Brown Pundits

A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections by Brian Cloughley

Dear All,

Some questions came my way about Brian Cloughley’s good book about Pakistan army. I put them in an unconventional book review. Regards, Hamid.

Book Review by Hamid Hussain

A History of Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections by Brian Cloughley, Fourth Edition. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 588

Brian Cloughley’s A History of Pakistan Army is the fourth edition of a book, which was originally written in 1999. Fourth edition adds many new chapters especially tenures of General Pervez Mussharraf and General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. Author is one of few foreigners with long association with some senior Pakistani officers going back to early 1980s. This gives the author an advantage to draw on his personal associations.

Book is a comprehensive review of history of Pakistan army starting from 1947 when country gained independence. It documents journey of Pakistan army over six decades.

On page 29 author commenting about Ayub’s actions after becoming C-in-C states that “He examined the Military Secretary’s records of every senior officer and, if in doubt about someone’s competence, he sacked them”. This needs clarification and understanding of the context. The issue was not much about competence but about reliability. In March 1951, only about two months after General Muhammad Ayub Khan took over command of Pakistan army, a conspiracy was unearthed by the local police where a group of army officers were planning to overthrow the civilian government. The leader was then Chief of General Staff (CGS) Major General Muhammad Akbar Khan. Many officers involved in the conspiracy were left leaning and avowed leftist and famous poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz was also involved peripherally. After the arrest of main culprits, Ayub used this opportunity to ease out all officers with leftist leanings. For Ayub, the issue was reliability of officers and proper orientation rather than competence. Many officers promoted by Ayub to senior ranks will never pass a competency test in any decent army.

Author complements Ayub for ‘considerable activity in all sorts of spheres’ and that constitution committee finished its work in just over a year. A little background will help readers understand the machinations behind these maneuvers to keep dominance of western wing. There were seven members of constitution committee; four from West Pakistan and three from East Pakistan. Even Ayub’s own handpicked cabinet members from East Pakistan; Muhammad Ibraheem, Abul Qasim Khan and Habib ur Rahman demanded greater autonomy during discussions on Constitution and warned of grave dangers of a highly centralized government. Several 4:3 votes during these deliberations clearly indicated a genuine different thought process and different perspective among ministers from the two wings. Ayub was clever enough to keep three Bengali members on board as he needed to show that Bengalis were at the table but in fact handicapped by being minority in the committee. After the promulgation of the constitution, he dropped all three Bengali ministers from the cabinet which clearly shows his motives.

On page 78 in remarks about Major General A. O. Mitha, author points to “withdrawal of a well earned decoration’ of the officer and suggests that Bhutto was responsible for the withdrawal. It is quite clear that then C-in-C Lieutenant General Gul Hassan recommended to the President for withdrawal of the award and even Mitha blames Gul Hassan and not Bhutto. As far as award of Hilal-e-Jurat is concerned, there are two aspects of the issue. One is whether Mitha deserved the decoration and second is the technical aspect whether proper procedure was followed. Mitha was close friend of then President and C-in-C General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan and was serving as Quarter Master General (QMG) in 1971. Yahya sent him to East Pakistan just prior to ‘Operation Searchlight’ in March 1971. Mitha arrived on March 24 and appointed Deputy Corps Commander to Lieutenant General Tikka Khan and put in charge of the operation. This was done verbally and no official notification was issued. Mitha travelled all over East Pakistan and gave direct orders to fighting formations for operations against Bengali rebels. Mitha was in East Pakistan from March 24 to April 11, 1971 when Pakistani forces disarmed Bengali troops and fought with rebellious soldiers. After pacification, he visited East Pakistan again about two months later. Chief of Staff (COS) General Abdul Hamid initiated the citation for the award of Hilal-e-Jurat to Mitha for his role in crucial operations in March 1971 and General Yahya Khan approved it. It is strange that Mitha was upset about the withdrawal of the award as he thought that he deserved it for his crucial role in the operations. However, in his memoirs he mentions that he was retired unjustly and gives the argument that as QMG his responsibility was only to supply what was in stock and had nothing else to do with either the planning or execution of war. In his view others were responsible for the debacle.

Now the tricky issue of whether Mitha deserved the award. His role was essentially advisory and although he was not in direct command of troops, in fact he travelled all over East Pakistan and gave direct orders as well as supervised operations including infantry, artillery and Special Services Group (SSG) troops. In view of general confusion all along the chain of command, lack of clear direction from top brass and management crisis at mid-levels, Mitha’s actions were important to take the initiative back and restore the writ of the state. Looking from this angle, in my view, he probably deserved the decoration. On pure technical and administrative grounds, Mitha was not in direct command of troops and his role was essentially advisory. In addition, citation was not initiated by his direct superior Lieutenant General Tikka Khan but COS. Mitha and then CGS Lieutenant General Gul Hassan didn’t like each other and when later became C-in-C, he recommended to President to withdraw the award on technical grounds. Bhutto who was busy putting generals in the dock was happy to approve it.

