- Hindutva News Analysis -
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Langley, with inputs from correspondents at London and New York:
One thread that is emerging in the pattern of the ongoing American Strike on Terror is that of recognizing and punishing the state sponsorship of terrorism. This trend is becoming increasingly clearer with every passing week. What is gradually emerging in American policy is the tendency to recognize the hand of hostile governments in terrorist acts and responding accordingly.
History of Terrorism from Black September in 1972 to Black Tuesday (11th September 2001).
Contrast the difference in response to Black September and Black Tuesday (11th September). After Black September, the Israeli Mossad, targeted a terrorist organisation - the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation), without targeting any government that could have been sponsoring the PLO. But the American strike on Afghanistan represents a shift beyond this policy and an increase of its scope, from targeting individual terrorist organisations, to targeting governments and countries targeting terrorism.
The unstated issue that is in fact, often being vociferously denied is that; what is beginning to be targeted is the terrorist outlook itself - by whatever name you may decide to call that outlook of based on a violent monotheistic theology. And the diffidently stated recognition that this terrorist outlook is not compatible with Western civilization and in fact with any other form of decent human civilization.
What is Black September?
If it has escaped our memory Black September was an organization of Palestinian terrorists which can be called the pioneer of modern day terrorism. On 28 November 1971, Black September was to leave an indelible mark on the history of political terror and the modern Middle East committed its first murder. Four armed Palestinians, operating in broad daylight and without the benefit of masks, shot dead the Jordanian Prime Minister, Wash Tel, as he returned to Cairo’s Sheraton Hotel from an Arab League meeting. (Much in the way Rehavam Zeevi, Israel's Tourism Minister was assassinated on 17th October 2001). The assassination itself was followed by a gruesome ritual as one of the killers knelt down, lapped up and drank some of Tel’s flowing blood and shouted several times that he (the killer) and his accomplices belonged to Black September. It was then that the world first heard the name "Black September".
The second and more dramatic event that brought Black September on the global scene occurred on 5 September 1972, when during the Olympic Games, at Munich the Black September killed two Israeli athletes. The Black September terrorists were hooded when they raided the Olympic grounds and took another eleven Israeli sportsmen as hostages. Later, in a twenty-three-hour drama, a German attempt to lure the kidnappers failed and in the ensuing shoot-out nine more Israeli athletes, five of the eight gunmen and a German policeman perished. Pictures of the hooded gunmen were flashed all over the world; they became the masked face of Palestinian resistance, the face of terror.
Today we have come a long way since 1972. Terrorism evolved from individual groups like Black September; to single state sponsored ones like the Syrian sponsored Hamas, Iranian sponsored Hizbollah, Pakistan sponsored Harkar-ul-Ansar, Jaish-e-Mohammed; and then on to the Multi-nationally sponsored Al Qaida financed by the multi-nationally supported (Pan-Islamic) Rabita trust.
The changed nature of terrorism calls for a changed approach to tackling it
With the American assault on Afghanistan, the response to terrorism has also evolved to keep pace with the nature and sponsorships of terrorism - but it still has to cross the Rubicon. This Rubicon has been set by the events of the 11th of September and the developing threat of bio-terrorism thereafter.
- First, the terrorist movements have graduated from being single state sponsorship to multiple state (Pan-Islamic) sponsorships.
- Second, terrorist organisations like the Al Qaida operate seamlessly across national frontiers.
- Third, terrorism today uses non-conventional techniques of warfare like bio-terrorism, suicidal mass homicide and nihilism.
So the logical response to terrorism today would have to first hit out at the multiple states sponsoring terrorism.
Second this response has to come from a Pan anti-terrorist alliance. While US initiative is laudable, the effort has to operationally involve states opposed to terrorism across the globe. This could involve the simultaneous start of Russian anti-terrorist military operations in Chechnya, Chinese anti-terrorist military operations in Xinjiang, Israeli anti-terrorist military operations in West Bank Gaza, Philippine anti-terrorist military operations in Mindanao, Indian anti-terrorist military operations in Kashmir. This along with the civil authorities (like the newly created Homeland Security Authority under Tom Ridge) cracking down on terrorist cells inside countries participating in the anti-terrorist offensive.
Third the multi-national anti-terrorist response has to include the use of Unorthodox technological warfare along with conventional military warfare on multiple fronts. Both these anti-terrorist operations would have to take place simultaneously or in sequence at multiple geographic location in order to counter the seamlessness of the terrorist movement. For instance, bio-terrorism has to met with ICBMs carrying payloads of anthrax crashing into the states guilty of sponsoring bio-terrorism.
Innocents being killed in war is no argument for stoppage of any military operation, as this has been the dark side of warfare since the beginning of warfare in human history! And most important, we did not begin this dirty campaign of mass killing on the 11th of September. The Islamic terrorists did it. We are only defending ourselves reactively and shall carry on doing so henceforth; but in a pro-active manner.
While minimizing civilian casualties is a laudable objective, aiming to avoid a military action, because it involves civilian casualties is senseless in any wartime situation as in one that exists today. The challenge today while expanding the "strike on terror" is to "define the enemy."
The Enemy Defined for the Strike on Terror
In this context, defining the shadowy enemy; which is the most difficult task, has to be completed first. Has this job been done today? The following excerpts give us an indicator to this effect.
Syria and Terrorism
In an interview to Al Jazeera, President George W. Bush's national security adviser Condolezza Rice said the US has told Syria it cannot oppose Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network and continue to support other terrorist groups if it wants to be a part of the US-led war against terrorism.
"With Syria, we've been very clear that we do not believe that Syria can be against al-Qaida, but in favor of other terrorist groups"; Rice told the al Jazeera satellite channel in an interview late Monday.
So far the Bush administration has avoided marking terrorist groups Syria sponsors like Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah a part of its wider war on terrorism.
Rice said she did not think it was right to; "draw distinctions between types of terrorism. We just don't think that's the right thing to do. You can't say there are good terrorists and there are bad terrorists."; she added.
She said US discussions with Syria at the moment were limited but in talks so far US officials have suggested to Syria: "get out of the business of sponsoring terrorism."
There are many other fine points that implicate the involvement of the Governments of Iran, Syria (and Pakistan) in Al Qaida's activities.
Now once the enemy has been defined and an effort has been made (in this report) to describe the logistics of the multi-national unorthodox response to terrorism, the job is for the decision makers at the White House, Whitehall, Kremlin, Knesset, South Block, Diet, etc., to get the act together and get going.
Read other pages bringing you an Analysis of the Latest Global News at hindutva.com
On behalf of the http://www.hindutva.com team
__________________________________
(This Hindutva Site is managed by a Virtual Team of Webmasters across the globe. The articles included at this site do not necessarily represent the views of the Webmasters.)
________________________________________
Send your feedback to:
- The Hindutva Team
From the Hindu Mahasabha
______________________________________________
We invite you to join the Hindutva Discussion eGroup.
| _ _ _ |
You may view what others have said about this webpage
_____________________________________________________________ We invite you to use our Message Board to start a discussion on any relevant topic ___________________________________________________________
|
_________________________________________________
We invite you to participate in an online chat in our Hindu History Chatroom.
___________________________________________________
_________________________________
______________________________________________