Strategic Misjudgments and their price

Cdr (Retd) Muhammad Azam Khan discusses the cost of making mistakes in critical decisions.

On the morning of December 14, 1971, an agitated and completely flustered General Yahya asked American Ambassador Joseph Farland ‘are you going to help or am I going to be left in the lurch?’ The late president (also the CMLA) was severely reprimanded by the American for losing his nerve. Before that, on December 11, 1971, GHQ (Rawalpindi) initiated a message for the eastern command ‘confirming arrival of the US 7th Fleet shortly in the area and that Chinese front has been activated’. Both assertions proved not only conclusively conjectural but also fatally misplaced. The American 7th fleet was still 500 miles away when the ignominy struck and Jinnah’s Pakistan was formally truncated with the signing of surrender document in the early hours of Dec 17th 1971. India had earlier forestalled any contemplated move by China through signing of a defence pact with Russia in August 1971. The strategic brilliance, with which Indians had then denounced our operations against Mukti Bahinis, managed to tarnish the image of our forces and mobilized world opinion against us was equalled by them once again 27 years later during Kargil episode. Whilst the international print media was full of articles/advertisements (courtesy Indian missions abroad) claiming Pakistan Army as a ‘rogue Army’, the Government of the time instead of upholding the prestige of its prime institution was bent upon playing into the hands of the enemy. Serving as well as ex-officials of the foreign office (at the behest of the deposed Government) issued and later withdrew grossly mutilated statements claiming an independent action by the Army. Not only that, an aggressive media campaign, aimed at blemishing, the institution of Army was also launched. Regrettably, the efforts that should have gone outwards were directed inwards. It goes to prove beyond a shred of doubt that our ‘strategic thinking’ was as stale in 1971 as it was during Kargil episode.

At the beginning of new millennium, whilst the Indians have managed to secure a record number of H-1 skilled workers visas (57,000 till Sept 2000 out of a total allocation of 1,37,000 for the current year) for the United States, the signing of strategic partnership agreement with Russia is being termed as a ‘far more comprehensive document in its sweep and much more specific in its operational aspects than the Soviet-Indo treaty of 1971’. In contrast, how has our ‘strategic thinking’ unfolded in all these years is a matter that can safely be left to the wisdom of commoners. But, these events nonetheless, provide a graphic description of how ‘strategic indiscretion’ can be a cause of national dishonour (1971) or may prove counter-productive for the chosen objectives (internationalization of Kashmir issue: Kargil). That, unfortunately, is our history. And those who do not learn from failures are not only doomed to repeat it but are eventually consigned to the dustbin of the history. Interestingly enough, American defence analysts, as early as 60’s, had predicted the fall of erstwhile East Pakistan in a study that must be available in their archives even now, London’s ‘Herald tribune’ in an editorial published way back in 1961 had also forewarned of such an eventuality-taking place. Only we were slumbering.

Robert Kaplan, an American analyst, in an article appearing in the Sept 2000 issue of 'Atlantic Monthly’ has portrayed a dreary picture of our country’s future. According to the author, Pakistan may succumb to the disintegrative forces by year 2010. He maintains that this withering away of Pakistan state has a great deal to do with institutional melt-down, unmanageable destructive forces of globalization and state’s apparent inability to bring together country’s diverse communities into cohesive and homogenous entity that may be called a Pakistani nation. The contents of the report have been challenged by a cross section of our society. The proponents reject the study terming the same as ‘figment of their imagination’ on the grounds that Pakistan has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and extra regional forces as well as Muslim countries shall never allow annihilation of Pakistan to take place’. Whilst it is encouraging and indeed gratifying to note that there are still souls in this 'battered land of pure’ who have hope in its future, nonetheless, misapprehensions and misjudgments on geo-strategic/geo-political realities have, traditionally, kept us in illusions and as a result, the ‘truth is usually swept under carpet’. There is no gainsaying that beyond the problems identified in the report by the American analyst not much is required to write the obituary of a nation. Reeling under debt, we are touching IMF’s feet to resuscitate us, as our currency hit an all time low against dollar last month. Underground economy has expanded to a staggering Rupees 1.25 Trillion (Rs 125 billion) amounting to 55 percent of our GDP. Religious bigotry and proliferating fanaticism hardly allow the poor subjects to breathe, sectarian, ethnic, parochial rift has created a deep wedge across all segments of the society, explosive population growth has virtually decimated the social infrastructure and emigration (American embassy alone has reportedly received almost three times more visa applications in last few months than in the comparable period last year) as well as flight of capital are mounting by the day. These, I dare say, are not perceptions but facts.

