The saviour general

Dr Farrukh Saleem
The writer is an Islamabad-based
freelance columnist
farrukh15@hotmail.com

President General Musharraf has elected to keep Pakistan in the 21st century. His opponents are accusing him of siding with the Americans. The president's choice has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion is as dear to this soldier of Islam as it is to any other claimant. Our pick had to be between moving back a century or living in the current millennium. Building rock hangers or living with the civilized world. The general picked the later. Some are going to blame him for that but history shall prove that the general sided with the future of Pakistan.
Keeping up with the theme, the general should now declare a general amnesty for all political prisoners, exiled and self-exiled leaders. Let's respond to what appears to be a protracted national crisis in one voice and with one force.
The general's move has amputated all external threats to the integrity of Pakistan. Internally, in the 1997 Elections, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam got 327,683 votes or 1.83% of the total votes. Tehreek-e-Islam, Islamic Public Party, Mutahidda Deeni Mahaz, Islami Siasi Tehreek, Islami Inqilab Party, Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadis, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan and Muslim Itehad could not even win a single parliament seat. A minority of 1.83% that has been holding the majority hostage is now bound to show its frustration by damaging Pakistani property and harming other Muslims. Their only strength is the current government's weak resolve.
For those who suggest that there might be a split within the army have no idea how Pakistan Army works. This is one of the most disciplined of armies on the face of the planet. It's a force trained to respond to emergencies with a firm chain of command in place. At the corps-commander level there can be "frank disagreement" but absolutely no disobedience. The chief is unconditionally secure in his command of every corps, every division, every brigade, every battalion and every company.
Now on to Afghanistan. Americans will be pleasantly surprised by the welcome that they'll get by the Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks. What really is Pakistan's interest in Afghanistan? To be sure, Pak-Afghan relationship has very little-if anything at all--to do with religion. Our interest in Afghanistan has always been either military or political. To begin with, a puppet government in Afghanistan was supposed to provide 'strategic depth' to Pakistan Army in its confrontation with the Indians. Second, a Pakistan-friendly government in Kabul is said to increased our national security. Third, Afghanistan, it is hoped, will provide Pakistan a profitable land-route to cotton-rich Tajikistan, oil-rich Turkmenistan and gas-rich Uzbekistan.
In 1989, General Mirza Aslam Beg was the first to actually articulate 'strategic depth' in reference to our relationship with Afghanistan. (This was during Zarb-i-Momin Exercise the largest field exercise ever; 3 corps, 2 armoured divisions, 2 armoured brigades, 2 artillery divisions, 1 air defence division and the Air Force; 14 new concepts said to have been tested).
Just what is the doctrine of strategic depth? In non-military terms, it means hiding Pakistan's military assets in Afghanistan perhaps "beyond the current offensive capabilities" of the Indian military somehow protecting Pakistan's "military hardware" from enemy forces.
Would the doctrine work? The first assumption is that Pakistan would have the leisure of time. The second assumption is that Pakistan can transfer its equipment to a place of her choosing. The third assumption is that logistical support for such a major undertaking is and will remain available. The fourth assumption is that places west of the Durand Line shall remain safe. The fifth assumption is that Pakistan can dominate, maintain and sustain huge safe houses in areas hundreds of miles into Afghanistan.
What really is our single most expensive military asset? Undoubtedly, the bomb followed by the remaining 32 F-16 Fighting Falcons, 180 Mirages, 60 A-5 Fantans and 320 T-80UD ($650 million) main battle tanks. Are we going to try and hide our billion-dollar fleet of Agosta 90-B submarines or our nuclear reactors in Afghanistan?
So much for the strategic depth that we seek in war-torn Afghanistan. The Afghanis, on the other hand, have already achieved strategic depth into all major Pakistani cities where they now control trucking, transportation and the supply of sugar cane to sugar mills. Then there is all that awfully profitable drug trafficking and gunrunning. While we plan they execute!
How about enhancing our national security by installing a Pakistan-friendly government in Kabul? National security, in essence, is a direct derivative of how many friends a country has in the region. Pakistan's four borders are: Afghanistan 2,430 km; China 523 km; India 2,912 km and Iran 909 km. 
Beyond Afghanistan lie Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Prior to the Taliban phenomenon, we had China and Iran as good, trustworthy friends. Afghanistan has long been at war either with itself or with the rest of the world.
China never appreciated our Afghan policy a bit. Iran has actually been hostile. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are also at odds with us. In our region, for the first time in recent memory, the interests of the United States, China and the Russian Federation have converged. Iran and India are also discovering common grounds. Then there is the Shanghai Five - China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan - all teaming up as a block. The Security Council (SC) has already passed a heap of Resolutions including 1189, 1214, 1267, 1333 and 1363 all directed against the Taliban and their 'supporters' in the region.
Do we now have more friends around us than we did, say, half a decade ago? Has our Afghan policy enhanced our national security?
The Pak-Afghan border is almost impossible to monitor. There are at least 200 identified crossing points with as many or more that are yet to be catalogued. For CIA spy satellites this particular border is now a military target with a 24-hour open eye. To be sure, CIA case officers have miserably failed to recruit either pushto-speaking or Arabic-speaking agents who would be willing and able to live the life of a mujahid. Deep CIA penetration into Osama's network has, therefore, been next to impossible.
Russia already has 25, 000 armed troops in Tajikistan including the 201st Motorized Rifle Division. The bulk of these forces are in Kulob right on the Afghan border. Last year, Russia undertook Southern Shield 2000, a series of live-ammunition war games. CIA Director Tenet and the then FBI Director Freeh both visited the border areas. For the past two years there have been open-source reports that the US Delta Force, the Russian Spetsnaz and Alpha Commandos have been contemplating an attack deep into Afghanistan.
Now on to Pakistan becoming a bridge between Central Asia and the rest of the world. Sounds great. The minimum prerequisite, however, would be peace and stability in Afghanistan. As long as Pakistan, on one side, and Iran, India, Russia and the US, on the other side, keep on adding fuel to the fire between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance there isn't going to be any peace. Bridges can't survive when fires are all around.
Afghanistan is 38% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 6% Uzbek and 19% Hazara (other minor groups include Aimaks, Turkmen and Baloch). A pluralistic government is in the best interest of Afghanistan and all its six neighbours-Pakistan, China, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Pakistan has already paid a very high price and acquired nothing in return.