Nato incursions

Behind the thin veil of diplomatic niceties, the leaderships in Kabul and Islamabad nurture sharply conflicting perspectives on the US-led war against terrorists in the tribal region straddling the Pak-Afghan border.
Periodically, they blame each other of not doing enough in the anti-terrorism campaigns, which is basically motivated and monitored by the United States with the help of Nato troops. And, when their common friends find their mutual bickering rather loud and getting out of control they intervene and arrange mediatory meetings under the aegis of US-led trilateral commission framework or forums like the Ankara Declaration.
But, of late, they have been kicked into developing the common perception - that the Nato forces are killing far more civilians than the norms of collateral damage in war would warrant.
Last week when more than 90 civilians were killed by the Nato forces in operations against the Taliban, President Hamid Karzai lost his cool. Accusing foreign forces of conducting "careless operations" he said his government did not want "any more military operations without co-ordinating them with Afghan government", adding that "from now onwards they have to work the way we ask them to work in here".
And, during the same time 33 Pakistanis were killed by the coalition bombings in Waziristan, an action which also provoked stiff reaction. Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson dubbed the attack un-coordinated - (while the Nato spokesman had insisted it was co-ordinated) - and warned "we do not want any action by Nato forces on our side of the international border".
The US-led military campaign against the Taliban is essentially air-based. Whenever the Nato troops encounter ground resistance they call in air support, which, as a matter of practice, bombs out the entire area, be it a cave or a village. Sometimes air attacks are carried out on suspected Taliban hideouts, though in reality these may be civilian habitats. Their targets in Pakistan are so-called Taliban training camps.
But past record proves that these suspected sites were nothing but schools and residences. So far, in most of the cases the Pakistan government took the stand that the bombing was carried out by the Pakistani forces or that the deaths were due to explosions when the militants were busy making bombs. But the people never accepted these alibis, producing eyewitnesses who saw US drones or aircraft attacking the non-combatant sites.
It is, therefore, a positive development, in that the Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson has not only conceded reports that latest killings in Waziristan were the result of bombing by the Nato forces but also warned against and condemned the action.
Time has come for the Pakistan government to review its collaboration with the Nato. First of all, it should try to figure out whether the Nato is fighting terrorists or Afghan resistance forces opposed to foreign occupation. Equally important for Pakistan is to differentiate between the acts of terrorism, triggered by the remnants of al Qaeda and Taliban, and terrorism bred by religious sectarianism.
The government should also convey to Nato leadership that Pakistan has already paid a very heavy price by joining the campaign against terrorism. It lost more troops in its military operations in tribal areas fighting terrorists than the coalition forces; has tried hard sealing the border at great human cost and even incurring Kabul's jibes; and owned up, one must say foolishly, the murderous US bombings of its own people.
Frankly, Pakistan's military co-operation with Nato forces has become quite unpopular, and a civilian government in Islamabad, possibly resulting from the forthcoming elections will not be able to sustain it. The review is necessary also for the reason that the Nato presence in Afghanistan is to be a long haul, because it is the outfit's first non-European venture and it should be won at all costs.
But winning a war within Afghanistan, the history says, is Afghans' exclusive right. If Pakistan has to live with the Afghan war it must develop its own strategy, fully honed to primarily protect its own security interests. How long will Pakistan fight others' war?