Analysis

“India’s 9/11”

--New Direction Needed In The Region

 By **LT. COL. SAMSUDEEN SARR, (Rtd.)

What a sad week in Mumbai, India with such a devastating attack from suicidal gunmen on the rampage again; I don‘t know whether you noticed it, but it was barely a day after I finished registering my concern in the last paper over the potentiality of future crisis in that nation. My focal concern was however about the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots in India. The identity and reasons of the attackers are yet to be fully established but already, speculators are blaming Islamic militants for the carnage. Radicals have attacked India before but one of this magnitude and brutality has never been experienced. Some Indians are therefore, calling it their 9/11 attack with similar emotional reactions from the population demanding swift response in the same way Americans did in 2001.

I was in New York that day and witnessed how the incident fired up every American and even foreigners into a frenzy of anger and urge for retaliation. In fact, President Bush before 9/11 was not the typical leader appreciated in New York because of the strong democratic party opposition base in the city that was convinced that he stole the elections from former vice President Al Gore. But when Bush arrived at Ground Zero that same week and stood on the smoking rubbles of the fallen towers and assured the firefighters that the perpetrators of the attack were going to be dealt with in kind, the crowd, in unison, applauded in total support of everything that meant war.  Bin Laden in Afghanistan was already the main suspect from the hasty investigation conducted within that short period.  What followed next from the attack on Afghanistan to Iraq and how it impacted the country ever since is common knowledge.  Whether America took the right course of action or not after 9/11 is now a subject of serious debate and or reflection in the world especially, among Americans.

This week, India had its turn of terror in a different style of execution but identical brutality. The attackers are said to be only 10 in number, definitely on a suicide mission, well trained and seemed to have executed their operation with deadly efficiency. Who they are or what the purpose of their mission is, might take time to determine.  But many Indians are already pointing their fingers to Pakistan in the same way Americans did to Afghanistan in those early days after 9/11. If they are not careful therefore, they will prematurely start an anti-terrorism campaign that will change their national priorities from a development-oriented economy to one of massive defense expenditure in an indefinite un-winnable war.

 That will indeed translate into military expenditure consuming the lion share of their gross national budget that will eventually flush another steady growing economy down the tube. It could be another mission accomplished by the architects of the operation while another attack at a different place in a new style is planned for execution. And the way I see these operations, I hope the world will soon come to realize that no place is safe because of the unpredictability of the targets and how the operations differ from place to place.

In America, it was 19 suicidal men using planes to attack soft targets and killing close to 4000 people. After seven years of an aggressive response to that sad event, taking stock of the resultant leaves us with little to celebrate about the quick response taken. Thousands and thousands or even a million people or more have since been killed, many more have been left with debilitating injuries never to heal again and not to mention those uncountable number of people rendered homeless with nothing to live for except hope. I am talking about Americans, Afghans and Iraqis with Saddam Hussein among the statistics. But given our wired disposition; that animalistic tendency of do-me- and- I -do- you habit, we continue to think that it is the only right thing to do regardless of how irrational the outcome may cost.

Now the plausible question is, how or whether America could have reacted differently?  And if the answer is yes, why shouldn’t India handle theirs differently?

Let’s go a little back in time and look at how a terror attack was once handled differently but in the most effective way without resorting to the usual spontaneous jump to war action. When Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down in a bomb attack over Lockerbie, Southern Scotland in December 1988 with 270 people killed, it took a short time to determine that the attack was masterminded from Libya at a time when Colonel Momarr Ghaddafi was figuratively Mullah Omar and Bin Laden in one. He was considered the leader of a country that sponsored terrorism at state level and a high profile terrorist as well.  War could have been the choice of action and be perfectly seen necessary.  Instead, the world adopted a peaceful but very effective approach by imposing an enduring sanction on Libya that finally yielded the most realistic outcome. The two Libyans identified for carrying out the bombing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed and Lamin Khalifah Fhimal were eventually handed over for trial. One was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison and the other not found guilty and released. That was followed by Libya compensating the families of the 270 killed with $2.7 billion, $10million to each family. Ghaddafi later changed all his undesirable habits, dismantled his weapons-development programs and is now an aging friend of his previous enemies.

Compare that to the massive expenditure by the USA in the wars waged since 9/11 to capture and kill Bin Laden or stamp out terrorism from the face of the earth and tell me apart from hanging Saddam Hussein how well have we done so far?

