A counter argument to sub conventional options for India as suggested by Prof. Christine Fair


Counter Argument


Distinguished South Asian Peace & Security Affairs researcher & Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair, recently for ORF, made a compelling case for India to recalibrate its “near term” response strategy to continued terror provocations emanating from Pakistan state and its proxies. And, part of the overall response strategy suggestion included using sub-conventional ops, with specific recommendation to consider leadership decapitation of Panjab based terror groups such as LeT and JeM.

“India should focus its efforts on degrading groups like the LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) as well as their enablers in and out of uniform.”

“India should consider seriously how it can degrade key leaders. LeT seems particularly ripe for such options given its hierarchical structure.”

While there are plentitude of pros to such response, namely – low risk, pointed & limited (especially among two arch rivals with nuclear weapons), effectiveness in degrading the capability of terror groups that have a hierarchical structure. Something that Professor Christine Fair also elucidates in her argument for sub conventional response by India to terrorism emanating from Pakistan.

However, in my opinion, such leadership decapitation of terrorist organization is counterproductive, and here’s why –

1. Larger and acute issue of radicalization in society: Leaders of terror organizations that are India centric, such as LeT & JeM have deep sympathies both within establishment and public. Pakistanis view their anti-India stance as legitimate and therefore both support & celebrate such organizations, including their wild claims – whether be it use of nukes or call for war – as necessary response to perceived injustice inflicted by India upon Pakistan.

As evident in many instances, more famous being assassination of Osama Bin Laden, Pakistanis – be it the educated elite to hawaldaars within media that parrot Pakistan army narrative to common person on the road – Pakistanis of all hues always continue to rationalise Bin Laden’s presence. And instead of taking responsibility, indulge in victimhood by blaming America for their own duplicity.

Further, such terrorist organizations are also seen as torchbearers of Islam and in pursuit of mythical gazwah-e-hind prophesy, by a large section of Pakistani population.

In such atmosphere, any strike on leadership would only amplify sympathies for terrorism and be viewed as yet another case of Indian hegemony.

2. Availability of future terrorist recruits: For terrorism to flourish it requires – finance, weapons and strategy/leadership. But another key ingredients is “cause” or “idea”, immaterial how absurd or false the idea be; and therefore, taking out terror leadership within Pakistan only furthers their cause, and opens opportunity to gain new recruits, more so when Pakistani establishment continues to pour in with strategy, fund and weapons.

3. Decentralisation Vs Hierarchical:  Taking out leadership in the case of LeT and JeM, definitely eliminates charismatic leadership but that would open the door for decentralised functioning of terror much like ISIS, and pose greater risk to the entire region, especially with terror financing and recruitments remaining untouched.

Where am I headed?

If sub conventional op of terrorist leadership decapitation is no go road, per me, what then are the options?

Before laying out options, lets take Osama Bin Laden’s use case and imagine a scenario where Pakistan would’ve captured Bin Laden, put him through trial and executed – what message does it convey?

I understand this would be an ideal route, and ofcourse the challenge is with getting Pakistan onboard and willing to take this route – but if nations interested in eliminating terrorism where to coerce and/or incentivise such action by Pakistani state, it would both be in the best interest of Pakistan and the region, especially – America, Afghanistan and India. 

Now, lets talk of options to make Pakistan take the route of going after all shades of terrorists;

1. Increase cost of terror, this includes by exploiting fault lines within Pakistan to the extent that it becomes unsustainable

2. Be pro-active and ruthless, America and India need to reimagine its dealings with Pakistan, and this should start by answering the question – what Pakistan would have done to you (America and India), if they were in your place/position (America and India)? 
The moment you invert the funnel – you only see possibilities and in lots!

3. Sanctions – against state, state institutions, specific organizations and individuals, immaterial if they belong to government agency or otherwise.

4. Quid pro quo – for every good action in the direction of fight against terror, respond with positive action

In summary, Israelis going after Hamas leadership hasn’t reduced terrorism, rather led to decentralisation of terror, amplified victimhood and created a vicious cycle of violence for itself and the region. America, India and the entire region would be better off from pursuing long-term and substantial goals in its fight against Pakistan sponsored terror, rather than near-term wins against a specific organization or terrorist leader.

Comments

  1. How will you invert the funnel? Actionable inputs are more valuable than metaphors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who is the writer? Does he/she really believe you can get pakistan to take action against terrorists through incentives/ pressure. And could have gotten them to capture, try and execute Bin Laden? Lol..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Articles

Gernail's Jungjoo Dictionary For Dummies

The Tragic Consequence Of Half Truths In Indian Subcontinent

From Jinnah’s Land of Pure to Imran’s Naya Land of Pure

Project Imran Khan and Pakistan's Attempt at Seeking Parity with Hindu Rashtra

Hypothesis - Ancient Ties of India and the Arab World