On page 88, author while describing some actions of 1965 war states that “Major Aziz Bhatti thoroughly deserved the award of Nishan-i-Haider (the highest gallantry award)”. There is no question that many soldiers including Bhatti fought bravely to defend their country and deserve all praise. However, highest gallantry award is usually awarded for actions beyond the call of duty and bravery in face of enemy action. Major Raja Aziz Bhatti was company commander of Alpha Company of 17th Punjab Regiment. On September 10, Bhatti was in a three story house in Barki village along with an artillery observer Captain Mahmood Anwar Shaikh of 24th Medium Regiment commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Sial to coordinate artillery fire to stop Indian advance. He survived the action of September 10 when Barki village was captured by Indian troops. On September 11, Indian troops advanced towards the east bank of Ichhogil canal. Shaikh was replaced by a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) Subedar Sher Dil but he was not effective therefore Bhatti took over the important task of directing artillery fire on advancing Indian troops. Bhatti was supporting the Pakistani counter attack led by Major Habib Khan of 12th Punjab Regiment (Habib along with seven of his comrades was killed in this action). Indian artillery (7th Artillery Brigade as well as 5th and 66th Field Regiment and 82nd Light Regiment) was also very active in the theatre. Bhatti was killed by an artillery shell while manning own side. His commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel (later Brigadier) Ibrahim Qureshi had to re-write his citation three times to qualify for the highest award. Some officers are candid about the deficiencies in the system of gallantry awards in off the record conversations. Only one officer Major General ® Tajammal Hussain Malik went on record and mentioned in his memoirs that after investigations by a committee set up by General Head Quarter (GHQ) it was determined that sixty to seventy percent of gallantry awards in 1965 war were bogus. In Indian and Pakistani armies controversies about gallantry awards caused significant resentment among soldiers. In Indian army, a fine cavalry officer who gallantly fought in 1965 war was a bitter man his whole life because he was not awarded a gallantry award. He claimed that if he had won the gallantry award, he would have been an army chief. He retired at Brigadier rank and later in life took his own life.

On page 294, author points to disagreement between Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo and General Zia ul Haq about promotion of two officers; Pir Dad Khan and Shamim Alam Khan referring to both of them as ‘admirable officers’. I’m sure they are wonderful chaps but promotion is based on professional competence. Major General Pir Dad Khan was commander of Force Command Northern Area (FCNA) in April 1984 when Indians occupied Siachin glacier. FCNA comes under the command of Rawalpindi based X Corps and Lieutenant General Jahandad Khan was Corps Commander from March 1980 to March 1984. I knew late General Jahan Dad Khan for several years and discussed this subject with him. I used to joke with him that he should thank Indians for taking Siachin excursion just two weeks after his handing over the charge. Pakistan was well aware of possible Indian move and this was discussed at the highest level. Pir Dad thought that due to extremely difficult terrain Indian move was not very likely. General Zia ul Haq was of the view that even if troops were involved in the area due to difficult terrain only a brigade sized force on Indian side and about battalion sized Pakistani force will be involved. Everyone missed the tough logistical question. Jahan Dad claimed that he envisaged this and informed the high command that army’s helicopter force will be needed. In addition, he advised that Military Intelligence should keep its ears and eyes open in the area and monitor Indian troop movement to give warning in time to Pakistani forces.

Pakistan’s plan was to move troops to strategic points in late April or May. Pir Dad was probably correct in his assessment about the terrain but he was proven wrong by Indians and area was lost under his command. It is not only Mr. Junejo who thought that officer didn’t deserve to be promoted but majority of Pakistani officers hold the same view. General Zia ul Haq rewarded him by promotion to Lieutenant General rank and appointed him Corps Commander.

On page 301, author while describing Benazir Bhutto’s relations with army writes that ‘on 24 May Benazir Bhutto dismissed the Director General Inter Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul’. This is not correct. Benazir complained to Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Mirza Aslam Beg about Hamid Gul and asked him to take action against him. It was not due to any differences over policy but due to the fact that Gul was directly involved in cobbling together the opposition parties against Benazir in elections and involved in intrigues against her government (Mr. Gul has admitted to this fact after his retirement). Gul was not doing it on his own initiative but carrying army high command’s decision, therefore it was no surprise that instead of taking disciplinary action, Gul was given the prestigious assignment of command of Multan based II Corps. Late Major General Naseerullah Khan Babar was a close confidant of Benazir and he was the point man as far as army was concerned. I knew General Babar for long period of time and had several very long sessions with him and he shared many intrigues of that time period with me.

On page 344 when describing General Pervez Mussharraf’s appointment as COAS, author states that he ‘brought in or moved some of his own team’ and in this regard gives the example of appointment of Lieutenant General Muhammad Akram as QMG and then concludes that ‘the chain was not controversial’. This conclusion is flawed on several grounds and a brief description will clarify the point. Immediately after the announcement of his appointment, Mussharraf settled down in Armour Mess (General Jahangir Karamat was still in Army House) and Lieutenant General Khwaja Ziauddin then serving as Adjutant General (AG) joined him. Mussharraf embarked on major changes and brought the new team of his own confidants to key positions of command of Rawalpindi, Multan, Lahore and Karachi Corps and CGS, Military Secretary (MS) and Director General Military Intelligence (DGMI) posts.

Akram was Corps Commander of Lahore-based IV Corps and has been at that post for a little over a year. When Musshrraf was Corps Commander of Mangla based I Corps, he used to come to Lahore for relaxation. Every Corps has its own intelligence and it keeps an eye on happenings in its jurisdiction. Akram gently pointed to Mussharraf to be careful as he was in the run for the position of COAS and Mussharraf was offended by this. Musshhrraf’s first action as COAS was to remove Akram from the command and posted him as QMG (QMG and Chief of Logistics Staff positions are usually used by COAS to park a senior officer on the side for a while if he can’t be removed immediately). Rawalpindi based X Corps Commander Lieutenant General Salim Haider was moved to Mangla as Mussharraf had an earlier tiff with him on a petty protocol issue. Salim was replaced at Rawalpindi by Mussharraf’s old buddy Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmad (then serving as Commandant of National Defence College). Lieutenant General Muzzaffar Usmani was brought from Bahawalpur Corps to important Karachi Corps. Lieutenant General Muhammad Yusuf Khan was brought as Multan Corps Commander while Lieutenant General Khalid Maqbool was brought as Lahore Corps Commander. In addition, Major General Ihsan ul Haq was appointed DGMI.

