Daily Times Editorial Feb 1, 2014

PM’s Balochistan yatra On his first visit to the troubled province of Balochistan since taking office, Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif called for a civil-military joint strategy to resolve the problems of the province and ensure a durable peace. After briefings from top officers, the PM praised the commendable role of the security forces in attempting to secure peace and tranquillity. On a parallel track, the PM talked about accelerating the development programme of the province to ensure jobs for disgruntled youth. In this context he mentioned the Gwadar-Rato Dero and Khuzdar-Naag highways, for which Rs 8 billion has been allocated by the federal government, and the Kalat-Chaman highway for which Rs 10 billion have been set aside. The provinces, the PM added, would be given 90 percent of the revenue earned from the highways. These projects would have a positive impact on the economic development of the province and also provide jobs for the youth. The government, the PM revealed, was planning to overcome the power shortage by providing solar-based energy in rural and far-flung areas. This makes eminent sense and is long overdue, especially in underdeveloped provinces like Balochistan, where the relatively small population tends to be scattered over a vast area. The per capita cost of extending the national grid to these scattered and sparsely populated communities is prohibitive. Solar energy could fill the gap at an affordable cost. Nawaz Sharif also referred to his Pakistan Youth Business Loan Programme, intended to encourage entrepreneurship amongst the youth. He reiterated that its funds allocated for one province would not be transferred to any other province. The PM underlined his government’s determination to deal with terrorism and sectarianism, which have had the province in their grip for years. Expressing the country’s solidarity with the unfortunate Shia Hazara community that has been under horrific attack the last two years in particular, Nawaz Sharif announced that Shia pilgrims travelling to or from Iran would be facilitated through special flights to be operated by PIA. That would obviously put an end to the spate of attacks on pilgrims on the route, of which the latest one was not long ago. COAS General Raheel Sharif, who was accompanying the PM, visited the Combat Training Area in Quetta Cantonment where the army’s training programme for Balochistan’s police and constabulary are in progress. Apart from training, the army had provided 5,000 weapons and 500,000 rounds of ammunition to the Balochistan police in 2013. The COAS emphasised the army’s continuing commitment to providing equipment and training to raise the capacity of the local law enforcement agencies. Perhaps fresh from his creation of a committee of mediators to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, the PM decided the effort needed to be replicated in Balochistan to talk to the nationalist insurgents. Although the committee has not yet been announced, a great deal will depend on its composition, given the complicated and long standing problems of Balochistan. The mediators would have to be first and foremost acceptable to and carry credibility with the insurgents if the process is to have any chance of taking off. The approach of the authorities to the insurgency so far has exclusively relied on force. This has created new sets of problems, amongst which the missing persons issue has of late resonated throughout the country and even in the Supreme Court. The Frontier Corps (FC) stands accused of being responsible for what is called the ‘kill and dump’ policy, reflected in the crop of dead bodies that appear to have been badly tortured and mutilated turning up all over the province. Rightly or wrongly, this is a cause of further alienation and anger in the province. To illustrate the grave nature of the problem, the discovery of mass graves recently in Khuzdar has once again brought the issue into the limelight. Part of the problem stems from the fact, as admitted by the Balochistan government before the Supreme Court the other day, that the provincial government has no control over the FC. This creates the anomaly or contradiction that while the elected government is charged with managing the political aspects of the province’s problems, their best intentioned efforts cannot bear fruit in the face of dead bodies continuing to turn up. One hope is that with the enhanced training and equipping of the police and constabulary, they may incrementally be in a position to take up law and order and security duties, thereby relieving the FC of this onerous task and allowing the paramilitary force to be re-deployed back where it originally belongs: guarding the border areas. Collaterally, the removal of the FC will be a major initiative to improve the political climate in Balochistan and give the government of Dr Abdul Malik Baloch a better chance to open up channels with the insurgents for a peace push. While terrorism and sectarianism afflict the province, it is the insurgency that should top the list of priorities of the government.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 31, 2014

‘Dispensable’ nation? In an annual ritual, US President Barack Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress. While most of the address focused on domestic issues, including the president’s vow to redress some of the woes of ordinary citizens within the limits of unilateral executive authority in the face of an obstructionist Republican-dominated Congress, for the rest of the world it was the cryptic remarks on foreign policy that pricked up ears. The president agued that as the US’s Iraq war has ended (although the civil war has not) and the Afghan war, the longest in the US’s history, winds down, the US must move away from a permanent war footing to give diplomacy a chance to resolve some of the world’s toughest problems. As examples the president quoted Iran’s nuclear issue and the Syrian civil war. However, Obama also cautioned that danger remains and the US has to remain vigilant in the face of changing global threats. In this context he referred to the fact that although al Qaeda had been considerably weakened in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre, the terrorist organisation’s affiliates had spread their tentacles in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Mali. He should have added Libya (as a result of the US-led intervention to overthrow Gaddafi) and Syria (because of the US-led west’s support for anti-Assad forces that by now include the most fanatical of the al-Qaeda spawn). Obama’s logic was that US leadership of the world and its security can no longer depend on the military alone. All elements of power, including diplomacy, should be employed. He promised to actively, aggressively pursue terrorist networks through more targeted efforts and building the capacity of foreign partners, and added that he would not hesitate as commander-in-chief to use force to protect the American people, but only if truly necessary. As examples of diplomatic ‘success’ Obama quoted US Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts that brought about the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons and once again exploring Middle East talks on the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum. He announced that he had placed “prudent limits” on the use of drones since the US could not be safe if people abroad believed the US strikes within their countries without regard for the consequences. That will come as some solace to those in Pakistan fundamentally opposed to drone strikes against terrorists that they believe cause unacceptable civilian deaths. Obama called on Congress to further loosen the conditions attending release of Guantanamo’s detainees so that the prison could be closed. He also promised reform of the massive surveillance the US has been carrying out and that has aroused controversy amongst friendly countries as well as US citizens. With three years to go for his tenure, President Obama has an eye on his legacy, like most presidents before him. However, history may not remember that legacy kindly. Obama cane to office presenting himself as a transformative president, arousing high hopes all over the world that the US would turn a new page and leave behind the Bush era policies. From the Cairo address in which Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world, through his interventions in Libya and Syria, to the present State of the Union address, the view of perceptive observers that Obama, whatever his intentions, would not be able to reverse the momentum of the US’s polity being held in thrall to the defence, security, foreign policy establishments, with the military-industrial complex lobby continuing to push for more wars to keep the armaments industry running. If it were not for the 2008 global economic meltdown, the unintended consequences of continuing US militarism and interventionism all over the world may never have assumed the importance they have. The US may be the predominant military power in the world by a long shot, but it is increasingly being revealed as a military colossus with (economic) feet of clay. Foreign wars that in the past fuelled the profits of the armaments industry and led economic growth and prosperity are increasingly becoming a chain around the US’s feet in the middle of arguably the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. That may mean the US’s declining ability to act as the world’s self-anointed policeman of the world, a role it assumed after WW II and during the cold war. Other US fallacies such as ‘manifest destiny’, ‘indispensable nation’, ‘the American (21st) century’ may well be finally laid to rest along with Obama’s disappointing presidency that has proved unable to resist foreign invasions, forcible regime change and even touting support to terrorists in Syria, not to mention its continuing support to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands and repression against the hapless Palestinian people.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 29, 2014

Would-be partners’ diplomatic minuet The Pakistan-US strategic dialogue got off to a start in Washington after a hiatus of three years marked by irritants and breakdowns. Credit for getting the stalled dialogue restarted must of course go to both sides, but it is undeniable that US Secretary of State John Kerry has had a big part to play in the process over the last year and a half. It is Kerry who announced the resumption of the dialogue on a visit to Islamabad last August. Kerry also has to his credit the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act promising Pakistan aid of around $ 7.5 billion over five years. Kerry may therefore be considered a consistent friend of Pakistan. This perception was reinforced by the Secretary’s opening remarks, in which he struck a positive note about seeking stronger ties with the people of Pakistan, praised Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s economic reforms and vision to turn the Pakistani market into a tiger economy for the 21st century. He also stressed the criticality of inclusion of women and minorities for a better future. The US, Kerry said, has added 1,000 MW to fill Pakistan’s energy gap and is looking forward to further cooperation in the fields of energy, education and infrastructure. The claim of Pakistan