IT may not be the job of the army chief to make political-sounding statements on what the nation does or does not think, but then the military here understands its role very differently to what others — perhaps even the nation — believe it should be. Still, now that Gen Raheel Sharif has ventured into political terrain once again by claiming the nation has rejected the “misplaced ideology of the terrorists”, it is pertinent to ask what ideology and which terrorists he has in mind. For too long, perhaps from the very inception of the fight against militancy, the country’s leadership, both military and civilian, have avoided spelling out the basic definitions and categories that are necessary when a state fights an insurgent threat based inside its borders. Without that definitional clarity, a winning strategy cannot be crafted — and that’s what has left the country with wonky ideas like the prioritisation approach and limited retaliation.

So, what is this ideology that Gen Sharif referred to and who are the terrorists? Are they all groups with an explicit political orientation and goal that are committed to achieving their purpose through violence? Or is a terrorist only a particular kind of non-state actor who turns on the state instead of abiding by the security establishment’s national security goals? Does the now-denounced ideology cover all strands of the extremist version of Islam or are there certain strands of radicalism, violence and intolerance that are still acceptable? And where does Gen Sharif’s statement leave the so-called peace deals in parts of Fata that the military has struck and that are still extant? Can there be a tactical reason for the military to strike years-long peace deals with certain militant groups but no reason for the political government to do the same? The more Gen Sharif’s seemingly blunt statement is parsed, the more questions arise. Another question: are fierce words said to the troops merely thinly veiled efforts to try and boost their morale or do they mean something more in terms of genuine policy turnabout?

While the army leadership’s seemingly clarion calls often end up adding to the overall fog, the civilians themselves are not contributing to clarity. For instance, successive governments may have banned certain extremists groups, but what are they doing about reining in their ever-active leaders? Inaction goes hand in hand with propounding ridiculous theories, the latest of which came in the form of a warning by Imran Khan that military action in North Waziristan was creating an East Pakistan-like situation. While the people of Fata have surely suffered at the hands of the state for decades, to suddenly paint the Taliban as the ones who speak on behalf of and represent all tribals is outrageous. Not only is the PTI’s obsession with dialogue at all costs absurd it is now reaching dangerous proportions.

Published in Dawn, May 29th, 2014