All these newly appointed officers were trusted allies of Mussharraf and the trajectory of their future career clearly points to this fact. Mahmud and Ihsan served as DGISI and later Ihsan was given fourth star and appointed Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC). Yusuf later served as CGS and then promoted to four star rank and appointed Vice Chief of Army of Staff (VCOAS). Khalid was later appointed Governor of Punjab in 2001 and became the longest serving governor of the province until 2008 when Mussharraf saw his own sunset. More important is the fact that when in October 1999 Ziauddin was appointed COAS, one of the first orders of Ziauddin which never took effect due to coup was to bring Salim Haider back as Rawalpindi Corps Commander and appoint Akram as CGS.

There are some errors in the book which can be corrected in next edition. On page 26 author describes the assessment of Nicholas Barrington of British High Commission and British Military Attaché written in 1966 about Ayub Khan. Author has mixed Ayub’s profile with another officer. The description of ‘an aristocrat from Patudi family and highly intelligent and rather an intellectual and he is also Anglicised’ by Barrington and ‘rather shy nature and one cannot see him inspiring his officers by the force of his personality though he might inspire admiration for his integrity and intellect’ and reference to polo by British Military Attaché is description of Lieutenant General Sahabzada Yaqub Khan and not Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Ayub was from humble rural background and his father was Risaldar Mir Dad Khan of Hodson Horse. Terms like Anglicised and intellectual do not apply to Ayub and it was Ayub’s powerful personality rather than his intellect which inspired others. Ayub could ride but was not a polo player and in early 1950s during Peshawar vale hunt was thrown off his horse. British High Commissioner Sir Gilbert Laithwaite had described Ayub’s profile but about a decade earlier in 1958 in these words, “He was according to our records, a failure as a Commanding Officer (Lieutenant- Colonel) on active service and had to be relieved”. This should also clarify author’s description of Ayub on page 48 “gallant in combat”. On page 77 when mentioning Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, author states that Yaqub was awarded Military Cross for gallantry in North Africa. This is incorrect and Yaqub didn’t earn any gallantry award in Second World War. He spent most of the war as prisoner of war first as involuntary guest of Italians and later Germans. He used this time to learn Italian and German languages. Yahya was in the same theatre during that time period and successfully escaped from captivity. He is alleged to have made the remark that Yaqub declined to join them in escape stating that he was learning the Italian and German languages.

The chapter on operations in FATA gives only one point of view as author relied heavily on diaries provided by then Corps Commander of Peshawar Lieutenant General Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai. Orakzai was Corps Commander of Peshawar based XI Corps from October 2001 to March 2004. Author edited Orakzai’s diaries for later publication and reliance on one single source narrowed the scope of analysis of a very complex situation. Personal friendship can also limit one’s ability to critically analyze and I suspect that this happened in this case. Some of Orakzai’s observations narrated by author are so incredulous that it is hard to believe that the man put in charge of the most important Corps held such views. On page 390 it is mentioned about South Waziristan that ‘No foreign fighters have been seen by independent witnesses’. Based on my own work on operations in FATA and interviews with different sources (operational as well as intelligence), I found almost consensus that tenure of Orakzai was to put it mildly paved the way of the future disaster. Mussharraf relied on Orakzai for advice about FATA thinking that being a member of a tribe was an advantage. This concept is flawed on several levels. Most educated tribesmen whose families left native lands grew up in cities and gradually lost contact with their ancestral lands. If someone has no interest then he may know few family stories about his own clan or tribe but this does not make him an authority on a different tribe. On another level, he can be less effective as other tribes will not see him as representative of the government but simply member of a tribe which could be rival for local resources (this happened when a Pakistani officer who happened to be member of Wazir tribe was a senior ISI operative in the region. He was an officer of Pakistan army representing government but to a Mahsud he was simply another Wazir and no matter how impartial he would be seen as member of the rival tribe).

According to some intelligence officers who operated in the region in that time period, Orakzai as well as then Inspector general Frontier Corp (IGFC) Major General Taj Muhammad Khattak were in complete denial and oblivious to the rapidly shifting ground right under their feet. ISI provided them details of movement of foreign fighters in FATA but their response was that there are no foreign fighters in our area of command and blaming them for generating false reports. Militants were gaining strength by the day and eliminating traditional tribal elders while other elders ran away to the safety of the cities. Orakzai like everybody and his cousin was talking about development of FATA and advocating making roads and spending money ignoring the basic fact that militants were rapidly expanding their authority, sidelining and eliminating traditional tribal leaders with government authority evaporating by the days and weeks not in years. In this context talking about building roads without first establishing the authority of the government meant that he was actually improving the logistics of militant infrastructure. This is proven by the facts that emerged later when army cleared some areas. Militants had established an elaborate underground infrastructure with extensive training facilities, industrial sized car and motorcycle bomb factories and tons of explosives neatly stacked in warehouses was found. This massive infrastructure was not put in place by ghosts but over several years right under the nose of XI Corps. In addition, in their great plans, senior brass was totally oblivious to the deep suspicion of the local population as locals were not blind and aware of double dealing of the army. Mussharraf brought Orakzai for briefing at the White House presenting him as an authority on tribal affairs. Americans had their own sources of information from inside Pakistan and were not much impressed. In 2004, when he handed over the command to his successor, militants were in full control of South Waziristan and Pakistan had lost large swaths of tribal territory. To be fair to Orakzai, he was carrying out the policy agreed by the senior brass. Now, General Mussharraf has admitted that at that time Pakistan allowed Afghan Taliban to park in Pakistani territory.

