THE deal is done — the Nato/Isaf supply route has been reopened — but the domestic fallout is gathering steam. From across the political opposition, salvos have been fired against the government. The civilians in the opposition are accusing the civilians in government of striking a bad deal, of failing to get a proper apology and of selling out Pakistan’s interests. Curiously, however, the opposition’s ire, and memory, is very selective. While the army has seen some of its power diminish in recent years, Pakistan-US relations are very much its domain: neither the decision to close the supply route nor the one to open it once again could be taken without the army leadership’s consent. In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that the entire trajectory of a relationship stalled since November was controlled by the army leadership from behind the scenes. For example, it seems inconceivable that the decision to charge no fees — other than the commercial costs of clearing and transporting the shipping containers — was taken by the civilian government. And yet, the political opposition has hammered away at the government with nary a mention of the army’s role in this entire episode. The right to oppose a government’s decision is a democratic right, but when done in such a selective manner, history suggests that the only thing that is undermined is the democratic process. A little more honesty and forthrightness by the political opposition would be welcome.

The security establishment too must shoulder some of the blame for the angry denunciations of the government’s move to stabilise ties with the US. For, there’s a general perception that many of the political and religious leaders opposing the supply-route decision were unleashed by the security establishment itself as a buffer against American demands. It’s an old trick: fan the flames of anti-Americanism as a buffer against US demands so that when demands are made that the state isn’t willing to accede to, it can point to opposition on the street and in the cities as a legitimate reason for not acquiescing. But using such tactics like a faucet that is turned on and off as per requirement still leaves the very real, and very serious, problem of dealing with the anti-Americanism that is unleashed and takes on a life of its own. The tactic may yield short-term gains but in the medium and long term it only erodes the space for rational decision-making.

The onus, then, is on the army to publicly support the decision to reopen the supply route that the government has publicly, though perhaps nominally, taken. The ISPR channel has been used often to convey army sentiments, so why not on this issue?