[Peace-discuss] Bomb India?

[Brussel Morton K.]

Your remarks are well taken, but Feffer was simply using the Mombai  
bombings to illustrate the stupidity, the viciousness, of America's  
going after terrorists by bombing nations. Not every useful  
commentary needs to be all inclusive, although I admit that he misses  
an opportunity to enlarge the discussion about state terrorism. --mkb

On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:44 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

> 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 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 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. 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, relying on police work to track down  
> and neutralize terrorists. Both the United Nations and 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  
> 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/20081202/78ed0d24/attachment.htm