Was it not possible to adopt the Lockerbie strategy after the 9/11 attacks in the USA with the possibility of better results than we have now? I think it was more possible because of the world’s sympathy on the victims who were members of many nations, races, religions, all gender and age groups. With the same tough approach taken by the world towards Libya, I believe Afghanistan could have been subjected to measures even tougher until Bin Laden and perhaps Al-Zawaheri were handed over for trial. The money used to start the wars and sustain them could have gone a long way in satisfactorily compensating the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11. Rescue parties later diagnosed with pollution-related diseases from ground zero could have also benefited from an adequate medical service, which has been in short supplies. It is rather disheartening to see that even the re-building of ground zero where the towers once stood in lower Manhattan is still stalled by insufficient funds.  Anyway, as a result of the rash decision taken immediately leading to the first and second war, Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, cynics from everywhere including Americans later started doubting the government’s explanation over the entire 9/11 incident. Some are even convinced with preposterous conspiracy theories that the Bush government just to start wars for more business for the wealthy staged the attack. Oil business in particular was and is still a major suspect in the minds of the “disbelievers”.  Some skeptics view even the capture of Bin Laden as something the government deliberately avoids just continuing the war. That’s what happens when wars go badly; and they usually do.

Another reasonable option other than war that one could reflect on was the North Korean nuclear weapon development program. That was one defiant country that looked more dangerous than Iraq and Iran combined. If the justification to invade a country had to be based on who was stockpiling dangerous weapons of mass destruction, Kim IL Jung of North Korea, by far should have been the primary target.

But I guess it was also easy to realize that communist Korea was no Iraq and any country within that region wouldn’t support invading it. A North Korean war opened as a third front in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan was unsustainable by an already overstretched US military, unless the mission was to be a preemptive nuclear strike to wipe out the country from the face of the earth. The fallout from a nuclear blast in the region would mean overwhelming death and destruction way beyond the shores of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, war with Korea was impractical after every consideration was weighed in. 

Well, commonsense, the only option left prevailed in September 2005 compelling the USA to share the responsibility of the Korean threat with the immediate countries within the region. China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea the USA and even Russia took up the task together, effectively forcing comrade Kim IL Jung to start listening and cooperating in a way America couldn’t have done alone. Thank God the loony is now reported to have suffered a stroke and might never fully recover again as the nuisance he used to be. 

Those were two reasonable and peaceful approaches to what could have been more regrettable wars- the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing by Libyan terrorists and North Korea’s nuclear weapon threat; in both cases, actions taken proved that war is not the best or only option under circumstances hitherto used to justify them. But instead of giving them the merit these cases deserve and remembering them in times of critical crisis leading to imminent war, we pretend or forget about them. It is however my belief that both cases could have been used as blueprints in modern conflict resolution for a safer world.  

Let’s then go back to the Indian situation and see how best they could use the peaceful approach alluded to above to tackle the problem in hand. While the attack was going on, conclusions were already drawn over who was responsible. Pakistan on the other hand has been reacting with equal shock, declaring their willingness to cooperate with the Indians for a comprehensive investigation. Pakistan’s gesture to me is formidable. They have always been archenemies to the Indians and are aware of the magnitude of the danger this attack poses to the fragile peace and stability between them.

So at government level they might fully recognize that the crisis needs to be contained before it escalates out of hand but public pressure from ordinary citizens who for centuries have harbored serious grudges against each other-Indians against Pakistanis-is what might turn out to be the danger. Pakistan has gotten its fair share of such attacks from radicals with the recent one in December 2007 that killed Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto together with several of her supporters. Afghanistan lives through the terror on regular basis. These are the three most important neighboring countries within this volatile region whose best choice should be to cast aside their individual political differences and join hands to resolve or contain the problem. It is encouraging to see that the Indian masses, Hindus in particular, have not resorted to mob justice by attacking ordinary Indian Muslims as they used to do under similar circumstances in the past. That might be because of two probabilities: either the Indians have a better understanding of the dangerous tactics employed by terrorists to cause trouble in trouble-free places like Mumbai or they might just be waiting for the right opportunity to go into the rampage.

I have heard the principal FBI agent dispatched to India to help in the initial investigation say that it could take up to six months before all questions about the attack can be answered. That means a very responsible call for patience on the side of India before any hasty decision or action is taken.