There are few things which are not important for ordinary reader but from a military history point of view need clarification. In the notes on page 49 author describing allotment of cavalry regiments in 1947 states that “The Guides Cavalry bound logically for Pakistan”. Guides Cavalry had two non-Muslim (Dogra & Sikh) and one Muslim (Pathan) squadron and initially it was allotted to India. On the other hand Scind Horse with two Muslim (Muslim Rajput & Pathan) and one non-Muslim (Sikh) squadron was allotted to Pakistan. Every regiment is proud of its regimental center but Guides center at Mardan was not an ordinary center but a shrine where legends of Raj served and stories told and re-told. It was unimaginable to think about Guides without Mardan. British officers convinced senior authorities and decision was reversed where Guides Cavalry was allotted to Pakistan and Scind Horse to India. This complicated the already confusing break up of regiments and battalions.

Author has expanded his earlier work by adding new chapters. Book is a good read for anyone interested in Pakistan army. It takes reader on a journey that spans sixty year history of Pakistan army.

Hamid Hussain
June 27, 2015

When I put my part deux (or is it trois) of JC insulting the Queen, it soon turned into his comments about Osama Bin Laden’s assassination being a “tragedy.”

The reason why Jeremy Corbyn is going to lose, and lose badly, while David Cameron busily plans the coronation his best friend George Osborn for a 20year Tory reign, well.

1. Winning elections is actually very easy. There are two votes that really matter, middle class middle England and working class urban England. Both are white not very diverse, not racist but don’t like immigrants, not classist but don’t like posh people. Both are of course very fond of the richest immigrants out there, the Royal Family. 
2. If you run on an anti-immigrant (light touch no one wants to be a Nazi about it) and anti-rich people (again light touch no one in these two electoral banks support welfare street or heavy taxes, it all about a fair chance) then you’ve got a chance.
3. Jeremy Corbyn is the candidate that is almost perfectly designed by the Metropolitan Left. His appeal to Middle England is probably non existent.

What follows is Dr Hamid Hussain’s comments regarding General Javed Ashraf Qazi’s long letter about the role of the army in creating the current Jihadi mess. Hamid sahib’s comments are in red.
The original is on Major Amin’s website.

Dear Sir;

Thanks for forwarding Lt. General Javed Ashraf Qazi’s bird’s eye view of ‘witch’s brew’ that is perfected over three decades of fermentation. My two cent worth in respected officer’s main text in red.  In private conversations, I’m more candid with officers who had/have front row seat to the ‘horror show’ and obviously that limits what I can say in an open forum.  I’m just finishing excellent biography of Auckinleck by John Connell and most quotes are from that book.

For the un-initiated, few housekeeping rules;

–      As expected, respected officer can only talk about certain aspects and his professional oath prohibits him from discussing other aspects of his job.  He is a patriotic Pakistani and army officer so it is natural that he will give that perspective defending certain policies which is his right.
–      Every nation has its narrative and we may agree or disagree with that narrative.  I have the chance of interacting with non-Pakistanis therefore I’ll interject that view to give some perspective. I found a great similarity in opinion of Pakistanis regarding Americans and Afghans view about Pakistanis.
–      Every narrative blames the ‘other’.  Fact is that this is too big a shit hole to be the job of one actor.  Everybody (locals, regional and international) has generously contributed towards this. Similarly, no one player holds the key to nirvana but a collective effort will be needed to clean it up.
–      In general, everybody agrees with Pakistan’s genuine security concerns regarding Afghanistan and that includes me. However, disagreement is about careful and cautious handling of an explosive situation to safeguard one’s interests versus repeatedly thrusting hand in the snake pit and coming openly in favor of one or other party in a civil war thus multiplying one’s adversaries exponentially.
–      Discussion is limited to practical aspects and not any ideological or moral ground as ‘Saur’ revolution of Afghanistan was as legitimate or illegitimate as General Zia’s coup in Pakistan.
–      Every perspective is limited and mine is no exception.  My opinion is based on my own limited work and subject to correction, critique etc.

“Wisdom after the event is the privilege and the peril of the historian”.  John Connell

Warm Regards,

Hamid

In case you haven’t seen. Would be interested in any comments you may have.

