There has been no shortage of coverage regarding the Pakistani Army's storming of the Red Mosque in Islamabad. Scant attention in the press has been paid, however, to whom the militants inside actually were. Its an instructive story.
According to the BBC, many belonged to the allegedly defuct militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad. The group was founded by Maulana Masood Azhar, a man with a long history of violent behaviour. By the late 90s, he was securely behind bars in India, jailed for terrorist activities in Kashmir. But all of that changed in December of 1999, when Indian Airlines flight 814 was hijacked by 5 Pakistani nationals, and ultimately ended up at Taliban-controlled Kandahar Airport. After one of the passengers was stabbed to death, Azhar and two of his jailed comrades were released as a capitulation to the hijackers' demands, and the hijackers dissapeared into Afghansitan.
By 2000, with support of the Pakistani ISI, Azhar's new militant group was up and running in Kashmir. That fit well with the foreign policy objectives of Pakistan's new President, General Pervez Musharraf. As army chief, his credibility had been damaged during the Kargil conflict. Now he was following an age-old strategy, happily supporting violent and fanatical men provided they were only doing violent and fanatical things to the appropriate people.
The Americans had used a similar strategy in their support of the Afghan mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. One suspects they might have reconsidered the wisdom of that plan after some of those very same mujahadeen planned the September 11 attacks. At any rate, if they had any sympathy for Musharraf's strategy, it faded when Azhar's group was linked to a bloody attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001. Under American pressure, Pakistan placed Azhar under house arrest for a year and then let him go. Jaish-e-Mohammad seemed to bite the hand the fed it, increasingly humiliating the Musharraf government and challenging its ability to control its own capital city. Finally forced to act, the isolated President is now running out of domestic allies.
Naturally, a Pakistani security official complained to the BBC that the militancy was spawned by lack of goverment support for the group.
"Whenever the state suddenly withdraws its support from such
groups, they tend to splinter"
As for the embattled President, he's suddenly discovered the need to find allies. His old adversaries may be willing to come back into fold for the right price, but he also needs to woo his old friends. His argument to the West will be simple...he will portray himself as the only bulwark against a radical Islamic takeover of the country. He will promise to fight back against the extremists, just like he did at the Red Mosque.
In other words, our leaders will be asked to support a brutal dictator because he promises to be brutal with the appropriate people. I'm curious to know if President Musharraf has ever considered how well that strategy worked for him. And I'm curious to know if our leaders will consider the lessons of history before they decide what to do. I'm not optimistic.
6 comments:
A very thoughtful and informative post. I share your lack of optimism in this situation.
Another aspect of "history repeating" contained in this story is the tragedy of repeatedly treating violent and dangerous criminals with kid gloves.
When the Indian Airlines plane was hijacked, I was a firm believer that releasing hostages such as Azhar was a serious mistake by the Indian government. I was sympathetic to the plight of the innocent hostages, but the move to capitulate to the hijackers became as much about domestic politics as it did with anything else (the government had to appear to be doing something proactive to rescue its citizens from the situations), as the public in India seemed to become angry with the government after the first hostage was murdered.
Likewise Musharraf's stunt with "house arrest" and then releasing Azhar was poorly conceived.
Twice this man was in the custody of authorities, twice he was released (for different political reasons), and twice the outcome was predictable and tragic; more innocent lives lost in the pursuit of his radical agenda.
An excellent facts revealing post! CBC had touched upon this question of who the militants were, but never really fully answered it. Media was more concerned about the current situation, and what may happen in the future because of it, than why and how it happened. Investigating, analyzing, and understanding the causes may prevent such incidents from happening in the future.
Red Canuck - I agree with you. The Indian Airlines hijacking was handled terribly by the Indian authorities on a whole number of levels. And the consequences of releasing the three terrorists have been profound, even on western countries.
One of the other men released with Azhar was Sheikh Omar, who was later involved in the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. He was eventually arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death. Last I heard, the case was under appeal. His lawyers conceded he was involved in the murder, but argue that Khalid Sheik Mohammed actually performed the beheading (yes...beheading). Ultimately, many lives may have been saved if the government held it ground and not released the prisoners.
Savvy - thanks for your comment. I think media is often more preoccupied by what is happening than by why it is happening. Perhaps that is why mistakes repeat themselves so often.
Gostei muito desse post e seu blog é muito interessante, vou passar por aqui sempre =) Depois dá uma passada lá no meu site, que é sobre o CresceNet, espero que goste. O endereço dele é http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . Um abraço.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Home Theater, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://home-theater-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment