledgling, sign of civilian control of the military.

Pasha described what the army had done in several campaigns against militants in the past seven years, showed graphic images of militants slaughtering civilians, and said more than 1,500 Pakistani soldiers had died in operations, according to members of Parliament.

The briefing was poorly received by politicians, who lambasted it as showing little new. The members of Parliament also criticized Pasha for not offering a strategy for the future.
International Herald Tribune