Contrary to the Government claim, it is no longer the labour or the student class making a stampede for greener pastures. A very large section of middle and upper class (on tourists; not in the skilled category visas as is the case with Indians) who, seeing no future here, have joined the exodus and after selling their assets are leaving en masse. PIA reportedly had to arrange some extra flights to meet the growing number of travellers to the United States this summer. The reasons for such an exodus are all too clear. Rising unemployment, increase in the prices of daily essentials and lack of social justice has left little ‘hope’. Those who cannot find an escape from the mess end it all by committing suicide (729 suicides have been reported in last one year; thus far 97 in Karachi alone). Among the victims, 90 percent are those who were hit by hunger, poverty, unemployment and forced dismissals. They say ‘hope’ is the last to fade in an individual or the nation nearing its end. Our obstinacy in not acknowledging the facts is not likely to change the reality. To provide security and social justice to its subjects was a cherished dream of Quaid. In the absence of these two vital elements, no citizen can be expected to have any kind of ‘jazba-i-jihad’. Perpetual neglect of these two sectors has contributed towards a gradual sapping of the 'will’ and 'creeping in’ of despondency in the national ranks. As for foreign investment in the present climate, suffice it to mention that Pakistani businessmen in a recent seminar held in Dubai point blankly rejected the idea of investing in Pakistan unless constitutional protection is provided (thanks to the previous Government whose imprudent decision of freezing FC accounts destroyed whatever little investors confidence was left). Above all, as has been outlined in the Kaplan’s report, it is the perpetual decay and conflict of our state institutions that stands as the single most cardinal problem in proving the prophets of doom wrong.

It needs no extraordinary comprehension to appreciate that the real threat to Pakistan as it enters a critical decade is not from any kind of external aggression. The gravest danger is because of the discord and dissension within and amongst various institutions. Historically as well as traditionally, our society is not accustomed to accepting institutions and has been averse to any kind of institutionalized approach. The famous adage ‘Men are powerless to secure future; institutions alone fix the destiny of the nations’ has never been understood by us. A senior officer was once giving an endless sermon on the need to have and display individual loyalty in the ranks at all times; what if one has to choose between loyalty towards an individual or to the Institution I asked? Without answering, he showed me the door. Knowingly or unknowingly, we have welcomed arbitrary and despotic rule, more for personal gains than anything else. Consequently successive governments brutalized almost all state institutions (the worst dissension and massacre occurring during the stint of the deposed PM) through politicization and nepotism leading to widespread corruption and cronyism that has now taken deep roots. Today, even drastic surgery may not have much effect on the virulent and malignant disease that has plagued all state pillars. This phenomenon has given rise to a breed of 'wolfish sycophants’ who not only feed the top with inadequate, incomplete or distorted information but readily 'sell others’ to 'buy’ future for themselves. This has, more often than not, kept our leadership away from realism as much as objectivity leading eventually to wrong ‘hypotheses’ as well as unsound ‘strategic decisions’ at critical junctures of our history. Why, one may ask, the western societies have advanced so rapidly in literary, scientific and other fields while the Muslim world with all its wealth (petro dollars etc) has miserably failed to progress? The answer is simple; the insatiable quest for knowledge in the west and persistent refusal of their state functionaries to play ‘ostrich’ has enabled them to arrive at flawless national decisions in furtherance of their ‘strategic objectives’.

