The General killed through IED

The General killed through IED


By R R Tanoli

The expected response to such polar question is either “Yes” or “No”, where only one is acceptable. Queries are believed to carry some suggestibility load especially where such kind of complex issues is under discussion whose origin and purpose is still unclear to the masses. Responding to such questions tends to display a compliance tendency, be it negative or positive, and limiting the scope of the answer.

The 911 attacks had waged “War on Terror”. A recent survey by YouGov, sponsored by, revealed that48% of Americans have doubts or do not trust the official account of 911 at all. If their citizens have doubted the incident how can they make us believe in their lies?

Genuinely, the term “War on Terror” refers to the Americans’ global campaign against the one who opposes her hegemonic strategy. Its primary purpose is to acquire enough resources to support its global leadership syndrome in view of the emerging realities.

Historically, it is proved that in the global superpower confrontation, the weaker ones have options like “with us or without us”. They are pawns and don’t have any authority to join or leave any confrontation against the will of the giants or else remember the classic “bomb back to the stone ages”. According to UNSC Resolution 1371 (2001),the members should have effective border control to deny terrorist asylum in their country. US can invoke this clause and work on a broad spectrum of penalties that could be anywhere from the sanctions of sorts to military actions.

Viewed in this perspective, Pakistan does not have much option except limited and localized role in this war because of our Geo strategic location where we share common stance against terrorism for the sake of restoring peace in the region which consecutively helped us to bolster our “National Interest”. However, “War” on our own soil where small groups of preposterous miscreants seek to exploit religion to make the mainstream public hostage to their vested agenda is our own “War” that has been injected by the CIA and its affiliates through Blackwater etc. It was not laxity but people talk of open connivance of some of the functionaries of the PPP regime.


The way this war has been injected and ignited against Pakistan, there is a possibility that even after the withdrawal of US led forces; Pakistan may still be in the thick of this war. India has been and still is active against Pakistan through Afghanistan that Mian Nawaz Sharif keeps in mind before showing anxiety to normalize the relations.

How could it be somebody else’s war? They have raised weapons against the government and challenging its writ. Their malicious activities have made us suffer a lot from ineffaceable loss ranging from precious human lives to the country’s economy. Right today when the stage for talks has been set, TTP have attacked and taken out a Major General and his staff officer; under what compulsions and why needs an answer.

Despite all this bloodshed, some factions in our society are still in doubt to recognize it as “Our War”. They must think before declaring it “someone else’s war” because they will not be able to digest it if their own sons become victims of this war.

Irony is that they still indulge in blame games because in this way their responsibilities are divided and can easily blame others if things go wrong. Why are you negotiating with them when you have already seen the fate of the past peace dialogues? You can’t change their fanatic mindset. The weaker tone of APC makes it sound like surrender and taking advantage of it, miscreants have successfully influenced the government to obtain leverage in a bargaining position.

Extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction are the outcomes of warfare and if all these elements are present in any society then it should declare “WAR” against the perpetrators. Any excuse will serve a tyrant in keeping with the Aesop’s maxims. Therefore say it loud and clear, “It is a WAR and Yes! It is our WAR.”

  Norway's monster and THE question

According to psychologist, ownership emerges in three ways: control, intimate knowledge and self investment which could lead to several positive outcomes like citizenship behavior, discretionary effort, personal sacrifice, experienced responsibility and stewardship.  We need to apply the theory of ownership in the context of “War on Terror”. There is a dire need to own this war in order to have fruitful results in the current perturbed scenario.

Declaration of “WAR” and a response thereof are interconnected in all dimensions. Preparation of war leads to the better strategy that ultimately results in the victory. Formulation of strategy requires priorities. The best strategy, as Sun Tzu says, is to attack the enemy’s strategy. This is but a simple way to describe the warfare.