War Against Terror (Ha!)

[Guest guest]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_281069,00300001.htmWar Against Terror

(Ha!) Vir SanghviJune 14 War on terror. Now, that's a good phrase: What a

shame, then, that it's been weeks since we heard anybody utter it. It's a

little like that other phrase: `weapons of mass destruction'. Of course we hear

the expression a lot these days but never from the people who originally

popularised it — George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and even Tony Blair

— but from the other side: people who doubted that the `weapons of mass

destruction' ever existed.You will forgive me for sounding a little cynical.

But frankly, I think that every Indian has a right to be at least a little

leery, if not downright cynical.You remember the context of the `war on

terror', don't you? Al-Qaeda had just destroyed the World Trade Towers and Bush

had declared that the US would lead a global coalition to fight terror all over

the world.When we heard Bush speak, all of us were excited, overjoyed and ready

to join the global coalition. After all, who knows more about terrorism than the

people of India? For over a decade now, we have seethed with impotent rage as

Pakistan has infiltrated foreign jehadis into Kashmir and watched helplessly as

innocent men and women have been murdered. We suffered serial blasts in our

commercial capital of Bombay nearly a decade before the New York attacks. One

of our passenger planes — IC814 — was hijacked by jehadis and taken

to Kandahar where the hijackers were welcomed by the Taliban. And our Parliament

building came under a terrorist attack. We stopped the terrorists in time on

that occasion but luck was on our side — it could easily have gone the

other way.When George Bush told us that the US would lead the fight against

terrorism, we were euphoric. Finally! We said. Finally, somebody understands

that no one country can fight a global network of terrorists on its own. The

whole world must come together to wage this battle.But we were fooling

ourselves.The first shock came when Washington announced that General

Musharraf's Pakistan would be its key ally in this war.Pakistan? We thought.

That doesn't make sense. That's like saying, "I will fight terror and Osama bin

Laden will be my right-hand man." How credible can a war against terror be if

your chief ally is himself a sponsor of terror?No matter. The Americans told us

we were being silly, selfish and short-sighted. They needed Pakistan because

they wanted to attack Afghanistan. After all, Afghanistan was where bin Laden

was hiding. Once they had found bin Laden and destroyed al-Qaeda they would

turn their attention to Musharraf and force him to take action against his

homegrown jehadis.Except, of course, it hasn't worked out that way.For a start,

they never found bin Laden. They admit that they still don't know where he is

though they have been forced to reluctantly concede that he's still alive.

Then, they never managed to destroy al-Qaeda. Despite all the hype surrounding

the Afghan operation, they could not capture a single member of al-Qaeda's top

command hierarchy.Where do you suppose they all hid?Oh, that's easy. The

Americans themselves say that the terrorists have found refuge in — wait

for it! — Pakistan.But doesn't this prove what India has been saying all

along?No, say the Americans. The al-Qaeda terrorists are hiding in the tribal

areas of Pakistan. And Washington's well-meaning ally, the benevolent,

broad-bottomed, General Musharraf, has no power in these areas, poor

fellow.What about the terrorists who keep turning up in safe houses in the

comfortable suburbs of Rawalpindi and other such cities, then?Ah, yes, say the

Americans, they may be there but as soon as smiling Pervez hears about it, he

hands them over to us. This proves that he's a wonderful chap, after

all.Sometimes, I wonder whether it is always so easy to fool the greatest power

on earth? Certainly, Musharraf runs circles around them. All of al-Qaeda is

scattered around swimming pools in large villas on the suburbs of Pakistani

cities and the General is content to turn a blind eye to their presence.

Periodically, when the Americans get a little antsy, he picks up one of the

sunbathing terrorists and hands him over to the FBI. President Bush tells the

good folks back home that he's still rounding up them evil A-Rabs who attacked

New York, Musharraf gets a few billion more in aid and then, some ISI-run

outfit feels emboldened to launch another attack on civilian targets in

Kashmir.But we aren't allowed to complain, of course. The war on terror is too

important to be derailed by India's small-minded and selfish obsession with

Pakistan.But look at it purely from America's perspective. Forget our own

anti-Pakistani prejudices. If bin Laden is still alive. If al-Qaeda is still

active. And if it is in fact behind the recent terrorist attacks (as the CIA

says it is) — then what the hell happened to the War Against

Terror?Simple. Bush lost. Al-Qaeda won.But even before anyone in America could

work out what the score really was, Bush was on to Phase II of the War Against

Terror.By same curious co-incidence, this happened to involve an invasion of

one of the world's largest oil-producers, a country whose secular (if

tyrannical) ruler had actually incurred bin Laden's wrath for refusing to

follow a fundamentalist line.So how did the Iraq invasion become a part of the

War Against Terror? Well, said the Americans, there was evidence to suggest

that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the WTC hijackers, had been to Iraq to meet

Saddam Hussein's intelligence people.Nice try. But it has now been demonstrated

that Atta was actually in the US at the time he was supposed to have travelled

to Iraq. And there's no evidence at all of any Iraqi involvement in the WTC

attacks.So, Washington tried a new tack. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,

it said.Well, perhaps it did. But then so does North Korea. And — sorry

for bringing this up — so does Pakistan. Why single out Iraq?And besides,

the UN weapons inspectors, under Hans Blix, were scouting Iraq for such weapons.

They hadn't found any. But if Washington was so sure they existed, then Blix was

bound to have found them sooner or later.No, said Washington, we can't wait.And

why was that? Because time was of the essence. There was proof (not shared with

Hans Blix, clearly) that Saddam could make these weapons operational within 45

minutes. (This claim was parroted by Downing Street).Perhaps Saddam did have

such weapons. But what did it have to do with the War Against Terror?

(Musharraf's weapons on the other hand…)Aha, said the White House. Iraq

was a rogue state. Its weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. So, if

America changed the regime, and seized the weapons, then the US army would

eliminate the possibility of terrorists ever getting their hands on them.It

was, by any standards, a bit of a stretch. And so, few people outside of

America (and Downing Street) bought the line that the invasion of Iraq was part

of the War Against Terror.But, now that the invasion is over, this line has

become even more difficult to sell because nobody can find any weapons of mass

destruction at all — let alone ones that were 45 minutes away from being

detonated.There are now, only two possibilities. One is deeply shameful and the

other is deeply worrying.The shameful possibility is this: the Americans never

had any proof of such weapons. All this talk of stopping Saddam from giving the

weapon to terrorists was a cynical lie; a perversion of the so-called ideals of

the War Against Terror to get control of Iraq's oil.The worrying possibility is

this: the Americans were telling the truth. The weapons exist. But they have

been spirited away to a secret location. In that case, with Saddam's army

defeated, the only people who can use them now are terrorists.Let's give Bush

the benefit of the doubt. Assume he was telling the truth. But where does that

leave us?It leaves us with Saddam alive and vengeful. Ditto for bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda active once again. And the weapons available to any maniac who wants

them.Nice work, George.(But what would I know? I'm just a Pakistan-obsessed

Indian.)To from this group, send an email

to:vedic_research_instituteYour use of

Groups is subject to the