Deconstructing The War On Terror

Five days after the September 11 attack, the then US President, George W. Bush promised to rid the world of "evil doers". Before two weeks had passed, he said, "our war begins with al-Qaeda but it doesn't end there". Instead, "it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". Those words marked the beginning of the 9/11 wars, which saw the United States fighting a protracted battle against "evil" regimes and extremist groups in the Muslim world. Jason Burke, The Guardian's foreign correspondent, writes in his latest book, The 9/11 Wars, that all the major figures in the Bush administration had repeatedly stressed against going for a war against terror on a global scale. They warned that "this new conflict would last a long time". It did, even outliving Bush's presidency. - See more at: http://www.businessworld.in/news/books/reviews/deconstructing-the-war-on-terror/389464/page-1.html#sthash.Wz2xPMT3.dpuf 

A Decade of Wars, Crises and Rises

In international politics, decades are important tools that help us understand and interpret history better. The major developments in the past often come to our mind with tags of decades – the economic crisis of 1920’s, the wars of 1930’s, the reconstruction of 1950’s, the Lost Decade, and so on. Now, standing at the starting point of a new decade, how do we analyse the bygone one (2000-10)? According to British historian Andrew Roberts, the first ten years of the new century, or the Noughties, were full of troubles. It witnessed two major wars, one of the gravest financial crises in decades, a number of natural disasters including Tsunami, and changes in global power dynamics. At the beginning of the century, not many might have forecast such a troublesome first decade.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-decade-of-wars-crises-and-rises/16868

Barbarism of our times

On April 19 this year, the 62nd Independence Day of Israel, US President Barack Obama reiterated his country’s “commitment” to protecting Israeli’s security. The US, Obama said in a White House statement, shared an “unbreakable bond” with Tel Aviv and was confident that the ties “will only be strengthened into the future”. This Bush-style statement came from a President who had promised a “new beginning” for the Muslims amid reports that Israel’s blockade of Gaza had caused a humanitarian catastrophe. Barely one-and-a-half months later, Israel stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza strip, killing at least nine people. President Obama called the incident “tragic”, but stopped there.

Even while expressing concern over the “loss of lives” in Israeli raid on May 31 of the aid ships in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, the President was cautious to avoid any harsh words against Israel. No direct criticism, no moral outrage!

What Obama said was that such acts (read killing of those who want to help the Gazans) would not serve the long term security interests of Israel. He further said Israel has “legitimate security concerns” as it’s living under the “threat” of missiles from Gaza (fired by Hamas). In the UN Security Council, the US blocked an anti-Israel resolution and helped the passage of another that doesn’t even name Israel, but just condemns the “acts that led to the nine deaths”. Going a step further, Vice President Joe Biden defended Israeli Premier Binyamin Netanyahu, who supported outright the military onslaught against the aid workers. Israel has “absolute right” to defend its security interests, Biden said on June 2. “It's legitimate for Israel to say, ‘I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight – 3,000 rockets on my people,’” he added.

If the US can’t condemn Israel now, then when will it do? One might ask after seeing these direct and indirect efforts the Obama administration has taken in defence of Israel. Most of the world leaders came strongly against Israel’s “act of war” against the six-ship flotilla – three cargo and three passenger ships. The ships, sent by the Free Gaza Movement, an international coalition of activist groups, carried tonnes of cement and other aid materials for the blockade-hit Gaza.

The blockade imposed by Israel doesn’t allow any ships to reach the Gaza coast. Israeli troops have also sealed all entry points of the Gaza, a small strip of land that houses around 1.5 million people. Israeli forces even restrict the movement of people to and from Gaza. Israel’s point is that the Hamas is posing a serious threat to Israeli’s as the Islamic resistance movement fires rockets and short range missiles into the Israeli territory. The international community (read the US) failed miserably to persuade Israel to lift the blockade. Instead, the top administration officials of Obama repeated time and again about the so called security concerns of the Jewish state. Even Obama, who pressed Netanyahu for a freeze of new settlement activities in the West Bank, did not annoy Israel by raising the Gaza blockade issue.

