THE other day, I was startled to see a front-page story in the Express Tribune that quoted Maulana Yusuf Shah, the coordinator of the TTP negotiation team, suggesting that far from being terrorists, the Taliban were actually ‘annoyed brothers of the state’.

Say what? If slaughtering some 55,000 innocent men, women and children is a sign of their annoyance, I’d hate to think what they’d do if they got seriously angry. The prominence Shah received is a sign of the times: sundry Taliban spokesmen are being given increasing coverage in our media to confirm their new status of co-equal players and stakeholders.

The unconditional release of dozens of Taliban prisoners is another indication of their growing dominance in the secretive negotiations process. The fact that the government team has been unable to secure any assurances for the release of TTP kidnap victims like Shahbaz Taseer, Ali Haider Gilani and Prof Ajmal Khan is evidence of the state’s weakness.

Another sign is the failure of the opposition to support the Pakistan Protection Ordinance. It is true that many of the legislation’s provisions are anathema to any democrat. However, we are not fighting a war against a foe who respects legal niceties. In the US and elsewhere, the most draconian anti-terror laws were passed in the aftermath of 9/11 with wide support.

In any case, it is not so much a lack of legal powers for our security forces that is the problem, but our inability to enforce existing laws and use the powers our law-enforcement agencies already possess.

After a long and bloody sequence of terrorist attacks against our security establishment from Karachi to Kohat, subsequent inquiries have pointed to major flaws in intelligence, training, equipment and leadership.

Last year, well before the brazen jailbreak in Bannu in which 248 prisoners were freed, the authorities in Peshawar were warned of an impending attack in D.I. Khan. However, despite preparations, the terrified members of the Elite Force as well as prison guards simply fled when attacked by the Taliban.

In 2009, the Taliban carried out an even more audacious attack on army headquarters in Rawalpindi. Wearing uniforms, the terrorists were able to penetrate the heavily guarded premises after a brief firefight. More than the resulting casualties, the army suffered a humiliating debacle.

I mention these incidents — and there are many more — to underline the fact that it is our inability to prepare for attacks that has made us so vulnerable, not the absence of any specific laws. And if our security forces cannot protect themselves in heavily guarded locations, how can they protect soft targets like markets and trains?

In court martial proceedings following the attack on the Minhas air force base in Kamra in 2012, a guard pleaded that he had not been issued any night vision goggles, and had not been trained in night firing. Last year, a senior Frontier Corps official went on record to say that his men were not provided with sufficient arms and bulletproof vests.

A scam involving the purchase of substandard arms and ammunition for police in KP is under investigation.

The point here is that tougher laws will not translate into greater security. After over two decades of escalating terrorist violence against the people and state of Pakistan, we still have been unable to adequately train and arm those at the frontline of this vicious war. Rather than pool resources and present a united front, our intelligence agencies and political parties have bickered over turf, methods and goals.

Then there is the tottering legal system that is totally unable to address the hydra-headed monster of terrorism, or any other issue for that matter. Killers are routinely released either on bail, or for ‘insufficient proof’, even when they possess illegal firearms. I am informed that only 11pc of killings result in convictions.

Faced with a ruthless and single-minded enemy, Pakistan’s response has been pathetically feeble. While the Taliban have shown resolve and initiative, the state has demonstrated an almost suicidal apathy.

However, this war is not being lost on the battlefield alone, but in our classrooms and TV studios. Increasingly, the dominant narrative is that of extremism. We feed our children a steady diet of hate, and our popular anchors encourage a discourse centred around intolerance, with ignorant clerics being given licence to preach their divisive message.

Give all these factors, to expect any radical improvements in law and order after the passage of the PPO in parliament is a forlorn hope. A law is no substitute for spine. What is needed is a clear understanding of who our enemy is, and the will to defeat him.

irfan.husain@gmail.com