Who does the US want to vanquish?

[Guest guest]

Ajoy Bose

Who does the US want to vanquish?

Barely a week after US President George Bush declared that his

country was at war after the terror attacks in New York and

Washington, he is finding it increasingly difficult to define and

crystallize what the United States is really at. The president's

cowboy bluster and the frenzied diplomatic and military preparations

by the US establishment keep the global media on its toes round the

clock. But nothing concrete has emerged so far to suggest the kind of

war launched by the world's only superpower or even who exactly it

aims to vanquish.

 

 

 

 

Had Bush and his aides limited their military targets to killing or

capturing Osama bin Laden and ousting the Taleban regime that

harbours him, things may have made more sense. However, the president

and his men have gone out of their way time and again to publicly

disclaim that a war on Afghanistan is not their primary objective let

alone the ultimate goal. On the other hand, for all its rhetoric of

wiping terrorism from the fair face of the earth, the US remains

bogged down on the ground with moving men and weaponry for a still

undefined Afghan campaign.

 

A major problem appears to be the uncertainty in Washington on what

it would actually gain from a military strike on Afghanistan. The

easy option would be to hit targets pinpointed by satellites to knock

out vital installations and suspected terrorist camps in that country

from the air with a thunderstorm of missiles and bombs. But this --

as similar attacks in the past, albeit on a much smaller scale has

proved -- does not guarantee either bin Laden's death or the ouster

of the Taleban regime.

 

A land war spearheaded by commando attacks from the Pakistan border

and backed by a pincer movement by Northern Alliance rebels can

certainly ensure the fall of the Taleban and perhaps the physical

elimination of the terrorist leader. However, apart from the American

military casualties involved, this cannot but involve the US like the

Soviet Union in a long term occupation of Afghanistan and face a

relentless guerilla campaign by surviving Taleban fighters. This is a

grim prospect which American leaders and commentators alike have

warned against.

 

Most importantly, even if Washington does decide to grit its teeth

and plunge into a military occupation of Afghanistan, it may in no

way minimize the terrorist threat to Americans at home and abroad. As

a matter of fact there is absolutely no hard evidence to suggest that

either bin Laden or the Taleban directly orchestrated the terror

attacks in the US or some of the recent strikes against American

targets abroad. They were the handiwork of shadowy Islamic terrorist

networks operating from nearly 50 countries across the globe to whom

bin Laden may well be merely a founding father and the Taleban a

spiritual icon.

 

The martyrdom of the terrorist leader and the overthrow of the

Taleban, therefore, need not in any major way hamper the efficacy of

the Islamic terrorist network. Instead it is quite possible that this

could goad the terrorists to launch more strikes against Americans at

home and abroad. Shadows who are ingenious enough to pluck American

planes out of the sky with the help of just a few box cutters and

knives and then use them as missiles are capable of many more

unimaginable horrors.

 

Consider the catastrophic consequences of even a single repeat

performance by terrorists in America. A fire at a baseball stadium,

poison gas unleashed inside a crowded shopping mall, deadly infection

spread through germ warfare -- Hollywood potboilers could suddenly

become grim realities. American leaders and commentators have indeed

warned of the dangers of more terrorist attacks but no warnings

prepare the public, particularly a protected and seemingly

invulnerable people like that of the US for non-stop terror and it

would not be long before patriotic fervour turns to jingoistic

hysteria.

 

Consider also the problems which will face the Bush Administration on

the international front. The US president will have to willy nilly

target more countries suspected of harbouring Islamic terrorists and

these more likely than not would have Muslim majority populations. In

short, with jingoistic hysteria ravaging America and more and more

Islamic countries becoming US military targets, Bush would have no

option but to turn his war against terrorism into a crusade in its

literal sense.

 

Now, whatever the Samuel Huntington thesis may envisage and despite

the predominance of the Christian faith in Western democracies, they

would all unanimously reject a crusade in the modern world. Bush did

let slip the C word in one of his interactions with the press a few

days ago but almost bit his tongue immediately afterwards at the

mistake and quickly changed the term to war against terrorism. Asked

to comment on the Bush faux pas, former British foreign secretary

Douglas Hurd told BBC television that it was a most unfortunate

mistake. He went on to explain that the US president had most

probably used the word in its present day connotation since crusade

to contemporary Christians no longer has a religious connotation.

 

Indeed, not just now but over the past several hundred years even in

the course of empire building by Western nations across the world,

there has been little evidence of religious fervour dictating their

geopolitical ambitions. The accumulation of wealth rather than

religion has been the potent force propelling these ambitions and the

West has successfully divided nation states professing the same faith

particularly those belonging to Islam. Ironically, the only time that

Islamic states have banded together against Western dictates is on

the issue of Israel, a Jewish and not a Christian State.

 

Moreover, the entire dynamics of a crusade is as unsuited to the

progress of global capitalism as it is to the Western mindset.

Combative religious hysteria at home and abroad requiring financial

sacrifices for a sustained period will not be tolerable to the

overwhelming majority of people in Western democracies except a

lunatic fringe whatever be the provocation. The majority opinion

would require the Western leadership to solve the problem in a more

quiet and less disruptive manner.

 

Significantly, this is in sharp contrast to the mindset in most

Islamic countries where tardy social progress and economic

impoverishment keeps religion a potent force. Unlike the word crusade

for Christians, the concept of jehad is a crowd puller for large

sections of the Muslim population, particularly if they feel under

siege from the West. Nor does the disastrous consequences to global

capitalism or disruption of their lives and careers by a global

religious war affect these impoverished and frustrated sections who

regard themselves as losers rather than winners in the present scheme

of things.

 

The declaration of war by Bush compelled no doubt by the humiliating

fall of the WTC towers and the disfigurement of the Pentagon,

therefore, must be seen in context. Despite the need for a dramatic

gesture to restore American pride, the US president will come under

increasing pressure at home and abroad not to get carried away by his

rhetoric. India -- particularly those in this country who had glibly

predicted a crusade against Islam after the terror attacks -- should

not get swayed by insecurities about Pakistan but recognise the

extremely complex and difficult challenge facing the United States.

 

Ajoy Bose is a senior journalist who has reported for The Sunday

Observer and The Pioneer.