When Admiral HMS Choudari stressed (and later resigned on principle) upon the late President Ayub the need to have a strong Navy in order to defend the two wings of a united Pakistan, he was looking into the future (an essential ingredient of leadership), but for our fatalistic fixation to a wrong notion of ‘defence of East Pakistan lies in the West’ that never allowed any flexibility in ‘tactics or strategic thoughts’. Time proved the Admiral indubitably correct. During 1971, when our land forces embroiled in erstwhile East Pakistan badly needed the support of a strong Navy to release pressure, no such help was forthcoming. The lone warrior PNS/M Ghazi braved through a hostile stretch of almost 2000 miles in the line of duty for an operation for which the crew and the craft were ill-prepared and thus ended up tragically. A far superior and stronger Indian Navy blockaded and supported Indian land operations from Bay of Bengal with impunity. When a visionary, humble and a polished Admiral Ahsan proposed a political resolution of the East Pakistan crisis, he was only proving his 'strategic calibre’ which, perhaps, was beyond the leadership of the time. He was dismissed unceremoniously. When General Sahibzada Yaqub (the spearhead of strategic thought process in Pakistan’s upper echelons) asked for a political resolution to the crisis during 1971, it was no easy task for the top to discern easily what he was suggesting. More recently, when General Jahangir Karamat (another revered soldier) while responding to a question at the Naval War College outlined a proposal for having a National Security Council and advised an ill-advised and a witless PM to refrain from taking ‘expedient driven policies’ he was having national interest foremost in his mind given the fragile economic, volatile law and order situation then prevalent within the country as well as geo-political environments of South Asia. Although he suffered, his stand was vindicated shortly afterwards when the country was pushed into Kargil, more out of political expediency than anything else which, needless to mention, proved a setback for the Lahore Declaration as well. And today despite some profound overtures for a dialogue on Kashmir by our government, the Indians have persistently defied all international pressures to come to the negotiating table. If one had to define or sum up, in single sentence, the waste of blood spilled on the frozen peaks of Kargil, it was the total absence of a ‘Grand Strategy’. Rarely, a saner advice has been taken in good spirit in the upper tiers of our country. After all, a leader is the one, who provides a vision, creates strategy, directs action all the while throwing away the crutch of authority. All in all, idealism is the hallmark of a leader yet he never loses sight of pragmatism. As Clausewitz puts it: ‘What needs to be done in War is simple, but in war it is difficult to do simple things’. As he defines ‘war as an extension of politics by other means’, what he says about war is equally true for politics. That we have, thus far, obstinately refused to learn our lessons speaks poorly of us as a nation.

It is said that, ‘criticism’ is a manure that keeps the plant of freedom, progress and prosperity blooming’. To express all manner of opinion on issues of relevance is an inalienable right of citizens in any civilized polity. Although we are not really known for our analytical prowess or for having a profound grasp on the history, it needs to be understood that without ‘criticism’ the present military regime already suffering a crisis of credibility and legitimacy may further sink into isolation and self-deception as has been the case with many past governments. The unprecedented press freedom allowed (to a press that at times is irresponsible) by the present government has not only enhanced its image amongst masses but has established its credibility internationally as well. Furthermore, such freedom has enabled the government to suitably amend its policies and thereby achieve a ‘comprehensive and sound strategic direction ‘on various national issues. The intelligentsia, the intellectuals and the print media are presently raising alarms at a rising pitch about the impending chaos that must not be set aside as mere rhetoric. One may argue, there is a thin line between intellectualism and defeatism: a drawing room gossip or empty moaning is in no way better than activism, one may articulate. But while we must always count our blessings, the question remains, does the nation today possess enough ‘coherent will’ to overcome its predicaments? In 1940, France surrendered to Germany later. The ‘will’ to fight it lost first. In time immemorial, hardly a nation has ended unless destroyed from within. Japan rose from the ashes of the second WW to become an economic giant, Iran stood devastated as a result of 8 long years of War yet today it is aspiring to become regional power. Libya, isolated from the rest of the world and placed under severe sanctions bitterly resisted and surrendered two of its nationals accused in Lockerbie bombing almost on its own terms. Even Iraq, a country virtually used as a weapons test site during operation Desert Storm by NATO forces to assess as well as demonstrate the lethality and efficacy of their weaponry in the post-cold war era and earn buyers for a cash starved European defence industry, has managed to survive. Such come back, however, was only possible with a society that was cohesive and well knit and willing to sacrifice. Above all, their inhabitants had hope which, needless to mention, is provided by a selfless leadership. Is anything of the kind today, even remotely, visible in our society that lives more and more by the adage ‘me all’? Is this then a ‘figment of someone’s imagination’?

