The world has limited sympathy for Pakistan. There have been many documented incidents of this indifference across the globe, but perhaps none that was as pronounced as the dichotomy between the Army Public School attack, which claimed the lives of 132 innocent schoolchildren in Peshawar, and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, France, just three weeks later. Both were horrendous, atrocious attacks of stark violence, worthy of the condemnation they received. But there was a marked difference in how the world reacted to Pakistan’s most shocking terrorism incident (and there have been literally thousands), and how the world reacted to the Charlie Hebdo incident. Perhaps the fault is our own. Despite our tall talk of leaving no room for terrorism, or leaving no space for extremist philosophy, or not allowing our soil to be used by miscreants, we have faced international criticism and embarrassment for allowing the same. Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, just over an hour from the capital, by shadow operatives that were able to violate Pakistani airspace, and escape quietly, unscathed. Mullah Omar allegedly died after receiving treatment in hospitals in Karachi for two years. Mullah Mansoor was apparently killed in a drone strike in Balochistan in May. The list goes on. If we were ignorant of their presence in Pakistan, that makes us foolish. If we knew, and aided or abetted, we were criminals. The impetus for any action to change this has to come from our own internal doctrine, which seems as unclear as ever. The American policy in the region is beginning to get look more stern. The F16 sale issue, debates in political circles about making Pakistan’s aid contingent on forcing Islamabad’s hand against the Haqqani Network, making public statements about Mullah Mansoor’s death long before Pakistan had a chance to react – these are all indicative of a hardening, toughening US stance on Pakistan. If we knew, we are guilty; if we didn’t, we are foolish The US...

Operation Zarb-e-Azb in Waziristan is in terminal phase. Though belatedly, the military has cleared the region of safe haven and wherewithal of renegade militants. The campaign was secretive. Journalists were flown into Waziristan only where the top commander wished so. The Pakistan Army did not risk trying a US-NATO style embedded journalism, probably fearing that a damaging book or long-form pieces may emerge later. Since the Peshawar school attack, the national consensus to root out any terrorist safe haven in the country has been unflinching. However, not everyone is mindful of how huge is the mission within the country’s limited means. Neither media-persons nor the civil society protested against the secretive nature of the operation until the last trip to Waziristan. The chopper flew over valleys and mountain slopes dotted with villages and hamlets. A vast majority of empty residential structures were devoid of rooftops. The military officials justified it, stating it was the most viable manner to keep a vigil on the areas cleared of militants. According to them, the landscape is treacherous with sufficient camouflage to an insurgent or guerilla fighter to sneak back in, with limited risk of being spotted. The other option, however, could have been to deploy troops on each village in sufficient numbers to keep a vigil. The cost of reconstructing rooftops was thought to be less expensive than deploying armed manpower for security of each cleared hamlet and valley. Even if Pakistan was equipped and could afford, technology has serious limitations in counter-insurgency operations. Moreover, the terrain in the Waziristan region could not have been more challenging. Spiral of issues The issue is not only limited to missing rooftops. The remaining structures do not look strong enough to hold a roof whenever built. Having withstood tremors of arms explosions and harsh weather, the walls are now crumbling. The region also has to start afresh from livelihood and...

By William Milam  CRSS Note: In this incisive analysis, former US ambassador to Pakistan, William Milam proffers three ways that can transform Pakistan’s society, economy and political structure. He argues that readiness of the civilians for political and economic structural reforms can increase their leverage and decrease the military’s predominance of the country’s politics. Two weeks ago, I wrote of the three major tests for those who hope to transform Pakistan from its “muddle through” path toward mediocrity and eventual failure, toward a virtuous circle leading to a modern society, economy, and political structure. The tests are: 1) Will the elected politicians choose to, and be able to, break their chain of dependency on the religious parties? 2) Will these same politicians – who seem to have recognized the counterproductive nature of zero-sum politics –  change the patrimonial character of their parties to make them democratic and issue oriented, to reflect the urban society that Pakistan is becoming? 3) As a natural result of that, can the political parties grasp the nettle of structural economic reform, widening the tax net to bring in the entire society into a formal economy that raises adequate revenue to live within its means while providing the services, especially in health and education, to make Pakistan really competitive in a globalized economy? These questions concern civil society politicians and their parties, and would in any society cause anxiety about the future. Politicians in most countries are not known for their perspicacity, their analytic depth, or their willingness to take risks. In Pakistan, however, as all readers will already be mumbling to themselves, there is an “elephant in the room” which cannot be ignored. The army will determine whether civil society reform efforts of the kind listed above have even a prayer of being answered positively. And the answer to the question of where the army stands on the question of such root and...