From: Javed Ashraf Qazi
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Debate: Army Vs. Civilians
I do not remember if I clarified it earlier but I shall do it once again so that at least you should be clear in your mind and do not mix up various groups and terminologies. What I am going to tell you is the absolute truth.
I am in a position to do so since I was as DGMI in indirect contact with Mujahideen in 1990-91 and was the DGISI in 1993-95 when the Taliban appeared and captured Afghanistan less Panjshir valley.(It is correct statement by the respected officer but only to a certain extent.  Head of an organization is an informed person but he also has significant limitations.  Modern intelligence agencies are large bureaucracies with personality, organizational and turf battles. This is especially true for intelligence organizations.  I’ll give some explanation about MI and ISI but this applies in general to any other organization.  In almost 90 percent of cases, head of MI and ISI has no previous experience with intelligence and in general never served with the organization which he is leading.  This means that it takes a while before he is briefed about wide ranging areas in which his organization is involved.  As he is dependent on his subordinates for information therefore in general he is given more optimistic or neutral pictures.  It is highly unlikely that his subordinates will give him any honest opinion about botched operations. On another plane, if his subordinates disagree with the policy of the high command they have some room from maneuverability.  This applied to individual handlers (usually Colonel rank officers) in the field dealing with Afghan commanders.  I may provide some more details on this subject in my forthcoming obituary of Colonel ® Shuja Khanzada as he was involved in one such game.  In summary, if handler disagrees with the policy, he can slow or stop the flow of information going upwards and continue to give his own line to the ‘proxies’ as later don’t have any other channel upwards. Another important factor to remember is ‘compartmentalization’. In every organization, all eggs are never put in one basket.  When General Zia was uncomfortable with increasing power of then DGISI General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, he gave some tasks to MI.  Similarly inside the organization, different departments don’t know the details of working of another department in the same building.  This is norm and nothing unusual.  This is exacerbated when there is mistrust among senior officers or friction.  Case in point, when juniors came to know that DGISI Lt. General Ziauddin had lost the confidence of army Chief, his subordinates (then Major General Ghulam Ahmad and Jamshed Gulzar Kayani) passed information directly to Chief bypassing their own boss and in due time rewarded with promotions and coveted appointments to reward their loyalty.)
Mujahideen were first organized as a resistance group by Gen Babar on the orders of Mr Bhutto. (this is correct.  I have done quite an extensive piece on this early time period before Zia’s coup based on interviews with first hand witnesses including several hours long sessions with late Major General Naseerullah Khan Babar). These were mostly students from Kabul and other cities. The Russians had not yet marched in but there was hostility against Pakistan. When the Russians marched into Afghanistan, gen Zia decided to organize a resistance movement against them and keep them away from our borders. ISI was given this task and the groups called Mujahideen came into existence. Later The U.S., Saudis and others joined in when they saw the mujahideen as an effective resistance. Yes the ISI organized, trained and armed these Mujahideen groups and successfully kept the Russians engaged until they were forced to withdraw. The Army itself was not involved except some officers like Col Imam who were serving in ISI. The prominent leaders of the time were Hikmatyar, Haqqani, Ahmed Shah Masud, Gilani, Yunus Khalis etc.

