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 –
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;
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.
How will you invert the funnel? Actionable inputs are more valuable than metaphors.
ReplyDeleteWho 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