PDA

View Full Version : Terrorism And India, December 2008



Chris Knipp
12-18-2008, 12:23 AM
ANOTHER LOOK AT TERRORISM IN THE WAKE OF MOMBAI

Renewed lessons

The events in India in November renewed the lessons of terrorism. If there are legitimate grievances, you seek to remove them. If there are not, there is little you can do. Of course you should try to track down the malefactors by the appropriate means, through local and international police. If you can do that before the event, that's much better. What you should above all seek not to do is to be influenced by the terrorists to change your way of behaving otherwise. That is precisely what they want, to turn around the system, to transform it into an instrument directed at and responsive to them. After the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, Americans declared that "the world will never be the same." Huge mistake. For the terrorists, this was exactly the desired response. A better one for America would have been "they will not change us: the world is the same." The September 11 attacks were horrible. Like all successful terrorist acts, they had a symbolic value, as noted by Baudrillard, far beyond their actual dimensions. And there is no escaping that, or the fact that America is super-vulnerable (an ideal terrorist target) and through globalization indeed the whole world is more and more vulnerable. But Americans were exaggerating; this is a country naive about such matters, where people overreact. In other countries, which are therefore less vulnerable to the symbolic value of a terrorist act, this kind of event is much more common. Americans only thought what happened on that day was unique because it was unusual for them.

The response should, ideally, have been as near as possible muted and invisible. The US has, fortunately, thwarted plenty of terrorist attacks, and done so without fanfare. The more silently a tracking operation is conducted the more effective it will be. The Bush government attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, on the other hand, were and remain ideal recruitment devices for Al Qaeda and other anti-US terrorist organizations. To have done nothing visible would have only frustrated them. While moving on the Afghan strongholds of Osama bin Laden, assuming his leadership was responsible for 9/11, made some sense, it was a difficult operation to carry off and it was botched and abandoned, which had the double effect of both provoking and pleasing the targets. Obviously Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, until the US occupation inspired its development there.

Apart from the deception and self-delusion involved in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the concept of a "war on terror," which has been an excuse for repression and violations of rights worse than the American "red menace" scare of the 1950's, is a misnomer, implying that "terrorism" is the kind of unified group or effort that's amenable to repression via open warfare. The world is full of a diversity of terrorisms, both organized and disorganized, both linked and isolated. Open warfare doesn't work against them. It works for them. All visible, violent efforts only brand us as repressive provocateurs and further their multiple causes. The misunderstanding of this by administration leaders penetrated into their thinking on Iraq and Afghanistan, as if you could drop a bomb and end terrorism, when in fact a bomb is merely an instrument of terrorism--the state kind--and the more visible the attempts to eradicate terrorisms, the more likely the action is to inspire new ones.

Though the more overt efforts to eradicate terrorism are counter-productive, that isn't to say conversely that if you respond properly to terrorism, quietly track down its perpetrators and seek to remove any legitimate provocations, it will therefore cease. It will always be present. Whatever the state of the world there will be angry people plotting to cause mayhem. This is sad, but a sense of proportion is necessary. The great success of terrorism in the world today is indicated by how widespread is the belief that it is the greatest problem. There are many much worse problems and much greater causes of destruction and death. In 2001 over 41,000 Americans died in traffic accidents (an annual figure that has varied relatively little since 1975). On the day after Christmas in the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, over 250,000 people died. If the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were part of the "war" on terrorism (a largely meaningless claim) they caused and continue to cause much greater devastation, misery and death than the terrorism has.