After the Russian withdrawal these groups got into a power struggle. Hikmatyar had been elected (I’ll not be that charitable to call this process as election.  In fact, around $5 million provided by Saudi Arabia resulted in this arrangement of a fractious lot) as Prime Minister and Rabbani as the President. Masud who was the Defence Minister captured Kabul and did not allow Hikmatyar to enter Kabul. (and Hikmatyar earned the distinction of being the Prime Minister who decided to bomb his own capital rather than go there and take charge.  Even atheist Soviets were considerate enough to avoid destruction of mosques but the ‘pious lot’ where every resistance party had the word ‘Islam’ inserted in its name turned Kabul into rubble destroying countless mosques.  Pakistanis don’t know the animosity between Masud and Hikmatyar.  In fact they hated each other more than their hatred for Soviets. This goes back to days when both were ‘milk faced boys’. In 1973, when Pakistan’s efforts were in infancy to bring Afghans to Pakistan for training, both chaps were undermining each other. There were casualties and at one time Babar got furious and summoned Hikmatyar and threatened him that if he didn’t stop then may be one day his corpse will be floating in Kunar River.  It is very important to understand internal Afghan dynamics as in my view Pakistanis were seriously handicapped in judging Afghan character. They thought they can brush everything under the carpet of Jihad.  No wonder that one day ISI handlers called their Afghan clients as great warriors of Islam and next day called them ‘jokers’. Some really lost the path and ended up ‘reverse indoctrinated’.) A civil war ensued with lot of killing and total anarchy in Afghanistan. (Just like Pakistanis blame Americans for most of their ills, an overwhelmingly majority of Afghans blame Pakistan squarely for all the bloodshed stating that how can Pakistan wash its hands when it trained, armed and launched these folks even when they were turning Kabul into rubbles long after the last Soviet had left Afghanistan. Pakistanis can disagree with this notion.)
It was now 1993 and I was appointed DGISI. I took a decision to disengage ISI from Afghanistan since we did not want to take sides. U.S. And others had pulled out and no help was available. I called back all ISI reps back except liaison officers in the Embassy and Consulates. I was heavily criticized by Hameed Gul for doing so. (this was the right decision taken by General Abdul Waheed Kakar and efficiently carried by Qazi.  However, many Pakistanis including some ISI officers called it an American move to cleanse ISI stables; in my view a wrong impression.  It was in Pakistan’s interest although Washington used the stick of threatening to label Pakistan ‘sponsor of terrorism’ to get everybody’s attention.)
In 1994, the ex mujahideen and a group of students from Madrassas rose in revolt against the Mujahideen commanders. People of Afghanistan welcomed them. The leader was Mulla Umar who was head of Madrassas where it all started. They did not encounter any resistance and the troops of Mujahideen commanders fed up with atrocities surrenders and came over to them. They became known as Taliban because the bulk came from Madrassas. We did not create them or armed them since a lot of them were ex fighters and there were plenty of weapons in Afghanistan. (This is the dilemma when a country gets too much involved in another country. They can claim that when a fighter changes his cap badge, it absolves them of all responsibility but those on the other end will keep blaming them based on old associations.  Same is true even today.  If Pakistan brings Taliban on the table everybody says look they are Pakistan’s proxies and if Taliban go on their own way ignoring Pakistan’s advice, no one believes. Afghan clients can be very slippery. For every Afghan eating from Pakistan’s hand, there are ten Afghans who are eating from someone else’s hand.)
Our first contact with Taliban was after they had rescued our convoy to Uzbekistan being held by a commander. They had by this time taken Kandahar and Herat and were marching on Kabul. They neither asked for military help nor we gave them any. They sent a delegation to me requesting that we remain neutral in this struggle. Kabul surrendered without a fight just as all other cities did and they did restore peace in Afghanistan. We recognized them as the de facto Govt in Afghanistan (Afghans have a simple question that how come that Pakistani generals who enjoy their gin and soda and send their daughters to convent of Jesus and Mary to get educated want the most retrogressive gentlemen of Afghanistan to rule them.  If a Talib is good for Afghanistan then why he is bad for Pakistan? This dilemma is the root cause of confusion.) and they did not allow India to do any hostile activities against us. We had only liaison officers in Kabul, Kandahar, Herat and Mazar Sharif. Col Imam was one of them located in Kandhar. These Taliban after 9/11 and the U.S. Assault had to leave Kabul and became the resistance in Afghanistan. A lot of them came to Pakistan and took refuge in our refugee camps or the tribal area. Haqqani who is such a thorn in American side came to N Waziristan. Subsequently he managed to establish his writ in three southern provinces of Afghanistan.(Correct to a certain extent but it also begs the question as who established writ in Pakistan’s tribal territories and how?) His fighters were now in Afghanistan but their families stayed on in Waziristan until Operation Zarb e Azab of Pak Army against TTP. Haqqani and his group have never attacked any place in Pakistan. They also did not launch their operations against Kabul from Pakistan since they control Paktia and Khost in Afghanistan. Their families however were  in N Waziristan but we did not attack their camp (this is correct and Pakistan saw in its own interest that Mr. Haqqani is not bothering them therefore if he is beheading Afghan soldiers or bombing the shit out of civilians in Afghanistan, they don’t care.  If we accept Pakistan’s point of view then how about Afghan’s point of view.  Afghans can claim that Mr. Fazlullah is not bothering them and it is not their business what he does in Pakistan. Each party can make others life miserable if they choose.  However, both countries need to come out of their present mind set and understand each other’s limitations.) despite pressure from Americans who would not send their own troops to fight them in Khost but instead wanted us to attack their base camp/ families.
After the U.S. Came in lot of foreign fighters specially Uzbeks who had taken refuge in Afghanistan now came to our tribal areas. They bought or rented property and teamed up with criminals to push the Malik’s out of tribal belt. Some inmates of Guantanamo Prison like Abdullah Mehsud were let out and came back to form a group called Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. It has nothing to do with Taliban of Afghanistan. (This needs correction.  Muhammad Alam aka Abdullah Mahsud had been fighting in Afghan Taliban ranks since 1996.  In fact, he lost one leg in 1996 in a fight against Northern Alliance.  In 2001, he was in Taliban ranks and fighting in northern Afghanistan and surrendered to Dostum. After a vacation at Guantanamo Bay where U.S. tax payers paid for his prosthetic leg, he came back to the theatre.  He was active in Af-Pak theatre until finally his luck ran out and Pakistanis dispatched him to his maker in Zhob.)   Sectarian killers and other criminals like ransom seekers and car thieves etc. all joined and they started their atrocities on the people of Pakistan. The Army or the ISI had nothing to do with their rise. (Sectarian killers rotate through various organizations for survival as described above.  Everyone knows about the ideology of Lashkar-e-Taiba; a group primarily trained for operations in Kashmir. They are pretty candid about what they think about Shia and other Sunni groups i.e. Barelvis. Their leaders may not openly advocate violence against ‘deviants’ but they prepare a very fertile ground and others are free to pick from this nursery.  While their leader Mr. Hafiz Saeed can be given a ‘golden handshake’ and a lucrative ‘severance package’ as state feels it is the right policy but what about the rank and file?  A large number is not physically involved against the state but everyone knows where their sympathies are.  Those who disagree with their own leadership have already found greener pastures in other organizations.  This is no secret that Pakistan’s sectarian killers were at camps in Afghanistan during Taliban time and none other than then DGISI Ziauddin and interior minister Lt. General Moinuddin Haider went to Afghanistan pleading with Taliban to do something about them.  More important point to ponder is that a youth of 17 & 18 who attained the power of having the authority of life and death and basking in glory.  Now we expect that he will just go back to his tea stall and taking the abuse from ordinary folks.  I think de-radicalization programs started by the army are maturing and in the long run will be helpful in containing the fires.)  They are the worst liabilities and no one ever considered this lot as assets. Some religious parties and zealots including some ex ISI officers tried to support them in the name of Islam but met the fate as that of Col Imam. These criminals are now on the run and this TTP remains the greatest threat to our security. Haqqani has remained a friend and is now totally in Afghanistan. We need to remain out of any conflict between the Afghan groups and keep friendly relations with all. (This is the sane course but temptations are hard to control.  In addition, too much blood has passed under the bridge and it will take a long time for everybody to forget what happened.)
Irrespective of what lies have been told and some books by our Pakistani authors this is the truth. They had to sell their books and invented fake stories behind the rise of Taliban with the help by ISI. This is the real truth which you may or may not believe but at least you have been told.  (This may be true, but what about ISI officers who proudly claim that they are legitimate or illegitimate fathers of Taliban and on every forum defend them?)
The groups who murdered Pakistanis were never created or nurtured by the Army or the ISI. This TTP is a bunch of criminals masquerading as Taliban. ( I disagree with the respected officer in strongest terms.  I think it was great ancient Chinese strategist Tao Te Ching who said that “No disaster is greater than slighting the enemy; for slighting the enemy borders on the loss of one’s treasures”.  My own work in this area and interaction with a number of officers with front row seat to the show gives me pause.  If we accept respected officer’s view that these are simply thugs then how we explain that they gave Pakistan army run for their money.  No doubt, they are a dangerous and blood thirsty enemy responsible for so much grief for Pakistan but let’s pause for a minute.  I’ll not go into more details but only highlight few things. Look at the events from 2003- 10; TTP organization: rise among leadership based on performance, earning respect and loyalty from following, training, motivation, use of skills (using workers with experience of mining in Baluchistan to create extensive underground infrastructure in Swat and other tribal areas), thorough planning, operational excellence, audacity, hitting center of gravity i.e. Pakistan army installations repeatedly with success, slick propaganda and sending the general public morale in nose dive.  Sir this is not the performance of a bunch of criminals but a determined foe.  There is a method in his madness.  A thorough understanding of adversary is must to meet the challenge.  This is the true test of professionalism. Reminds me a sentence which Auk wrote to his Corps Commander about adversary in Western desert ‘I have no doubt that they will be vigorous, clever and dangerous’. Alas there was no Auk at GHQ who could see clearly and prepare accordingly.  Too many years wasted before the right course finally adopted.)

