Skip to footer

Why Pakistani air strikes on Taliban targets not a gamechanger

Pakistan's military has responded to Taliban attacks with air strikes in the tribal belt near the Afghan border. But it lacks a comprehensive strategy for combating the militant group. 

|
Zahid Mohammad/Reuters
A security official checks passengers travelling in a vehicle with their belongings and fleeing a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban, January 22. Pakistani fighter jets and helicopters attacked suspected Taliban hideouts in a tribal area on the Afghan border on Tuesday.

| Islamabad

Testing the assumptions behind the headlines

This week’s Pakistan air force strikes against Taliban strongholds near the Afghan border were the first such strikes since 2007. Does that mean they signal a shift in strategy?

Not so fast. Monday’s bombing raids came as a surprise because the government has not ordered strikes in North Waziristan since it signed a peace accord with a Taliban faction led by a local commander from the area. 

But the latest attack doesn’t signal a full strategy shift just yet. Pakistan's government has denied that it is a full-fledged military operation. Moreover the government has long been unable to reach a consensus on the best way to deal with the Pakistan Taliban because of noisy opposition from mainstream parties and Islamist groups. This remains a stumbling block to any strategic rethink. 

A more likely explanation is that the strikes demonstrate that when Pakistan's military is hit directly, as it was over the weekend, the government and the military will sanction one-off retaliatory hits. In this case, the strikes came after the Taliban staged two attacks that killed at least 35 soldiers.  

Peace talks

The government is not ready to give up all calls for peace talks just yet, says Cyril Almeida, editor for the English daily the Dawn. "The government is still sticking to its talks-first policy because it wants to exhaust all options of engaging with any Taliban groups that may still want to talk,” he says.

The government claims that there are more than three dozen Taliban splinter groups operating in Pakistan and that some of them favor talks. It hasn't made clear how it would handle those groups opposed to talks. 

The federal government has been calling for dialogue with the Taliban since it took power last May. An all-parties conference called by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tasked the government to initiate peace talks. 

Others have called this week's airstrikes by the military ill-planned. Nizam Dawar, director of the Tribal Development Network, an NGO based in Waziristan, says that thousands of civilians have fled their homes in fear of further airstrikes or a ground offensive by Pakistan's military. 

“According to estimates that we are getting, more than 30,000 people are currently homeless after these airstrikes,” Mr. Dawar says. His organization has sought assistance from Islamabad.

At least 40 militants were killed in Monday’s strikes, according to the army, who said Wednesday that the militants killed included 33 Uzbeks and three Germans. The area plays host to a number of local and global terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and the Pakistani Taliban. The US military has conducted regular drone attacks since 2004 against what it calls high-value terrorist targets. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Why Pakistani air strikes on Taliban targets not a gamechanger
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Reality-Check/2014/0122/Why-Pakistani-air-strikes-on-Taliban-targets-not-a-gamechanger
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe