Let’s jump the Gun: Lt Gen (retd) Asad Durrani

By: Lt Gen (retd) Asad Durrani

(This is a cross post from The Nation)

Something about this terrorism bit is not making sense. In fact, hardly anything about this latest of our deliriums is making much sense.

Most of us agree that it is the greatest menace of our times, but hardly anyone can describe, let alone define; what is it all about. We may grudgingly concede that it was unlikely to go away unless we removed its “root-causes”. It is unlikely though, that many of us would agree where they were rooted. Even if we did in an odd case, these would be too deeply embedded in history to be rooted out.

There is general agreement, even consensus, that use of force against the terrorists was ineffective, if not out-rightly counter-productive. We still, all of us, go right ahead and crackdown upon them with all our force and fury.

We reiterate, ad nauseam, that we will not let the terrorists dissemble our cherished values of freedom and rule of law. We seem to have no choice but to restrict our freedoms and violate our laws in the name of our scourge. In the process, we have even renounced Jihad, one of our most sacred values.

We all agreed that the terrorism was a global threat and we must therefore face it together. Each country on the other hand, unless arm-twisted or terrorised by another, insists on defining its own threat and working out its own response.

Indeed we all detest terrorism, except when we find it useful: to eliminate our opponents or legitimise illegal regimes, to name but two. In principle, one cannot talk to the terrorists. In practice, we almost always do- in Ireland, in Palestine, in Sri Lanka, in Kashmir, and in our own tribal areas.

Is it any wonder therefore that when we say we were winning against the terrorists, it is but understood that we were losing? In fact, there is no wonder that the terrorists were winning.

Against the “Terrorism al-Afghania al-Islamia al-Qaida”, we all lined up behind the US in its “global war on terror”. In the meantime, this grand coalition is in a state of disarray. America and Europe, the ultimate allies, disagree on the concept as well as on the conduct of war. The Front Line & Major Non-Nato ally, Pakistan, can simply not do enough. And Afghanistan, that brought us all together, has had enough of all of us. There are still reasons to rejoice.

The Middle East, that probably started it all, is praying to Allah for the terrorists’ long life. The late lamented Zarqavi contributed to its oil economy at least as much as Zawahiri to our bubble economy. A more inhuman reason may well be that but for these human bombs the American steamroller might have levelled Syria, Iran’s bravado would have been more muted, and many others, like Pakistan, could have been waiting for their turn to be overhauled. Lately, another of their kind has won our admiration and gratitude. Hezbollah has performed better, both on and off the battlefield, than all the Muslim countries put together.

There may be yet another perhaps the most transcendent of all reasons: these non-state actors may well be our last hope to protect us from the state terrorism.

All “terrorist” movements started with a domestic agenda (even Al-Qaida had initially pleaded for in-house reforms). Unable to contain their disaffection, some of the states chased them across their frontiers- once even sent them to Afghanistan in the hope that they would embrace martyrdom- and bandwagoned with others of their ilk. The terrorists reacted predictably: they networked. Globalisation of terrorism was thus state sponsored. And lest we forget, during the Cold War the two super-states actively encouraged and enflamed discord in the other camp.

And how did these regimes that had pushed their own citizens to desperation and then out of their homeland act thereafter? They perpetuated themselves as the last citadel of defence against “radicalism, extremism and terrorism”; and in the process earned the right to oppress a little more. When that did not help, they made peace overtures to their nemesis. Every time it was the state that violated the terms of the truce. To be fair, it was not entirely the fault of those who sat on top of the heap. That is the way the state system works.

Once they shed their official baggage, the one-time icons of the national security establishment are often found preaching accord and concord. One wonders then; how come they did not make a difference when they were “in the loop”? The honest answer has to be: “because at that time, they spoke the language of the state”.

The state has a large ego. It is concerned more with the “writ of the state” than with the moaning and groaning of its teaming subjects. It has arrogated to itself the exclusive right to use force. The state also has a large vanity. When the force fails to impress the terrorists, it lashes out with greater anger. If an odd one tried to break the vicious cycle, the “system” overrides him. Little wonder that the state is now increasingly seen as the root-cause of terror- another cause that defies uprooting. Mercifully, the worldly laws are overridden by the laws of nature that provide the antidote from the same roots that germinate the disease.

When we forged a worldwide alliance to battle terrorism, by default we created a new global power. It has in the meantime grown into a Frankenstein’s Monster; all set to destroy its creator, the world state order. Now that it seems to be on the winning streak, it is time to switch sides. At the time of the Armageddon, I don’t want to be on the losing side.

(The writer is Former Head of ISI).