                             They are totally different and have no relationship with Afghan Taliban. The only assets created by Pakistan were the Mujahideen who were used to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We did not create the Taliban which was an indigenous movement. Why is it so difficult to believe the truth? (This is a good example of simplicity of thought ignoring varying loyalties and blurring of boundaries.  Respected officer is correct in pointing the difference between rise of Taliban in Afghanistan and Taliban in Pakistan but totally oblivious to the fact how this thought process permeates across boundaries.  It also ignores how various groups use connections to their advantage. He wants to wish away the facts which are not disputed.  Few examples can refresh everybody’s memory.  Thousands of Pakistani religious seminary students led by clerics who had connections with Afghan clerics fought on front lines long before American B-52s showed up on skies.  When U.S. came to town thousands more went to Afghanistan to fight.  Those who are fighting sectarian wars have rotated through organizations active in Afghanistan, Kashmir etc.  Even today, when pressure comes on these organizations they move to a group not under attack.  Even proselytizing and non-political Tableeghi Jammat’s vast infrastructure is being used as ‘rat lines’.)  Why must you believe the anti-army lobby trying to throw all blame at army’s doorstep since it makes them heroes in the eyes of so called liberals sitting in U.S. (We have heard this before many times where army feels only it has the monopoly over patriotism. I don’t know many civilians but at least those well informed Pakistanis that I have the pleasure to know have also buried their loved ones and I find their view much more informed about some crucial issues.  They have a different view but they are no less patriotic.) I am sending you a complete rundown on all these groups and the misuse of terminologies to demonize the army and the ISI by your friends in U.S.
Your facts are totally incorrect. I have posted a detailed fact sheet on all these groups. You should believe me since I am in the full picture and was on the spot as against you depending on what others have written. TTP except the word Taliban has nothing to do with Taliban who are all Afghans. Haqqani is very much a part of Taliban but has nothing to do with TTP except that before the Army operation both coexisted in N Waziristan in their respective area. (A chap is abducted in Afghanistan and ends up in Waziristan, when TTP groups develop differences, then Haqqani’s emissaries come in to broker peace, when Commissioner of Malakand goes for negotiations, sometimes he leads the prayer while at other time Mullah Fazlullah, Corps Commander of Peshawar, Lt-Gen Safdar Hussain first garlands Nek Muhammad and then calls Nek’s successorBaitullah Mehsud “a soldier of peace,” a senior army officer telling a group of journalists “We have no big issues with the militants in FATA. We have only some misunderstandings with Baitullah Mehsud and Fazlullah. These misunderstandings could be removed through dialogue” and calling these two chaps patriots.  Entire Pakistan mourning the untimely death of late Hakimullah Mahsud and none other than interior minister wailing publicly and lamenting the death of a great peace maker. Is this all fairy tale or I’m delusional. Now things are clear but the time period under discussion was full of confusion, strategic myopia and incompetence at various levels. Pakistan lost a lot in this muddle. I have the pleasure and honor of knowing a large number of Pakistani officers; a good number first rate officers.  Many performed admirably no matter what their rank and when done professionally also delivered and completed their assigned task.  However, I’m a very strong critic when it comes to competence and professionalism and in private conversations I advocated as early as 2003-04 to start the business of sacking the ‘dead wood’ on the ship. I think it was Auk who said “It may not be in accordance with ‘usual practice’, but this is an ‘unusual’ war, and it will have an ‘unusual’ end if we do not get a move on and sweep aside cobwebs and precedents and ‘usual practices” and this was the cross road for Pakistan in 2003-4.  I think it was a fine Pakistani officer who said about the task at hand in those early days.  “I have come to the conclusion that we have to do it Sir and if we have to do it then better do it today than tomorrow”.)
TTP is Pakistan oriented wanting to capture the state. They are also barbaric killers more like the ISIS. (Should we believe that these chaps were raised and trained in Timbuktu and took chartered flights in C-130s to land in Waziristan, declare Emirate and gave Pakistani state an eviction notice which was accepted without a protest. Off course, army is not solely responsible for the royal mess but one cannot simply wash hands calling it the will of God. These demons are real and need to be exorcised.) If the operation by the army had not destroyed their bases in Waziristan, there would have been thousands more of our country men in graves. These killers were never an asset for anyone but themselves or our religious parties who tried to defend them. Surprise was Imran Khan who for a long time failed to differentiate and kept calling TTP as our people. (This is all history and good indulgence.  It is with purpose of understanding and not some silly exercise of blames or claims and counter claims.  Wars are not fought according to some manual and marking a checklist.  It is all uncertainty, fleeting moments of chance and test of will.  Now that the right decisions have been made, it is important to make sure that the momentum continues. The price of complacency will be more blood and tears.)

