Daily Times

Islamabad: Political analysts have called for more transparency in Pakistan’s ongoing counter-terrorism efforts, while noting that the civilian set-up needs to step in to ensure sustainable results.

Since Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (RuF) kicked off in February, the ISPR has been driving the narrative, providing updates on progress made. These have been mostly focused on the number of militants killed or picked up, the networks dismantled as well as the Army’s own losses.

According to the ISPR, there have been: more than 35 far-reaching joint search and intelligence-based operations (IBOs) conducted by the Punjab Rangers, regular police and intelligence agencies. These resulted in the detention of 171 suspects including 26 Afghans in last three weeks. The areas covered include DG Khan, Lahore, Kasur, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Sialkot, Shakargarh, Attock and Sheikhupura. In addition, 5 high-value targets belonging to Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan were killed in Orakzai Agency, while 20 ferraris surrendered in Balochistan.

The latter confessed to being supported by India’s Research and Analysis Wing.

By contrast, the government is nowhere to be seen. It is alarmingly quiet on the broader issue of militancy and the long-term means of combating it.

According to senior journalist, Ejaz Haider, the way that RuF is being conducted provides a perfect example of how organisations opt for piecemeal problem-solving. This, he said underscored the lack of any comprehensive solution on the table.

“The literature is clear on the fact that organisations ‘satisfice’. They don’t optimise.” Another good example of this, he added, was the extension of military courts. “This is an easy way out because not much work has been done to reform the criminal justice system.”

The former head of Pakistan’s National Counter Terrorism Authority concurs that the anti-terrorism drive is anchored to the military. Tariq Pervez says this renders anti-terrorism in Pakistan predominantly kinetic in nature. Success, therefore, is measured exclusively in terms of arrests, killings and raids. “This is a lopsided approach, resulting in short-term gains.” He went on to warn that “unless the breeding grounds for militancy are addressed, no matter how many are arrested or killed, more will keep joining the ’cause'”. He emphasised that the government would have to focus on establishing a counter-narrative as well as other non-kinetic measures, while strengthening the civilian institutions.

Analysts also voiced concerns over the lack of procedural verification processes when it comes to supporting ISPRS gains. Dr Ayesha Siddiqua, author and defence policy expert, noted the opacity of the military operation. “How does one evaluate RUF when there are no independent means of verification? We are told people are being caught but does this include meaningful targets? Do we even have a consensus on what the threats are?” Highlighting the glaring civilian gaps in the counter-terrorism strategy, Dr Siddiqua pointed out that the Directorate of Internal Security – that was envisioned as part of the National Internal Security Policy announced by the Interior Minister in 2014 -plays less of a role than the apex committees.

The message could not be clearer, according to the experts. The civilian government needs to do much more. A good place to start is recognising the difference between counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. The latter is essentially the ‘winning hearts and minds’ component that supplements military efforts. And this is the domain of the government. If it fails to act on this front – all short-term gains by the Army will be rendered null and void.