becoming a tiger economy has to be measured against the average growth rate of around three percent over the last five years, a sobering thought and reflective of the long road to prosperity yet to be travelled. While Kerry tried to project positivity in his opening remarks, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on National Security, Sartaj Aziz, who is leading a high powered delegation to the talks, qualified his view of the Pakistan-US relationship with some persistent lacunae. While underlining the desire for a transition from a purely transactional relationship to one that could answer to the description of a deeper strategic one, Sartaj Aziz cautioned the US not to see Pakistan exclusively through the lenses of Afghanistan and terrorism. He dilated on Pakistan’s concerns by pointing out that Pakistan’s security considerations were neither taken account of by the US when it washed its hands of Afghanistan during the 1990s nor when it invaded and occupied that country in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. Sartaj Aziz’s cautious tone, in contrast to Kerry’s ebullience, indicates the level of mistrust and perceptions of betrayal that dog the footsteps of the often troubled relationship. The contrast could be likened to Kerry seeing the glass of the relationship as half-full, while Sartaj Aziz saw it as half-empty. Of course the unstated elephant in the room was the issue of dialogue with the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, which found no mention in the two sides’ opening remarks, but was reported as due to be taken up in detail in closed door discussions. Apart from the ‘conditionalities’ mentioned above to make the relationship a truly meaningful one going forward from this year’s US/NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, Sartaj Aziz complained that Washington seemed to have a ‘tilt’ towards India, reflected in the fact that India’s concerns were forcefully conveyed to Pakistan (an unspecified reference to the Mumbai attacks of 2008) but Pakistan’s concerns did not enjoy the same emphasis when the US conveyed them to India. Sartaj Aziz wanted all these ‘conditionalities’ to be met if the US was serious about a relationship that could transcend the suspicions and complaints of the past and move forward on an even keel. We are not yet privy to what may have transpired behind closed doors after the initial opening remarks of both sides were shared with the media. However, it would not be out of place to point to the potential bottlenecks and problem areas in the relationship in future. There is no denying (idealism aside) the fact that Pakistan, far from being or marching towards becoming an economic tiger, is struggling to stay afloat. The model of development followed by Pakistan over the years has rendered it dependent on foreign aid, the US first and foremost, and therefore also opened it up to the vulnerabilities associated with dependence. The US’s clout extends beyond bilateral ties and Washington is able to influence, both positively and negatively, its western allies and the international donor/lending agencies. Pakistan therefore needs to tread carefully when engaging with Washington, whose goodwill we are not in a position to do without for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the economy or general betterment of state and society, Pakistan will remain mired in unsolvable problems and a quagmire so long as it does not tackle the issue of terrorism. Perhaps on this single task hinge all the other best laid plans of mice and men.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 27, 2014

Pak-US strategic dialogue Pakistan and the US are due to restart their stalled strategic dialogue in Washington today. Pakistan will be represented by Sartaj Aziz, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser. The talks take up where they left off because although the interaction began in 2010, it was interrupted again and again by crises in relations between the two sides, including the 2011 US raid that killed Osama bin Laden. US Secretary of State John Kerry had announced the resumption of the dialogue during a visit to Islamabad in August last year. On the agenda are security, economic cooperation and seeking to build a blueprint for future ties. The resumption has only been made possible by concerted efforts by both sides during the last year and a half. While ostensibly on the surface things between the two countries appear to be better, there are serious questions regarding the way relations will play out around issues of mutual concern in the short, medium and long term. Afghanistan of course looms large on the horizon for both countries. Washington seeks Pakistan’s assistance to ensure its withdrawal process proceeds smoothly and leaves behind a negotiated political settlement between the Taliban and Kabul to stabilise Afghanistan and avoid a descent once again after the foreign troops leave into full-scale civil war in that country. It also hopes the PML-N government can address the serious domestic terrorism issues to stabilize Pakistan. The US may feel the Nawaz Sharif government would make a potentially stronger partner than the previous government since its political position is stronger. However, the Nawaz Sharif government’s performance so far has exposed its limitations in both matters. Domestically, the government has wasted many months in plugging its preferred option of talks with the Pakistani Taliban to negotiate peace. That effort has foundered on the Taliban’s refusal of talks and their escalating campaign of terrorist attacks throughout the country. Pakistan therefore is still wrestling with the hiatus and paralysis in its anti-terrorism policy. On