It is a misnomer, nay, naively to think that in the event of our destruction external forces would come to rescue us and plunge in the imbroglio. How many Muslim countries backed us, even vocally, during our Kargil misadventure? Has any Muslim country, let alone others, lately supported our stance on Kashmir in any International forum. Suffice it to say that the memories of the operation ‘desert storm’ are still fresh in the minds of the world at large wherein almost all Muslim countries, barring Jordan and Pakistan (and that too at a later stage regretted its miscalculated strategic and emotional decision) had firmly stood behind allied forces against Iraq. Even today, when a planned, cold-blooded genocide of Iraqi civilians continue as a result of sanctions (an extension of US strategic goals in the gulf), the international community and Muslim-Arab ummah through their criminal silence are only abetting a most heinous crime in modern history against an entire population. In the wake of the ongoing, violent clashes between Israel and Palestinians, fewer Arab-Muslim countries have raised protests and that too in muted manner. Thus in the emerging global realities, one thing must be implicitly clear and it is that individual interests of a country take overwhelming precedence over Religo-political, ethno-lingual or any other bounds, which today are of little or no consequence. No reasons may be enough for another country to jump into a conflict for others unless its direct interests are at stake. Only a country like Pakistan with an emotionally charged populace may plunge into a quagmire that has no direct bearing on it and eventually end up paying a heavy price. We do not have any geographical dispute with Israel yet by not recognizing the Jewish State, for whatever reasons, we have suffered in more than one way. The tremendous pace at which Indo-Israel collaboration in defence and related fields is growing may eventually harm us more than we can possibly fathom. China, the only trusted ally we are left with, has, in no uncertain terms, cautioned us to curtail any kind of support or activities in its pre-dominant Muslim province of Uighur. In much the same manner, our flawed thinking that Pakistan stands secure as long as its nuclear deterrence is in place is a highly overrated notion and a sheer security misconception. We witnessed in our neighbourhood, an empire with its entire nuclear arsenal intact crumble like a ‘house of cards’ only under fragile economic conditions thus bringing an end to the cold war as well as razing of US interest in Pakistan. During the long-drawn Afghan war while US may have suffered only in terms of capital, in its aftermath, however, we continue to endure a heavy price in the form of social evils that today infest our society. Drug addiction, refugees’ problem and massive weaponisation has not only torn asunder the very fabric of our society but also fuelled crime and violence as never witnessed before. These are all gifts of the cold war era that shall not wane so easily in times to come even with concerted efforts. That despite under such prolong period of interest by a ‘super power’ we failed to bargain or secure any long-term ‘strategic goals’ for ourselves and settled only for trivial short-term objectives remains another example of our poor 'strategic appreciation’.

The present geo-strategic imperatives and volatile internal situation, therefore, necessitates an immediate re-appraisal of our foreign policy. Pakistan should have re-aligned itself year’s back by moving eastwards and getting rid of that west fixation but for our ‘foreign policy strategists’ who perhaps have more to gain from the West than the interests of the entire nation put together. Why and for what good reasons our foreign policy strategists have, hitherto, not thought of or proposed a Defence agreement with China while our adversary has done so twice (and that too with razor sharp precision) with Russia in the past 29 odd years defeats common imagination. Even in the post-cold war era when US holds high stakes in our neighbourhood, India has reaffirmed, renewed and redefined its relations with Russia through the recently concluded defence pact signed by the two heads of the state in Delhi this October. A well-considered defence agreement with China (including development of Gwadar port at the mouth of Hormuz through which some 60 percent of world oil supplies transit round the year) could result in vital economic and military gains for the country. Furthermore, such an agreement is bound to have far-reaching effects on South Asia’s stability and shall also go a long way in containing Indian hegemony as well as growing US interests in our adversary. Regrettably, much beyond considering that, the committee recently constituted to review the re-organization of foreign office has in one of its recommendations proposed closure of Pakistani missions in Central Asian Republics which remains a distinct manifestation of the thinking in that Secretariat of Islamabad. But then, it also requires sagacity and explicit Strategic thinking; an area in which, unfortunately, successive governments have been found to be extremely wanting. It, however, goes to the credit of the present military government that it has decided to publish the much-awaited HCR minus the 'foreign relations’ portion. The report, undoubtedly, was one of the many skeletons in our cupboard that had remained shrouded in mystery for far too long despite the fact that much of what it contains is already in the knowledge of general public. The proponents of the theory who assert that HCR, after such prolong period, has lapsed or become a dead issue are not just in their claim. In the history of nations it is never too late to learn from failures. We can only move in the right direction if the wrongs committed in the past are corrected. It goes without saying that suffering the truth is not an academic exercise but an assurance against re-run of blunders. And who needs that more than our nation today. Having said that, the government may do a tremendous favour to the nation as well as its posterity if not the contents at least the recommendations on the foreign policy blunders are made public as well. Some serious steps must be taken to ensure that we unshackle ourselves from the hackneyed and decrepit strategic thinking; put an end to the ‘babu’ and stereo-typed nature of the Foreign Office that has hardly given a right ‘strategic direction’ to the country eversince its inception. It’s time we start putting our house in order before our delusion of breaking the ‘American will to fight a global war’ tears us to smithereens.