Author: Vir Sanghvi
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: June 15, 2003
URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_281069,00300001.htm
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.)