Afghanistan, the PML-N government has stated repeatedly that Pakistan has no favourites in that country and supported an Afghan-owned and -led peace process. However, despite reports the government has made efforts to facilitate talks between the Karzai government and the Afghan Taliban, not much result can be seen. The more important issue is the presence of the Afghan Taliban in safe havens on Pakistani soil, permitting them to fight the US-NATO-Afghan army with relative success. Since these safe havens are the product of the military’s policy after 9/11, it is doubtful whether the Nawaz Sharif government, even if it were willing to try, could change that. So if the US is pinning its hopes for elusive stability in Pakistan and even more elusive stability in Afghanistan on the Nawaz Sharif government, this could turn out once again to be a difficult enterprise. Washington insists its relationship with Pakistan is about more than just Afghanistan. That may be true, although the past decades have inserted the Afghan issue between them with a vengeance. Taking Washington at its word, it needs to be asked whether the US realises how much mutual trust and confidence between the two sides has been eroded over the years by the gulf between them on perceived interests and a relationship that has not transcended the ups and downs of being confined to a transactional approach. The atmospherics are not helped by the hostility towards Pakistan in the US Congress, which has recently withheld $ 33 million from Pakistan over the Dr Shakil Afridi issue and threatens further aid cuts if the US Secretary of State is unable to certify annually that Pakistan is cooperating against terrorism. Perceptive observers are advising the US to include Pakistan in its Asia ‘pivot’ so as to allay the feelings of abandonment creeping into Islamabad’s feelings, a process of shrinkage that may otherwise increase once the US is out of Afghanistan. While hoping for the best outcomes in their strategic dialogue, one may be excused for reservations about the ability of the two countries to put the past and its attendant suspicions about each other behind them, cooperate on Afghanistan, and develop a blueprint that seeks permanent friendship, not an expedient one.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 26, 2014

And now Sindh As though the country does not have its plate full with terrorism, political and criminal turf wars, and the Balochistan insurgency and sectarian attacks in the province, low intensity blasts occurred throughout Sindh on Friday. Cracker explosions and hand grenade lobbing was witnessed in Hyderabad, Larkana, Kotri, Naushehro Feroze, Bhit Shah, Matiari, Hala, Dadu, Ranipur and Karachi. Fortunately there were no deaths. Two people were reported injured. The intent of the attackers does not therefore appear to have been to maim life and limb, rather the campaign appears to have been aimed at making the strike called for Saturday successful. That thought, based on the pattern of such attacks on the eve of strike calls in the past, and the arrest of 14 suspects from various parts of the province, during which some minor weapons and cracker seizures along with recovery of pamphlets regarding the strike were reported, led the police to lay the blame at the door of the Jeeay Sindh Muttahida Mahaz (JSMM), a Sindhi nationalist group. The JSMM’s strike call was issued to protest the provocative remarks of MQM chief Altaf Hussain recently in which he had advocated the carving out of a separate province in Sindh or even a separate country on the basis that the Urdu-speaking citizens of the province were not receiving their due. The nature of the actions suggest the JSMM, if indeed it was behind the attacks, wanted to send a political message rather than follow in the footsteps of the terrorists and inflict death and injuries on the maximum number of victims. The message and its means of transmission appear relatively mild in the context of all the other campaigns of attacks on the state and citizens by terrorists and other interest groups. But it should serve as a warning that provocations of the sort Altaf Hussain keeps authoring from time to time could lead to deepening the ethnic divide and even stoking ethnic conflict in the province. The issue of the ethnic divide in Sindh is highly sensitive, and therefore not to be trifled with in cavalier fashion. The Sindhi nationalists’ long standing case (stemming from the creation of the country) is that the massive influx of refugees from India (mostly Urdu-speaking) during partition and their concentration in the cities of Sindh, particularly Karachi, created a demographic catastrophe for the original inhabitants of the province. What followed subsequently proved the worst nightmare Sindhis could have imagined for themselves in the new country. Not only was the Sindhi educated and skilled middle class (overwhelmingly Hindu) that existed before partition displaced to our neighbouring country, the vacuum left behind was filled by an Urdu-speaking salariat with the requisite education and skills. That marginalised and ghettoised Sindhis to a largely rural existence, in which the structures of large landholding and feudalism remained intact (even after Ayub and Bhutto's attempts at land reform in the 1960s and 70s respectively). But in case anyone thinks that the rural areas remained free of the malign vested interests that the new state encouraged, barrage lands in Sindh were freely and generously allocated to retired military and bureaucratic officers (mostly Punjabi). Whole villages emerged in the Sindhi rural areas as a result that were known as ‘Punjabi chaks (villages)’, in which not only the landowners, but even the cultivating peasantry had