After Mumbai Attacks: Is There Any Win-Win Option?
First shocked, then numbed, then seething with anger... that is the very understandable state of public opinion in India, after the dastardly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in late November, 2008.
Most analysts point to the miserable set of options India has at this stage. With most options, India is likely to lose (even if it achieves some short run gains), the region is likely to lose, the peace-loving world is likely to lose... and the terrorists win.
All these options are similar to the options in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where there is almost no option where peace-loving Israelis and peace-loving Palestinians both win.... India would make a horrible mistake if it goes down such an Israel-Palestine style dead-end and endless conflict path, as many in India are demanding right now.
But this no-win option is so only if the problem is framed as an India problem, or an India-Pakistan problem, or a regional problem.
The picture changes as soon as the problem is reframed as a global problem: a highly localized source of terror, in the Pakistan-Afghan border region and also in other locations inside Pakistan, and widely dispersed global targets and victims of terror.
This reframing must be done... and fast... and by the Obama team. Let us hope Condoleeza Rice succeeds in her final diplomatic move, but the real reframing has to be done by the incoming team, and not the discredited departing team.
Obama, America, the West need to realize that this Mumbai situation is very different than London or Madrid or Bali bombings. The sources of terror in those cases were inside those countries, even if inspired by terror sources in the Afghan-Pakistan region. In case of Mumbai, the terror source is foreign and identifiable... very similar to 9/11.
In the 9/11 case, America acted violently against the enemy, with generally great support from all global quarters... but then America botched the Afghan war, mainly by creating the hugely mistaken war in Iraq. If India reacts in any manner similar to America's, it is likely to create as big a mess, if not a bigger one.
Things change, however, if USA leads and involves India, Europe, Russia, China, Australia, the Gulf states that also face threats of terror, and many others. This would not be a sham "coalition of the willing" against a false enemy -- it would be a global compact against a very real but very shadowy enemy who has inflicted harm very widely and cruelly.
Such a global compact can bring all options into play -- diplomacy, media, popular appeals, and as a last resort a range of coercive force-using options. Such a global compact can rid the world of the scourge of terrorism, as Obama promises and hopes to do.
But the need to act is fast, and now... yes, the Obama team does not get in the field till January 21, 2009, but it needs to signal loudly and clearly -- especially to a wounded and very angry India -- that the global compact to fight terror will be created from the day the new team takes office.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
In some ways it is even a wider conflict than between the Arab states and Israel. The Arab states have been backed at various times by the former USSR, Saudi Arabia and Iran, all totalitarian dictatorships. This has included not only providing arms and advise to organized political entities, but to terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas. And even though Israel is enjoying less support now than at various times in the past, her backers are primarily the U.S. and Western Europe - nations which, although they have fault, are infinitely better places to live than their counterparts.