Terrorism and War

I must confess that my reaction to the Mumbai attacks of last week was very different from mine to the September 11^th attacks. My reaction this time was more like the reaction of my American friends at that time. At that time I thought: "We see bombs go off in India all the time. We had the 1993 Bombay Blasts – we kind of take it in our stride (sadly)." This time, though, the fact that these attacks were so different from what we are used to, shocked me, made me angry, and feel helpless. Now I understand how Americans felt on September 11^th – it was not the scale of the attack, but the fact that something so different happened on American soil for the first time. Bombs have always gone off everywhere in the world – perhaps with a much smaller frequency in the US – but events like 9/11 and 26/11 indicate a turning point in the history of terrorism. The question is – what can we do to nip these changes in the bud. The US has been successful in preventing a recurrence. Will India be successful?

Thinking of which, what is the right approach to dealing with terrorism? More specifically, at what stage in the chain of terrorism does a state get involved? Here are some "entry points"

Peaceful means

• Root cause: Assuming we know the root cause of the terrorists' unhappiness – be it allowing Kashmir to secede, or pulling US troops out of Iraq, or whatever – is just "giving them what they want" or "negotiating with them" sufficient? The peace-lovers certainly would like to start at the "root cause" level.
  
• Reparations: This is along the same lines – but some of the "root cause" lies in the past – a group of people may be so upset over events of the past that they have taken up arms against the innocent. Can we set things right? Can we rebuild the Babri Masjid?
  
• Engage, educate, uplift: Get involved in the lives of people in areas from where terrorism is thought to arise, spread education, self-confidence, etc.
  

Defensive means

 

• After the attack: Track them down now that we have proof they did something bad
  
• During the attack: Get at them once they've started attacking
  
• At our doorsteps: Assume they'll attack, and just protect our important landmarks/facilities
  
• Inside our territory: Assume they're already here, and hunt them down before they even try to attack
  
• At our borders: Prevent them from entering our borders
  
• On their turf: Spy on their turf, find out what they're trying to do, and attack them to defend from specific planned attacks
  

Offensive means

• Go attack known terrorists anywhere in the world
  
• Go attack areas which may be known to breed terrorists
  
• Go attack terrorist training camps
  
• Go to war with the "host country"
  

 

If we look at the above list of bullets as a continuum going from one extreme to the other, The Bush Doctorine clearly focuses on bullets closer to the bottom of the list. But then the big question is this – is going to war with the host country really worth it?

Is it really a good idea to go to war with Pakistan?

Notwithstanding the threat of a nuclear showdown, it never makes sense for India to go to war with Pakistan. Let us say there were no nuclear weapons involved here. What would be our goal in going to war with Pakistan? Signing a new peace agreement? Taking over and ruling that country? Controlling their military forces? Controlling their civilian government? Beating their civilian government down to submission? Gaining the ability to freely roam that country to then weed out those that would plan terrorist attacks against India?

None of these are worth our while. Some may argue that the last reason (being able to enter Pakistan and clean up all terrorist camps), is the best reason. I don't think it is realistic.

Think about this – The US, once it decided that elements in Iraq posed a threat to US security, decided to enter that country and wipe it clean. They haven't succeeded in cleaning up terrorists from that country. It is possible that they will, in the future. But a rich and technologically advanced country as the US has been there for almost 6 years without being able to "clean up terrorism." Can India, with the risk of geographical proximity to Pakistan, realistically, (after defeating them in a war) go on to cleanse terrorism in a reasonable time frame? No way.

My point is that India should avoid a war with Pakistan not because I love peace, or not because I am afraid of nuclear warfare, but simply because it is not worth our while even if we were to win it.

So where exactly should we fight the War on Terror?

Tightening borders, continuously gathering and processing intelligence, hunting down terrorists that have arrived/grown within India, are the necessary and most rational means. The issue is – we may want to do this – and we are certainly spending enough money on defense to be able to do this – but we do not have the leadership, discipline, and political wil to actually make it happen. We are bound by our own devices of corruption, over-deliberation, red tape, and inefficiency – from doing what we all believe and agree is right.