been ‘imported' from the largest province to the north. The resentments of the emerging urban Sindhi middle class and the feudals and peasants of the Sindhi rural areas against this ‘invasion’, which they felt had deprived the sons of the soil of their rights, was sought to be redressed in the 1970s during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s tenure. But the resistance of the non-Sindhi privilegentsia proved the old adage that a vested interest seldom yields easily. For example, when the Sindh government under Mumtaz Ali Bhutto attempted to restore Sindhi as the medium of instruction in 1972, a position it had enjoyed in the province before partitition, the move was met by language riots in Karachi. This development set the tone for a newly assertive Sindhi community attempting to wrest back the rights it felt had been denied after Pakistan came into being, up against an equally if not even more assertive Urdu-speaking community that wanted to cling on to the privileges in education, employment and business opportunities it had been gifted over the years. The rise of the MQM in the 1980s was part of this counter-assertion. If Altaf Hussain’s remarks are placed in this context, it becomes easier to understand why Sindhi nationalist resentment runs so deep. MQM and its leader should refrain from provocation and follow their own oft repeated assertion that they too are Sindhis. Difficult as it is to imagine, the province needs a return to its tolerant Sufi ways, not an ethnic conflict cauldron.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 25, 2014

‘Tough action’ at last? After seemingly dithering for months on its approach to tackling terrorism, it appears the government has had its mind made up for it by the terrorists themselves. The spate of terrorist attacks through the length and breadth of the country in recent days has put paid to the notion that talks with the extremists are the only way forward. The binary amongst political opinion on the issue that it is a zero-sum game of either/or, i.e. either talks or war, has been resolved in the government’s thinking at least as talks with those willing, force against those not. Some in the media have dubbed this the third option, although objectively it was always the only option. No counterinsurgency or counterterrorism campaign ever relies exclusively on one or the other. The strategy always revolves around the use of force where necessary, negotiations where possible. If the government has arrived at this conclusion after reeling from the blows struck by the terrorists, it can be considered an advance on its previous stance, which seemed to rely almost exclusively, or at least predominantly, on negotiations. The only problem with this ‘advance’ is that actions are still being planned and implemented in retaliatory mode rather than as part of an overall strategy. After the aerial bombing in North Waziristan the other day in retaliation for the wave of attacks on the army, reports speak of an operation in Mastung against the sectarian Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) that has once again claimed responsibility for the Shia pilgrims’ bus bombing in that area the other day. The question arises, who does not know that the centre of gravity and presence of the LeJ lies in southern Punjab, where its network of madrassas, etc, gives it a ‘safe’ operating base. No one can possibly object to the operation in Mastung in pursuit of the terrorists who killed so many innocent Shias (again), but the snake will not be scotched if its head is not crushed, a head that lies in southern Punjab. The LeJ’s leader Malik Ishaq, who cannot be pinned down no matter how many charges of murder are placed against him because he is able to intimidate judges, prosecutors and witnesses, roams a free man. If the government is serious about an operation against the LeJ, it cannot ignore its leaders or its safe haven in southern Punjab. The perils of our times are nowhere better illustrated than in the incident of a vehicle blowing up in a motor workshop in Peshawar on Thursday. Ostensibly brought in for repairs, the vehicle had a bomb planted in it, whether before it arrived at the workshop or after is not clear. Reports say it was a jeep that was reported lost or stolen and had spent a couple of days in a police station before its owner transferred it to the workshop. Six people were killed, nine wounded, five other cars damaged in this latest atrocity. Presiding over a high level security meeting on Thursday, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called for making the intelligence mechanism more effective and boosting security on the Afghan border, including through aerial surveillance. The meeting decided on surgical strikes against terrorist targets (a la the bombardment in North Waziristan) rather than a generalised ground offensive. The partial move against the LeJ in Mastung and the decision to rely more on aerial strikes rather than boots on the ground indicates the continuing hesitation of the government to commit fully to taking on the terrorists with the full might of the state. The thinking seems to be that limited and targeted action may prevent things escalating due to the retaliatory attacks of the terrorists. If so, the latter are probably going to assist in furthering the clarification of the mindset of the government by not only retaliatory attacks but new and bolder provocations on their own. Since nothing else seems to work in nudging the government in the right if not inevitable direction, i.e. not sparing the bloodthirsty murderers of our people and security forces, we owe a vote of ironic thanks to the terrorists for ‘helping’ the government clarify its clouded thinking.

Daily Times editorial Jan 24, 2014

The terrorist onslaught The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has embarked upon a concerted campaign of actions to weaken the state. Apart from attacks on the army, security forces and citizens, it has particularly focused on the anti-polio drive. One day after three anti-polio workers were killed in Karachi, the terrorists switched their attention to the security detail on its way to be deployed on protection of the polio vaccinators in Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. The toll of the bomb attack on their police van was six policemen and a child killed, 11 others injured. In Bhakkar district, Punjab, a polio vaccination team was attacked by militants. Fortunately no one was killed, although a lady health supervisor and her driver were injured. To understand why the anti-polio drive is attracting the unwanted attention of the terrorists of late, it is not enough to refer to the earlier explanations of the terrorists regarding the vaccination campaign as a cover for spying (the Dr Shakil Afridi affair should be kept in mind) or a western conspiracy to make Muslims infertile. As a tactical manoeuvre, it make sense to the terrorists to target the polio campaign since it helps highlight Pakistan’s dubious status as one of only three countries still polio-endemic (along with Nigeria and Afghanistan). The World Health Organisation has come out with a devastating report that describes Peshawar as the world’s largest reservoir of the poliovirus. The perception globally that militancy and terrorism are causing the Pakistani polio campaign to falter, if not fail, encourages the terrorists to redouble their efforts so that Pakistan is cast into a pariah status, implying travel bans and perhaps worse. The bad press Pakistan is accumulating on this score could vitally damage Pakistan’s image and bring on sanctions on health grounds that could have a crippling effect on Pakistan’s ability to function internationally. While Karachi bleeds and burns because of its plethora of terrorist, political and criminal militias engaged in targeted killings, the police raid in Qayumabad area of Karachi seeking the killers of the polio workers killed the other day evoked an outcry from residents since the sweep netted over a hundred people, most probably on suspicion rather than evidence. The police justify the action by arguing that the killers may have come from the area or definitely had local help in targeting the polio workers. However, the indiscriminate and wide scope of the dragnet suggests the police are shooting in the dark. Despite the announcement by the polio workers after the deaths of their colleagues that they would not work unless provided adequate security, the Sindh government has reiterated its commitment to continuing the anti-polio drive. Commendable as the statement is, the government must soberly examine the risks to polio workers and make proper arrangements to keep them safe. After all, the polio ‘front’ is now part of the anti-terrorist struggle. While knowledgeable observers have been arguing since this government took office that the terrorists must be taken on without hesitation or delay while keeping the door for negotiations open, the opposite has been in evidence. The government still seems to be hoping against hope that its talks strategy will bear dividends, despite the lack of a partner to talk to or any sign of one emerging. Maulana Samiul Haq, charged with persuading the Taliban to come to the negotiation table, has used the excuse of the bombing in North Waziristan the other day that killed 40 terrorists including foreign fighters to announce his withdrawal from a mediatory role. The Maulana’s heart clearly bleeds for the terrorists killed in the bombing, but not for the victims of the terrorists. So much for such ‘mediators’. Even Imran Khan seems to have been compelled by developments and the criticism mounting against his party and KP government for its almost exclusive focus on talks as the only panacea to declare that the PTI will be with the army when the time comes to mount a military operation. Someone needs to inform Imran that that time has not just arrived, it is past due. In the same breath, Imran has scored points against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for not taking his party on board whether the talks strategy has failed and a military operation is impending. Again, someone needs to inform the PTI chief that the talks strategy never got off the ground and if a military operation is being contemplated, it needs to be kept secret, particularly from a party that has made no bones about its sympathies for the Taliban. Slowly, gradually, inexorably, circumstances are forcing all the ‘talkers’ to a recognititon that the terrorists only understand the language of force. Without employing it, the state will continue to appear supine and at the mercy of the butchers.