A bad analogy

The novelist Amitav Ghosh made a crucially important point in his NYTimes op-ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/opinion/03ghosh.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=amitav%20ghosh&st=cse&scp=1) "India's 9/11? Not exactly." He emphasized (as have others, including Arundhati Roy) that the analogy drawn in India itself between the three-day siege of Mombai and 9/11 is unfortunate because it suggests India might follow up with a similarly violent and disastrous response, when in fact whatever problems there are between India and Pakistan that the November Mombai attacks crudely referred to, relations of late between the two countries have been moving in a positive direction. "India does not intend to respond with a troop buildup along the border with Pakistan" Ghosh wrote. "A buildup would indeed serve no point at all, since this is not the kind of war that can be fought along a border, by conventional armies. The Indian government would do better to focus on an international effort to eliminate the terrorists' hide-outs and safe houses, some of them deep inside Pakistan." As Ghosh concluded, in the wake of a terrorist attack "Defeat or victory is not determined by the success of the strike itself; it is determined by the response." This is a sentence everyone who studies terrorism ought to memorize. So much writing about terrorism seems clueless, it's obvious basic lessons are still needed. The first thing to remember is that it's not the only thing wrong in the world.

As Ghosh wisely reminds us the response to a terrorist strike ought not to be "precipitate action." Rather it should be "dispassionate but determined resolve." 9/11 is not a model to follow or a suitable analogy. It is above all a cautionary tale. The London bombings and Madrid had sensible responses, and the response to the Mombai siege has a chance of being sensible too. Ghosh suggests that a better analogy for India would be with "11-M" (as he Madrid train bombings of March 11, 2004 are known in Spanish), which can serve as shorthand for a response that "emphasizes vigilance, patience " We must learn from the good examples and avoid the bad ones.

Will the Obama administration be a truly new direction? There are doubts about that. On the one hand, it's looking as though "perpetual war for perpetual peace" (in Gore Vidal's phrase) is slated to continue. It looks that way when when Obama appoints Iraq war hawk Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, keeps on Bush's Pentagon chief Robert Gates, and plans to withdraw from Iraq only to stage a surge in Afghanistn and to increase the size of US armed forces. But there is room to hope that "terrorism" and how to combat it will be viewed more sensibly. Obama is clearly poised to restore human rights and abolish illegal practices introduced in Bush's "war on terror" and stop using that as an excuse for domestic repression, snooping, and "dark side" tactics abroad.

You can't eradicate terrorism but you can promote peace and remove provocations. India can seek to stop Hindus from killing Muslims in Kashmir. The US can get out of Iraq and forget about the impossible goal of nation-building in Afghanistan. The British failed, the Russians failed, and the Taliban can't be controlled. The Afghan war isn't one foreigners can ever win, and the country has little strategic importance. The US should try approaching countries that are not failed states, like Iran, and talking to them. And above all the US should stop supporting Israel's violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinians. It's certainly necessary to protect a country against terrorists and to catch them when you can. But it does more for the world to carry out peaceful measures that remove legitimate grievances. The best kind of "war on terror" is spreading peace.

cinemabon
12-25-2008, 01:25 AM
Interesting article with so many ascertions, Chris.

The feelings between Muslims and Hindi inside the region known as India go back for hundreds of years to the very time of Mohammed and the spread of the Muslim Empire east. The Hindu religion is the oldest on the planet, dating back in time nearly four thousand years before the emergence of Judaism. The fact they resented the influx of another religion began this age old conflict.

When the British left India and the country erupted into civil war, the only thing that kept the peace was the establishment of Pakistan, a place where Indians of Muslim faith could migrate. East Pakistan turned into another country. The western part simply became, Pakistan.

Like so many regions of the world, it is usually religion that sparks the most violent wars between people... Catholic versus Protestant... Jews versus Islam... Hindu versus Muslim... the French hate their neighbors the Germans... many Americans hate Mexico... China versus Russia versus Japan... all neighbors... all in major wars throughout their history. The bickering goes on. Terrorism is simply another word for patriot, as Americans attacked British interests in this country years before 1776. If anyone in the world should sympathize with those trying to overthrow oppressors, it should be Americans. We invented the term and came to epitomize terrorists in the eyes of many 18th Century Europeans.

However, our informed understanding has rarely, if ever been the case. We turned our backs on North Vietnam when they came to us for help against our supposed allies the French, when the French brutalized the natives in that country. We stood by as Britain continued colonial rule well into the 20th Century, despite the fact we knew first hand how cruel they could be (they did, after all, burn the White House!). I suppose this nation learned to be cruel with slavery and indifferent to the slaughter of the Native American, to which we've hardly owned up.

As to Obama, judging a man before he has even taken the oath and performed one act as President can hardly be considered good form. Let's at least give him a few days before we condemn him to the gallows. Then the left or the right can slice him how they choose, and give the public what they really want, another ignoramous like Bush or Sarah Palin... some one to lie to us, spoon feed us on false hopes, so that in the end, we will have nothing but ashes in our greedy open mouths.

Chris Knipp
12-25-2008, 02:20 AM
I'm not sure how your history of Hindu-Muslim conflict bears on the specifics of the Mombai events but I guess you're saying they are local, not masterminded from "outside" as some would like to assert. And I would tend to agree with that. But I was more interested in how Mombai relates to terrorism in general. Yes, by a system of family resemblances individual radical terrorism gradually morphs into state terrorism.

I like several of your statements: especially "Terrorism is simply another word for patriot" and also worthy of comment is " I suppose this nation learned to be cruel with slavery and indifferent to the slaughter of the Native American, to which we've hardly owned up." I suppose you can say a nation "learns to be cruel." Your remarks connect for me with the statement of Bernhard Schlink (the author of The Reader, the book on which the film is based) that once you go over the line as individual Germans under the Nazis did, from then on it's not only easy (to kill, to torture, to send people off to be exterminated); it's very difficult if not impossible to turn back.

You appear to accuse me of bad form in expressing great skepticism about the coming Obama administration. I am willing to take that risk. In writing political commentary one can't always be polite. Obama is providing ample material for speculation by his many appointments of waht his administration will be like. When he chooses an Iraq hawk to be Secretary of State and another to head the Pentagon he can say he's in charge, not them. But if he is in charge, why is so much appeasement of the right necessary? Anyway, I am not "judging the man" still less "condemning him to the gallows."Obviously Obama will be a totally different president from Buth II. He's a democrat. He is also African-American. He is bright, articulate, reflective, and self-aware. He also has an urban sensibility and that background in Constitutional Law and community organizing and that international youth, the years in Indonesia, the middle name Hussein. Those are all elements that could point him in new directions. Anyway no two presidents are alike. But I am not judging him as a man. I am commenting on what his administration may be like judging from his appointments. I am merely expressing doubts about how different his administration will be from the direction US presidents have followed in recent decades. That is all.

Johann
12-29-2008, 10:59 AM
I think any rational, thinking person would come to the conclusion that we will always have terrorism, we will always have fear, and we will always have violence and unrest on this planet.

Look at Gaza today. It just rips at your heart.

These are human beings, man.
That's what's lost on all of these people: this is our own species causing our own demises.
We are not satisfied with what we have- we must have more holdings, more power, more more more. And woe to the entity that does not give it to us. It's so fucking revolting to me.

I like to believe in heaven, but my logic tells me that God gave it to us here on Earth. I mean, heaven to me is a plate of lasagna with garlic bread, a bottle of Greg Norman's Cab Merlot, a few blunts of White Widow and a Kubrick film. (and maybe a hot lovemaking session afterwards).
These things are all available to me here on earth.
What the fuck does heaven have that trumps that?
It's all here, baby!

The fact that terrorism is rampant on this planet is proof that we as a species do not know what we have here. We do not appreciate what this planet offers. We do not see the forest for the trees, for whatever disturbing psychological or political reason.

The planet needs a Mega-Doctor. The idiom "can't we all just get along" is destroyed by greed, religion and political manifestos.
(Among other things).
I know it's not really that simple, but Holy Mandingo does the whole situation unnerve me.
I don't like living on such an unpredictable plane with such paranoid people.
Humans complicate everything and there is no fucking reason for it.
Logic is extinct.
I believe that we're all contemptible, just like Nietzsche said.
We are all inching toward being the OVERMAN: the one who lives for a little pleasure for day, a little pleasure for night...

Chris Knipp
12-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Look at Gaza today. It just rips at your heart.

These are human beings, man. Maybe, though sometimes you wonder. Who are the humans? Are the Israeli rulers humans? But if so, humans also have the ability to make Israel cease carrying out illegal collective punishment for Hamas rockets, and bring the necessary pressure to bear on Israel and the Palestinians to sit down and talk. And the humans I'm talking about in this case are the US government.

The Hamas rockets that have killed some people and the bombs from Israel that have retaliated by killing 300 and seriously injuring 1400, not to mention the further currently irreparable damage to the Gaza infrastructure, could be seen as terrorism in a vague sense, but it's more a David and Goliath war in which Goliath inevitably triumphs. Neither side's actions falls into the category of terrorism the "war on terrorism" is theoretically focused on, which is the kind we saw in Mombai. That I was talking about.

Why? Because here, the US has the power to influence Israel in a decisive way to create a new national situation in which it is no longer running Bautustans and a large open-air jail and some kind of reconciliation begins as in Soth Africa. In contrast, the US doesn't have the power to influence international terrorism in any kind of strategic and diplomatic fashion.

Chris Knipp
12-29-2008, 03:03 PM
Look at Gaza today. It just rips at your heart.

These are human beings, man. Maybe, though sometimes you wonder. Who are the humans? Are the Israeli rulers humans? But if so, humans also have the ability to make Israel cease carrying out illegal collective punishment for Hamas rockets, and bring the necessary pressure to bear on Israel and the Palestinians to sit down and talk. And the humans I'm talking about in this case are the US government.

The Hamas rockets that have killed some people and the bombs from Israel that have retaliated by killing 300 and seriously injuring 1400, not to mention the further currently irreparable damage to the Gaza infrastructure, could be seen as terrorism in a vague sense, but it's more a David and Goliath war in which Goliath inevitably triumphs. Neither side's actions falls into the category of terrorism the "war on terrorism" is theoretically focused on, which is the kind we saw in Mombai. That I was talking about.

Why? Because here, the US has the power to influence Israel in a decisive way to create a new national situation in which it is no longer running Bantustans and a large open-air jail and some kind of reconciliation begins as in South Africa. In contrast, the US doesn't have the power to influence international terrorism in any kind of strategic and diplomatic fashion.

Johann
12-30-2008, 10:58 AM
Yeah, where is Bush?
Has he (as THE DECIDER), decided to stop being President anymore? What the f*@?

He's just sitting back, just like he did for his own citizens in peril in New Orleans. I shouldn't be surprised.
He's impotent, Condi Rice isn't capable of getting anything done (HAS SHE EVER BEEN?!) and no one in the U.S. government seems to give a shit.

Dysfunction and ignorance. Yee hah.

Chris Knipp
12-30-2008, 11:16 AM
W has never done anything to help in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

cinemabon
12-30-2008, 09:16 PM
When it comes to terrorism in the Middle East, no country is without sin. At one point in time, they all sponsored terrorism. However, today's situation is very different. Hamas takes their orders directly from Iran. They have broken away from every major Arab government in the area, hence the lack of support from governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Saudia Arabia. They would rather the Israeli's eliminate this thorn in everyone's side.

Meanwhile, innocent people are injured. Unfortunately, Hamas will survive this onslaught and will arise in another six months to open fresh wounds when Iran feels the price of oil dropping.

If Africa represents the armpit of humanity, the Middle East is its butt hole!

Chris Knipp
12-31-2008, 03:48 AM
What you say is true, except that the Arab countries you mention, mostly supported by the USA, wouldn't do anything anyway. The US has driven Hamas closer to Iran, and Israel's intransigence fostered Hamas' surge to power among the Palestinians.I'm afraid I don't see what's to be gained by your nasty epithets hurled at Africa and the Mideast.