Anyway in the mean time what the Obama national security team could initiate after its formation this week is to try and adapt the Bush resolution on North Korea in 2005 to what I will call the “Afghan-Indian-Pakistani Conflict Resolution Alliance.” In the same way China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, USA and Russia came together and did it for the safety of their region; these three countries with the full support of the UN must be coaxed into such alliance for peace and stability in their region as well. If limiting it to a specific number of nations will be more effective than the whole UN being involved then I believe Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt should be included. Bin Laden coming from Saudi Arabia and Al-Zawaheri from Egypt might require those two countries to actively get involved in the region.  Arab fighters migrating from Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular to the tribal mountains of the region seem to be the most troublesome and must be put into serious consideration for possible rehab.

Fundamentally, one thing is certain, India alone cannot solve this problem neither can Afghanistan nor Pakistan go it alone.

The participation of the Russians and Chinese is crucial because of their ability to make or break anything America might want to undertake outside our borders. China may not deliberately want to sabotage American’s foreign policy whether it is geared towards war or peace knowing that the fundamentals of their economy depend heavily on the US consumer market. Therefore, undermining it could subsequently boomerang to hurt them.  They have been huge lenders of money to the Americans in addition to purchasing heavy shares of US stocks and bonds. But they are in big business of weapons production and distribution. And if the money is available, like all weapons dealers they don’t care who buys or uses them.  The weapon business being one of the most lucrative in the world is kept alive by one principle: produce, produce, produce and sell, sell, sell. One can therefore imagine how weapons production factory CEOs are jolted into excitement when informed about the outbreak of a war that will need tons of their merchandise. Whether it’s a war where babies are butchered in the hands of their mothers like we now have in the Congo or whether they are explosives to be strapped around a pregnant woman forced to blow herself at a market place like we often see in Middle Eastern countries, the CEO doesn’t care. He needs a fatter bank account so the rest is irrelevant. And guess what? The business is perfectly legal and its stock values in the world market have to be kept healthiest. Is that not as terrible as cocaine or heroine distribution in the streets that kill young vulnerable consumers?

My argument is however simple. The Chinese may decide to sell their weapons to a first nation not knowing that the goods will be on delivery transferred to a second, third and even fourth party whose only obsession is to kill Americans wherever they are found and vulnerable.

Now let me talk about Russia’s importance in the alliance highlighted above.  Last Saturday night, I took some time to watch the movie Charlie Wilson’s War all over again. For those who don’t know about the movie, it is a factual story about America’s support of the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. In a nutshell, it shows how the Russians were wining by mainly using their air power until the Americans started training and arming the Mujahideen with the lethal stinger-heat-seeking missiles that virtually obliterated every squadron of fighter aircraft and attack helicopter venturing in Afghan airspace. I am not saying that the Russians will not forgive and forget the sabotage and humiliating defeat they suffered in that theater of operation because of the Americans but if they did, I am afraid such movies reminding them of it will look like adding insult to injury. That‘s why I think America needs the full cooperation of Russia to commit more troops to Afghanistan. Their economy also relies heavily on weapon manufacturing with the capability of producing deadlier ones than those provided by the Iranians to Iraqi insurgents.   By having the signature of the Chinese and Russians in the document of alliance, weapon supply lines and bank transactions to purchase them could be monitored and even controlled. All modern weapons produced from factories around the world have unique characteristics such as serial numbers and certificate of production making it possible to always trace their origin. Hence if America, Russia and China with the blessing of the UN were able to agree on curbing weapon proliferation, then I bet, the world will soon breathe an air of relief from rampant armed terror.

A great job has been done in airplane security since 9/11, now is the time to look into arms control. The same priority being given to nuclear weapons control has to be emphatically applied to small arms production and distribution. 

A great job has been done in airplane security since 9/11, now is the time to look into arms control. The same priority being given to nuclear weapons control has to be emphatically applied to small arms production and distribution. 

A great job has been done in airplane security since 9/11, now is the time to look into arms control. The same priority being given to nuclear weapons control has to be emphatically applied to small arms production and distribution. 

That’s why I think the Obama national security team should explore a new approach towards Afghanistan that in the wake of the Mumbai terror attack should include the regional powers namely the USA, Russia, China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Any other approach taken exclusively by the USA could be a big mistake.** Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr is a US trained military officer and former Commander of  The Gambia National Army. He is author of  Meet Me In Conakry (A Novel) and  Coup D'etat By The Gambia National Army.