Gaza is now more or less a prison camp, or the world’s largest concentration camp. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) launched a lethal offensive against the Gazans in George W Bush’s last days in office in January 2009. Obama was the president-elect. He did not utter a word when Israeli forces massacred around 1,500 Palestinians. Since then, Israel turned Gaza into a hell on the earth. Since the blockade started in 2007, the economic infrastructure has been virtually dismantled. “Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid,” says a report published by the Amnesty International on June 1, 2010. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the number of refugees living in abject poverty in the Gaza Strip has tripled since the blockade began. It adds that more than 60 percent of households are currently “food insecure”. A veteran Indian diplomat, who had lived almost three decades in the Middle East, told this author last month that even the science labs of all colleges in Gaza have been shut as no chemical is available in the strip due to the blockade. “The science students are nowhere. They can’t continue even their studies,” he said.

Is it this Gaza that poses a “genuine security threat” to the mighty Israel? Bibi Netanyahu might say yes. So does the powerful Jewish lobby in Washington. The Obama administration, which invoked hope at its early days in office, has disappointed all peace loving minds in the world. President Obama doesn’t have the strength at least to criticize Israel even after such a horrible act. The international community never goes beyond issuing statements when it comes to Israel. The UNSC is dysfunctional whenever Israel mocks at the international law. It seems peace is a strange word in the Middle East. The barbarism is set to rule forever. And the US interests, irrespective of who is sitting in the White House, will never antagonize that barbarism. (Zeenews, June 7, 2010)

War and Peace in Asia

Doest the 21st century belong to Asia? Many economists, strategic experts and world leaders think so. The growing clout of Asian countries in the present international system, the strategic importance of Asia to the super powers and the relative escape of China and India from the global financial crisis have emboldened the view that Asia holds the key in an evolving multi-polar world in the new century. But at the same time, Asia faces several security challenges – both inter and intra-state challenges. “The Future of War and Peace in Asia”, a compilation of essays edited by N.S. Sisodia and S. Kalyanaraman, is looking into this strategic dimension of an emerging Asia.

As Sisodia, the director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), India’s premier strategic research think tank, notes in the preface, the impact of the global slowdown on Asian economies has “accelerated the shift of economic power to Asia”. The coming decade will see Asia becoming a principal theatre of international politics and security. One of the major challenges Asia will face in its rise, according to the book, will be intra-state conflicts. “Asia is the main theatre of action for jihadist groups, which among others, include the al-Qaeda and its franchises, Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, Pakistani groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jamaat ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami in Bangladesh, Jemaah Islamiyah in the Southeast Asian countries, the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,” writes Kalyanaraman, a research fellow at the IDSA, in the introduction.

But the “security problematique” is not limited to intra-state conflicts. There are multiple actors -- Asian and non-Asian – who have security and economic interests in the region. Apart from India and China, the two countries often dubbed as key Asian powers in the coming decades, the US, Russia and Japan also have interests in the continent. The roles these five major and emerging powers play in the continent are crucial for “ensuring and maintaining long-term peace, stable balance of power, economic growth and security in Asia”.

The 18 chapters of “The Future of War and Peace in Asia”, divided into five key parts, discuss the changing face of war in the region and its geopolitical implications. The first part, “The Changing Face of War”, addresses the issue of “irregular warfare”, its manifestations in the Af-Pak region and West Asia and the challenges it poses to modern states. The second part, “Preparing for War”, explores how militaries in the region are modernizing themselves and preparing to face the existing and forthcoming security challenges. Will the technological advancements change the nature of war in Asia? What changes the space technology and missile defence are going to bring in the military doctrines of major Asian powers? Part three of the book, “Star Wars in Asia”, addresses these issues. The last two parts, “Asian Geopolitics” and “The Emerging Asian Order”, are mainly focused on the geopolitical angle. It also discusses the interests and interventions of big powers like the US and Russia in the Asian continent.

It is now a widely accepted view that the East is rising. Its economic clout is fast increasing in a world shaken by the collapse of western capitalism. But this rise could not be sustained unless the East prepares itself to face up to the security challenges. “The Future of War and Peace in Asia” brilliantly analyses the security dilemma of Asia countries and the geopolitical implications of the emerging Asian order. The editors have cautiously selected chapters so that the book can give a comprehensive understanding of conflicts and tensions in Asia and also the dynamics of power shift.

N.S. Sisodia and S. Kalyanaraman (Eds) (2010), “The Future of War and Peace in Asia”, New Delhi: Magnum Books. (Reviewed for Purple Beret)

Taliban’s Chaos Theory

“You need three qualities today if you want to fight the terrorists. Number one, you must have the military with you… Number two, you shouldn’t be seen by the entire religious lobby to be alien. The third element: don’t be seen as an extension of the United States.” These words of Parvez Musharraf, uttered a few weeks after the death of Benazir Bhutto in January 2008, show the kind of politics he espoused during his tenure as Pakistan’s president. Musharraf was a man who knew the presence of jihadist outfits in his country could be used to enhance Pakistan’s “strategic importance in Western eyes”, writes Ahmed Rashid in “Descent into Chaos”. And the General did the same, like other allies of the US in the “region” (Pakistan, Afghanistan and the five Central Asian Republics). For Rashid, author of the best selling “Taliban”, the region is “vital for global stability”. But the misguided “war on terror” of the US and the inability of the Western powers to contribute to nation building in these countries, particularly in the post-9/11 Afghanistan has created nothing but chaos.

Who made things worse? Rashid says even the Clinton administration bears some responsibility for the present chaos. It was during the Clinton presidency, the Taliban mobilized resources, consolidated power in Afghanistan and grew in strength in the region. But the Clinton administration failed to foresee the lurking dangers and come up with a vision to fight Taliban. George Bush, who actually started a war against Taliban, eventually played it into the hands of the same Islamic fundamentalists, thanks to the strategies of Defence Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld. It was Rumsfeld who insisted the inclusion of tribal warlords in the Afghan cabinet, says Rashid. Moreover, Bush’s defence secretary was against the idea of expanding the western-backed security system beyond Kabul, a strategy which later proved to be a blunder.
President Bush, who opened another war front in Iraq before accomplishing his “mission” in Afghanistan, made things complicated. The mounting military challenge in Iraq diluted the US engagement in Afghanistan, which eventually helped the Taliban regroup with the help of ISI. Though Pakistan, which supported the Taliban when it was in power, had to change its position in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the country’s controversial spy agency, the Inter Service Intelligence, continued its dubious policies, writes Rashid. President Bush thought Musharraf was “indispensable” in his war on terror. This was a strategic limitation for the US. The Bush administration, finding itself in a catch-22 situation, completely gave up its efforts to push for political reforms in the military-ruled Pakistan and the Central Asian dictatorships and continued to pumping millions of dollars to support these regimes in the name of the alliance against terror.

What should have been down? “Afghanistan had to be rescued from itself. Autocratic regimes in Pakistan and Central Asia had to change their repressive ways sand listen to their alienated and poverty-stricken citizens…The West had to wake up to the realities and responsibilities of injustice, poverty, lack of education, which it ignored for too long,” writes Rashid. But nothing of these happened. The al-Qaueda and Taliban became more powerful, Afghanistan fell into deeper chaos, Pakistan, though the military rule came to an end, is now fighting itself and the Central Asian republics are as bloody as ever. Understanding the existing complexities and dangers, Rashid urges the international community to “face up to our collective future”.
“Descent into Chaos” is a well-written, detailed description of what happened to the War on Terror in the South-Central Asia. The analysis of Rashid, who has covered the region extensively as a reporter, looks stunningly authentic and his style of writing ensures an enjoyable reading. Still, it lacks the in-depth analysis of an academic. Rashid’s admiration for leaders like Hamid Karzai and Benazir Bhutto may not go down well with many readers. Blaming only Musharraf for Pakistan’s problems may not a proper diagnosis.

Ahmed Rashid (2008), “Descent into Chaos: How the war against Islamic extremism is being lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia”, Penguin: London. (Reviewed for Purple Beret)

A Decade of Wars, Crises and Rises

In international politics, decades are important tools that help us understand and interpret history better. The major developments in the past often come to our mind with tags of decades -- the economic crisis of 1920’s, the wars of 1930’s, the reconstruction of 1950’s, the Lost Decade, and so on. Now, standing at the starting point of a new decade, how do we analyse the bygone one (2000-10)?

According to British historian Andrew Roberts, the first ten years of the new century, or the Noughties, were full of troubles. It witnessed two major wars, one of the gravest financial crises in decades, a number of natural disasters including Tsunami, and changes in global power dynamics. At the beginning of the century, not many might have forecast such a troublesome first decade.

The Noughties followed a decade that the saw the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent emergence of the US as the sole super power in the world. The successful tests of American hard power in the Balkan and the Middle East in the late 1990’s underscored the opinion that the new century would be an American century. President George W. Bush, who assumed office in 2001, vowed to accelerate American style free market capitalism and expand the military capabilities of the country. Everything looked set for paving the way for the US to reshape and lead the global order without major hindrances. But the path of history often lies beyond the scope of prediction.

Wars
The beginning of sweeping changes of the decade started on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Centre, the tall symbols of America’s economic might, was attacked by a few terrorists. The attack became a reference point of the decade, if not of the century. In the same month, president Bush declared America’s “war on terror” and the US started this war on October 7 by bombing Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

The US could drive the Taliban out of Kabul within weeks of bombing, and set up a puppet government of Hamid Karzai in the capital city. But the war did have ripple- effect across the Muslim Middle East. The war on terror was interpreted by many political Islamists as an “imperial crusade” of the West against Islam. This notion gained currency when Bush opened another war front in the Islamic world in 2003. Accusing the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq of supporting al-Qaeda in the region and mobilising weapons of mass destruction, the US declared war on the Baathist country in March 2003.

Two months later, president Bush declared victory in Iraq. Saddam Hussein went absconding, the regime was toppled and a provincial government was established, which was followed by a bloody resistance by Iraqis against the occupation. Saddam was captured in December 2003 and hanged on December 30, 2006.

According to many reports, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration wanted to expand the war to Iran, and further to Syria as part of their plans to reinforce America’s hegemony on the entire Middle East. But the Iraqi resistance bogged America down for years. When things started returning to a new normal in Iraq, the economic catastrophe limited America’s military possibilities.

Crisis
If America’s hard power faced fresh challenges in the first half of the decade, its unique economic model was nearly destroyed in the second half. The unregulated capitalism, which the US championed for years, drew flak from all corners when Wall Street investment banking giants like Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, plunging the entire world into an unprecedented liquidity crisis. The woes of the financial sector soon expanded to the real economy, leaving most of the advanced developed countries in recession.

The new president of the US, Barack Obama, in complete realisation that his country was not in an advanced position to cope with the world’s problems, came forward to formulate a new cooperation mechanism with the emerging economies including China and India. Many countries, including the US, put caps on the flow of capital, implemented fresh regulations and expanded the scope the government to fight the crisis.

The Rise of China
Another major twist of the decade is the rise of emerging powers, including China, India and Brazil, onto the global stage. Of these, China stands out. According to many analysts, the this century is China’s. British academic Martin Jaques says the stage is set for China to rise as a counter power to the US and radically overhaul the international system. China’s escape from the global slowdown nearly unhurt has forced many analysts to take a more positive view vis-à-vis the Asian giant. China is the fastest growing economy in the world and is set to overtake Japan as the second largest economy in 2010. It is also a fast rising military power and a regional hegemonic state in Asia.

The new decade will see China further expanding its economic influence and making efforts to convert that into political clout. According to Goldman Sachs, China will move past the US as the largest economy by 2027. If the trend of Noughties continues in the new decade, it will have radical effect on the existing global order, so far dominated by the West. So, gear up to live in a rapidly changing world.