[Peace-discuss] Bomb India?

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Interesting; but he does not consider what if the US tends to be the
underlying cause and even often sponsor of terrorism around the world, -
funding, arming, training surrogate nations to formally host terrorist
groups or perform black ops and terrorist actions?  Why is it that nobody
among these western pundits calls the US "terrorist central."   I find
curious that Feffer does not try to go beneath the surface and ask how much
of support provided by Pakistan for the several terrorist outfits operating
in South Asia over the years has be at the behest of the US and with the
full clandestine support of the US, its Department of Defense, and its CIA.
Ben Laden was not called a terrorist when he was fighting the USSR with US
and Pakistani support.  Wasn't it the US who facilitated the overthrow of
the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan and his replacement by the
tribal  and religious leaders, who engaged in the poppy trade and were
corrupt despotic violent rulers until they were replaced by the Taliban who
while religious fanatics and fundamentalists, stopped the poppy trade  and
while brutal were not corrupt to the same extent as those they replaced?
And wasn't it the US, who turned a blind eye to the Taliban rule until it
was no longer to their advantage to ignore their rule and until 9/11 when
they refused to disassociate from Al-Quaeda and Ben Laden?

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Brussel
Morton K.
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:11 AM
To: Peace Discuss
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bomb India?

 

Pertinent remarks, from John Feffer's Foreign Policy in Focus. --mkb

 

Bomb India?

After the attacks in Mumbai last week, should the United States bomb
suspected terrorist cells in India? Send the Marines to Kashmir where one of
the suspected groups behind the attacks - Lashkar-e-Taiba - originates? Or
initiate regime change in Pakistan, which has
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=LvzQ7LZVxhgUH%2BQTG2
Z9JlpBhbZPCP%2Fi> provided support for several terrorist outfits operating
in South Asia?

These are, of course, absurd options.

And yet the Bush administration, in its "global war on terror" (GWOT),
pursued just such tactics against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein
in Iraq, and suspected terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. Fat lot of good it's
done us. The Taliban is back in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, which didn't exist in
Iraq before the invasion, has a foothold there now. And Pakistan, thanks to
former dictator Pervez Musharraf and his intelligence agency, remains
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YPR%2BRh7W7lYSDSMxIO
krLFpBhbZPCP%2Fi> Terrorism Central.

This military approach to terrorism has generated ineffectual,
counterproductive, and quite often surreal policies. Declaring a war on
terror elevated al-Qaeda and its brethren to the status of warriors. It
served as a great recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden, and made the United
States and its citizens a lightning rod for attacks. Other countries -
China, Russia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines - have drawn inspiration from the
United States for their own crackdowns on a range of purported terrorists.

This follow-the-leader effect may prove most horrific in the case of India.
Believing neighboring Pakistan to be behind the Mumbai attacks, India is
edging closer to its own war on terror.
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kHHzwKBaJ9EUHGgboc1p
W8QlBH%2F%2Fa%2BGF> According to the Times of London, "The Indian government
is now considering a range of responses, including suspending its five-year
peace process with Pakistan, closing their border, stopping direct flights
and sending troops to the frontier." It's one thing when the United States
squares off against the ragtag army of the Taliban. But with both India and
Pakistan in possession of nuclear weapons, any "war on terror" between the
two can go global at a moment's notice.

When a group of militants wages a ruthless campaign against civilians, a
government certainly must respond. But the issue is: what kind of response?
Instead of using the military, the British have largely used their heads,
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1jedh%2B7PI4PVWt6Ee3
DjG1pBhbZPCP%2Fi> relying on police work to track down and neutralize
terrorists. Both the
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=4v7wm%2BMY130gfnPMvB
FN21pBhbZPCP%2Fi> United Nations and
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=mlIYdL8OKeGNK%2FW6jA
HVLlpBhbZPCP%2Fi> Interpol have useful lists of best practices that focus on
sharing information among police forces and shutting down the financing of
terrorist networks. Instead of fighting fire with fire, we should be
thinking of dousing the flames with water. In this case, the most effective
fire extinguisher is the rule of law.

In an essay in the forthcoming Institute for Policy Studies book
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=U372DuHeU0kRZnq8%2FI
r8jlpBhbZPCP%2Fi> Mandate for Change, I argue that the Obama administration
must replace GWOT with GDOL: Global Defense of Law. This alternative
counterterrorism approach prioritizes international and domestic law rather
than the projection of military force beyond borders. Who better than a
former law professor to launch such an initiative? President Obama should
embed counterterrorism in the international laws governing institutions such
as the International Criminal Court as well as the domestic laws that
safeguard the civil liberties of those living in the United States.

"September 11" entered our vocabulary as both an epochal shift and the
starting point for the GWOT. "Mumbai" should likewise enter our vocabulary
as the end of the GWOT and the beginning of a more sensible approach to
countering terrorism.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081202/f14436a9/attachment.htm