From the Khaled Ahmed article, Terror with no name
posted earlier here, the last paragraph reads
Why should the army allow Nawaz Sharif to change the India policy? Because it wants to distance itself from the non-state actors who attack the army chief every time he looks like hurting their corporate interests by switching off the conflict across the LoC. Only the radicals inside the army can reconcile the wisdom of using non-state actors with its declared objectives of national security. That is why the army chief has advised Nawaz Sharif to brandish the gun instead of the olive branch at the Taliban.
I have a lot of respect for Khaled Ahmed for his extraordinary knowledge and the steadfastness with which he has been calling the Pakistani bluff and advising them to correct their course. He has been a fearless warrior against the Pakistani state in spite of being the cousin of jihadi Islamist, Imran Khan.
However, for two reasons, I do not quite agree with his conclusion underlined above.
I, for one, had always believed that the jihadists who have been attacking India across the LoC have been the handmaiden of the PA/ISI. These are the members of the UJC (of Syed Salahuddin) and LeT and JeM, all owing allegiance to the PA/ISI. The 'bad Taliban' did issue some threats to India but their focus is elsewhere. The 'good Taliban' attack India in Afghanistan, not across the LoC. Besides, Kayani had not switched off the conflict with India at all. He was the architect of 26/11 and his Army has been killing and beheading Indian soldiers at regular intervals. There has been no let up of bomb attacks, by PA's proxies, within India or no letup in PA's support to cross-border intrusions by jihadists either.
Strangely, the last paragraph quoted above goes completely against the grain of the entire article, unless I am misreading it. Therefore, I am unable to agree with Khaled Ahmed's conclusion that somehow PA has turned around and wants to distance itself from non-state actors.
Also, when KA says, 'brandish the gun against the Taliban', he is vague. Which Taliban ? One assumes it is the 'bad Taliban'. The PA has been alternately entering into 'peace deals' with the bad Taliban, or surrendering to them, or suffering humiliating defeats or pretending to act against them or at some rare times hitting them like in South Waziristan against Mehsud or in Swat against Mullah FM or in Bajaur. The PA (or Kayani, to be more specific) seems to have suggested to Nawaz Sharif not to have a dialogue with the bad Taliban. The bad Taliban have vowed to take a revenge on the PA and the Government after Shaykh Wali-ur-Rehman was killed recently, which act the TTP blames on the PA for its collaboration with the CIA.
There has been some suggestion that the PA feels that the 'bad Taliban' phase has been eclipsed somehow or the PA is more confident of tackling the 'bad Taliban' after c. 2014. Both are extremely wrong assumptions to make, if indeed they are PA's assumptions. This might be a miscalculated reason if Kayani has advised NS to eschew dialogue with them and use force instead.
The PA's game plan here is not what is suggested by Khaled Ahmed that somehow the folly of non-state actors has been realized by the PA. The game plan is that the PA does not want a destabilizing 'bad Taliban' when the painful decade is coming to an end after all, the tide is seemingly turning in its favour both with respect to Afghanistan and the relationship with the US, and a sense of deja vu is all over the place. The PA wants a laser-like focus on India as soon as possible and wants to get rid of 'Dennes the Menace', the distractive 'bad Taliban'.
The turning over of disgruntled and hence unreliable elements such as Tunda (and possibly Yasin Bhatkal ?) could be linked to the game plan to gain the purity in its upcoming intensified phase of asymmetrical warfare with India.