Hopefully Pessimistic
Registered Member
Recently on X, prominent national security commentators have been commenting on Pakistan's strategic policies over time and have noticed that they are often short-sighted and reactionary to events happening in the immediate time-frame with no long-term vision or goals to them.
One well-known analyst called it "strategic confusion" (lack of clarity) and said even the Afghan Taliban despite its lack of experience and expertise seems to be performing better.
This raises the question around why?
Some believe it is because policy changes with every new COAS so has no continuity, but that is usually the case in every country's case, policies adapt slightly based on new faces.
However, some political scientists claim it is the byproduct of a much larger identity crisis of the Pakistani state which has been unable to coherently define what it is - or who/what it represents - after decades, hence does not know what its strategic vision in the long-term is. This forces its policies to always be reactionary and short term and often leads to long-term disasters as policies lack foresight and newer policy makers are left undoing the negatives of knee-jerk policies of the past.
Let us examine this claim using the examples of other states:
Turkey - Turkey defines itself as a Turkish nation-state and its strategic policy is anchored in Turkish nationalism and secular technocratism. It's primary threat has been Kurdish separatism and territorial integrity which it combats using mixed methods of military operations and cultural assimiliation policies.
Afghanistan - Afghanistan (inc Taliban) historically has defined itself is as a Pashtoon dominated nation state anchoring its policies largely on Pashtun nationalist interests long-term and quelling internal rebellions and consolidating Pashtun demographics.
India - over the years India has been developing a strategic identity around Indic Hindu civilisation which its policies are increasingly being designed around the long-term with consolidating a Hindu civilisational identiry while focusing on countering separatism in Kashmir, Punjab and communist insurgencies.
In these examples, faces may change but long-term clarity remains towards a future vision.
This now brings us back to Pakistan, can it define itself in a detailed coherent manner and have a long-term national strategic vision for itself that shapes policies but also makes sense well into the future. This kind of identity and long-term vision tends to play a huge role in a nation's psychology, behaviour and its approach with the world.
This lack of coherent long-term visions and aggressive nationalism is why neighbouring countries and ethno-separatists continue to lay claim on every inch of Pakistan with no major resistance.
Pakistan must remember that firefighting to maintain the appearance of stability on the surface, does not mean true permanent stability. It can often erupt far more dangerously in the near-future and be out of control. This is why long-term visions are important.
One well-known analyst called it "strategic confusion" (lack of clarity) and said even the Afghan Taliban despite its lack of experience and expertise seems to be performing better.
This raises the question around why?
Some believe it is because policy changes with every new COAS so has no continuity, but that is usually the case in every country's case, policies adapt slightly based on new faces.
However, some political scientists claim it is the byproduct of a much larger identity crisis of the Pakistani state which has been unable to coherently define what it is - or who/what it represents - after decades, hence does not know what its strategic vision in the long-term is. This forces its policies to always be reactionary and short term and often leads to long-term disasters as policies lack foresight and newer policy makers are left undoing the negatives of knee-jerk policies of the past.
Let us examine this claim using the examples of other states:
Turkey - Turkey defines itself as a Turkish nation-state and its strategic policy is anchored in Turkish nationalism and secular technocratism. It's primary threat has been Kurdish separatism and territorial integrity which it combats using mixed methods of military operations and cultural assimiliation policies.
Afghanistan - Afghanistan (inc Taliban) historically has defined itself is as a Pashtoon dominated nation state anchoring its policies largely on Pashtun nationalist interests long-term and quelling internal rebellions and consolidating Pashtun demographics.
India - over the years India has been developing a strategic identity around Indic Hindu civilisation which its policies are increasingly being designed around the long-term with consolidating a Hindu civilisational identiry while focusing on countering separatism in Kashmir, Punjab and communist insurgencies.
In these examples, faces may change but long-term clarity remains towards a future vision.
This now brings us back to Pakistan, can it define itself in a detailed coherent manner and have a long-term national strategic vision for itself that shapes policies but also makes sense well into the future. This kind of identity and long-term vision tends to play a huge role in a nation's psychology, behaviour and its approach with the world.
This lack of coherent long-term visions and aggressive nationalism is why neighbouring countries and ethno-separatists continue to lay claim on every inch of Pakistan with no major resistance.
Pakistan must remember that firefighting to maintain the appearance of stability on the surface, does not mean true permanent stability. It can often erupt far more dangerously in the near-future and be out of control. This is why long-term visions are important.
Source:
.
.
Last edited:
