UNITED STATES STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO "GROUND ZERO": An
Analysis
by Dr. Subhash Kapila
("United States Reverses Gears in South Asia" (www.saag.org.papers4/paper303.html)
, and "United States Strategic Over-Evaluation of Pakistan" (www.saag.org/papers4/paper313.html)
, by the same author may be read as a prelude to this analysis. The
former amongst other things highlighted disappointing response of USA to
state sponsored terrorism and dangers to USA. The latter paper
uploaded in India on 11. 09. 2001, before 'Ground Zero' highlighted that
"If Pakistan had strategically contributed to US national interests
during these years, United States today would not have been faced with the
scourge of the Talibanised Afghanistan and Islamic Jehad against homeland
USA itself")
"Ground Zero" - A Defining Moment: "Ground
Zero", is the term coined to refer to the horrific and dastardly
devastation wreaked by Islamic fundamentalists on homeland USA at two
symbols of United States global prestige and power, namely the World Trade
Towers complex in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Both
these terrorist attacks were unprecedented both in their conception and
magnitude. The results would have been horrendous, had the other
simultaneous attempts had succeeded against the White House or the Capitol
building. Worldwide condemnation has justifiedly flowed thereafter
and while paying homage to the thousands of innocents lives of different
nationalities lying buried under the mountain of debris in New York, one
cannot but desist from a sombre analysis of this stupendous catastrophe.
"Ground Zero" is a defining moment both for the United States
and the international community, notwithstanding their political hues,
their strategic alliances or their strategic interests. As widely
said after the September 11, 2001 attacks, terrorism does not have
geographical boundaries.
It is a defining moment for the international community, in that it
calls for a concerted global attempt to destroy and neutralise such
fanatical terrorism, without reservations. Countries cannot be by-standers
to terrorism and especially state-sponsored terrorism taking place nor can
they take refuge behind the despicable attitude in terming terrorists as
freedom fighters.
It is a defining moment for the United States of America in more ways
than one, namely: (1) It was a taunting attack on America’s unipolar
predominance and prestige (2) It exposed US vulnerabilities to onslaughts
of catastrophic magnitude by a handful of religious fanatics (3) It
highlights that the United States too will be subjected to Islamic Jehadi
terrorism, of the state sponsored type, as was being wreaked on Israel and
India.
More than the international community, it will be the strategic
responses of the United States to ‘Ground Zero’, that will determine
in the years to come, America’s international standing and prestige and
also the pattern of international support for US policies and
initiatives. At this moment, there is a higher call on the United
States to display vision and statesmen-like leadership and mould its
strategic responses to international terrorism and not succumb to
impulsive acts of immediate retribution. This would require a
correct appreciation of the intended target, the sanctuaries, havens and
base facilities of terrorism, the blue-print for strategic responses and
the cooption of allies and international support.
International Terrorism- The Intended Target: International
terrorism today is exemplified by Islamic Jehadi fundamentalist
terrorism. While other terrorist organisations and activities exists
elsewhere, it is Islamic Jehadi terrorism which is characterised by: (1)
Religious fanaticism (2) Transcends geographical boundaries (3) Exported
to other countries (4)State-sponsored by many Islamic countries (5) Views
itself as fighting a civilisational war (6) Strongly believes in
inflicting losses of catastrophic magnitude as done in the New York and
Washington bombings or tomorrow by weapons of mass destruction.
The United States strategic responses therefore should rest on
liquidation of Islamic Jehadi terrorism and its proponents. US media
frenzy has focussed on Osama bin Laden. He is not the target, he is
only the symbol of Islamic Jehad. He should definitely go along with
the Taliban and other protaganists.
The US State Department in a recent report had conceded that the locii
of Islamic terrorism has shifted from West Asia to South Asia. USA
cannot deny that the chief proponent of Taliban and bin Laden is
Pakistan. Will USA consider targetting Pakistan? The indicators are
otherwise.
Islamic Terrorism- Sanctuaries, Havens and Base Facilities: In the
immediate aftermath of ‘Ground Zero’ , President Bush expressed his
strong resolve not only to destroy the perpetrators of the crime, but also
nations who provided sanctuaries, havens and base facilities. Within
a week this noble statement seems to be fading, when viewed in relation to
Pakistan.
International terrorism today is exemplified by Islamic Jehadi
terrorism. While Islamic Jehadi terrorism may have cells and
organisations in West Asia which USA may intend to target , Pakistan
cannot be ignored. The 1990s, after exit of USA from the Afghanistan
scene, witnessed Pakistan crafting the tool of Afghan Jehad against
Russia, into an "Islamic Jehad" to be used as a political tool
of Pakistan’s foreign policies.
Pakistan, throughout the 1990's and to date has provided havens,
sanctuaries and base facilities for export of Islamic Jehadi terrorists to
Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics, Chechenya in Russia, Xinjiang in
China, Indonesia, Philippines, Balkans and India. Perpetrators of World
Trade Building bombing in 1993 and the killers of CIA staff were found
from Pakistan. Osama bin Laden’s operatives involved in US Embassy
bombings in Africa moved on Pakistani passports and on Pakistani
International Airlines flights. The Taliban exists in Afghanistan only
because of Pak complicity and aid.
United States policies this week instead of seeking Pakistan’s
accountability in respect to being a sanctuary and providing base
facilities for international terrorism (read Islamic fundamentalism)
betrays US intentions of using it as a base for operations against
Afghanistan. Logic of such United State strategic formulations is
strange and impacts on credibility of American motives.
Blue Prints for United States Strategic Responses: Realistically,
the blue-print of US strategic responses will perforce have to have two
components. Firstly, a relatively immediate response to satisfy the
frenzy for revenge in US domestic dynamics. Secondly, a longer term
perspective and strategy to liquidate or neutralise Islamic Jehadi threats
to mainland USA of catastrophic magnitudes as part an international effort
to eliminate such threats globally.
The first component of US strategic response to Islamic Jehadi
terrorism seems to be settling in its focus on Osama bin Laden and Taliban
and their physical destruction by using Pakistan as a base. Sadly,
the criminal is Pakistan; Taliban and Osama bin laden were only the
accomplices. Be as that may, the imponderables in such an American
strategy which may limit success are: (1) Pakistan’s capability to
deliver US strategic objectives is doubtful (see Paper
No 313 dated 11. 09. 2001) (2) Pakistan may itself become engulfed in
a civil war consequent to offering base facilities to USA for military
operations against Afghanistan. (3)Afghanistan is not Panama City or
Grenada. Even without Pakistan’s support there would be sizeable
resistance to US Special Forces actions (4) Who will hold Afghanistan in
post-US military operations period?
The second component of US strategic responses to international Islamic
Jehadi terrorism, presently seems to lack firm contours, or the United
States for strategic reasons does not want to spell out its design at this
stage pending outcome of the first component.
However, any blue-print for the overall strategic responses to counter
this menace cannot realistically, ignore the following factors: (1)
Terrorists have the luxury of time on their side , USA does not (2)
Islamic Jehadi terrorism will continue to enjoy support in the Islamic
World till the United States drastically overhauls its foreign policies
and Cold War mind-sets (3)USA on its own, nor with its traditional allies
can liquidate this menace. The blue-print would require the search
for new allies.
United States Co-option of Allies and International Support: United
States, immediately after ‘Ground Zero’ was flooded with offers of
support from its NATO allies and Article 5 was invoked. Even Russia
and China joined in with expressions of support and condemnation.
However, as the week passed and with subsequent discernment of US aims and
strategy by these countries, the expression of support became modified by
the day and even reservations seem to be emerging.
Notably silent in expression of support for USA or condemnation of the
bombings were the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) and Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan, the only
states which recognised the Taliban and propped it
Pakistan the traditional hand-maiden of the United States and China in
South Asia sensing an opportunity to ingratiate itself with USA and
pre-empt an emerging US-India strategic relationship quickly changed tack
and offered to meet all US demands in relation to operations in
Afghanistan. United States expectations here would be belied if its
strategic perceptions assess that Pakistan would be of service on the
lines that Saudi Arabia was for USA during the Gulf War.
It is time for the United States to look for newer allies in the
Islamic world to prosecute its strategic aims in West Asia and against
Islamic Jehadi terrorism.
Conclusion: The United States as a global leader is expected to set
high standards of international behaviour and strategic vision.
While the world shares its grief and anger, following ‘Ground Zero’,
the United States can ill afford to be selective in its strategic
responsesto terrorism. The international community and countries
like India and Israel long subjected to Islamic Jehadi terrorism and
battling it individually for years expect that United States does not
indulge in selective strategic responses and double standards. While USA
targets the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, USA's long term strategies must
incorporate the targetting of the financiers, havens, sanctuary and
base providers of international terrorism in the Islamic world.
Pakistan, is a prime example.
Bereft of the above strategic vision, the United States is likely to
slide down once again into Cold War mind-sets and strategies i.e. short
term gains through dubious allies and regimes. The United States can
then be perceived to have lost a ‘defining moment’ that ‘Ground
Zero’ has so sadly generated.
(Dr. Subhash Kapila is an International Relations and
Strategic Affairs analyst. He can be reached on e-mail for
discussion at esdecom@vsnl.com)