“Fools admire, but men of sense approve”.                  Alexander Pope

A note about colonel Imam, sent by Dr Hamid Hussain. The writer is not identified (but is a Pakistan army officer). The lines in red are comments from Dr Hamid Hussain.

Steven Pinker has an article in the Guardian about the continuing decline in violence within humanity as a whole.

Last para:
“Though I’m relieved that making myself a hostage to fortune eight years ago has not turned out badly, (at least so far), needless to say my greater relief is for the state of humanity. Despite the headlines, and with circumscribed exceptions, the world has continued its retreat from violence. We need invoke no mysterious arc of justice or end of history to explain it. As modernity widens our circle of cooperation, we come to recognise the futility of violence and apply our collective ingenuity to reducing it. Though a few narcissistic despots and atavistic zealots stand athwart this current, history does not appear to be on their side.”

• Steven Pinker’s graphs can be seen in full here

I happened to have the following exchange on FB about this article

 Omar Ali: I don’t doubt his data, but as Ali keeps telling us, this trend may not last. I am still optimistic, but as is obvious from Syria etc (and from reading Fukuyama), the modern state is a critical factor in this trend. What if state failures accelerate? and at some point, what if those single disasters coalesce into world war? That would do it for Pinker (and for us)…Maybe more for us than for Pinker. SJWs and postmarxist bullshitters notwithstanding, the core of Western states (and East Asia/China) may still hold…..People in intact states may see a continuation of this trend, even as the shit hits the fan from Morocco to Malaysia. Now THAT may be a more likely outcome than total reversal of this trend. In that case the death toll would depend on whether India has hit the fan or escaped (which pretty much means Pakistan would also have escaped…since if we hit all the way, the splashes of gore would probably get India to slip anyway). Unless India hits the fan, the worldwide toll from a Morrocco to Malaysia hit would still be low (I am assuming Indonesia will find a dictator and escape the trend)…Cheery thoughts. 🙂

Abbas: We are in for interesting times, as the Chinese say… 🙂

Ali: I think it is more likely than not that we have lived through a brief liberal interlude in history and the world is about to return to its natural state of universal conflict between neotribal nationalisms. How’s that for cheerful thoughts?

Abbas: Keep working on making the singularity real, my friend. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance. (To be read out loud in the movie-trailer guy’s voice.)

Omar: Ali, It would be foolish to take any of your guesses (about anything) too lightly, but I remain an optimist (of sorts). I think Europe, China and the Americas may not rejoin the world-war trend even if the waters rise and things get worse. They may see some modestly nasty things, but not a return to universal conflict. They will probably kill a lot of people outside their own countries (and sort of, kind of, fight each other in the middle east and Africa, mostly via proxies), but not descend into total war with each other. Why? I dunno. I just think our brains are somehow wired to prefer the pessimistic view, so our nth-order “considered view” should be deliberately biased towards optimism. Something like that. That’s not a very solid basis for optimism, I admit. 🙂

by the way: I think the US has caused state failure in Iraq and contributed to it in Syria (and now has a supporting role in the attempted state failure in Yemen; in Yemen I think the Saudis are the prime movers of the idiocy. There is no reason to accept the Eurocentric Metropolitan Racist view that only White people have agency. The Subaltern may speak 🙂 )
Why has the US caused these state failures? I dont think it was deliberate. But I do think it shows you that it is not just the SJWs/Postmarxist academics who don’t appreciate how important the state is; even the decision makers of the most powerful state in the world don’t seem to get it. Or rather, they don’t seem to have sufficient grasp of where the asabiya or legitimacy of a state comes from: it comes from genuine fellow feeling, or it comes from colonial structures that happened to be this way and within which the necessary fellow feeling builds over time. EITHER can work. Both together are even better. But remove both, and the shit will hit the fan…
Which is also why groups like the Kurds can fight better than any fake army put together by US advisers alone. US advisers PLUS genuine national feeling (Afghanistan, if the US had not allowed us to mess it up) can work though 🙂

What do you think? 


PS: another comment on that FB  thread:
Aditya: What a dose of negativity and gloom this morning! And I don’t much like Pinker myself. 


Those who have money riding on it are really bullish on Africa. I have some firsthand visibility into a region from Manila to Delhi to Cairo and I can’t see really many causes for gloom myself. A bit Edgy White-Liberal? Perhaps, but these are good times for the region. Also a good time to remind ourselves that IF south India were hived off, the remaining portion of north India lags Bangladesh’s and Pakistan’s development indicators. There’s a new tech incubator in Pakistan, there are big data think tanks in Sri Lanka and massive cross regional investments brewing. The rational force against world war won’t be the nation state but the increasingly dense network of capitalist self interest.