Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 9, 2001
The American and British strikes
against the Taliban, which finally began on Sunday night, were expected
ever since the diabolical terrorist attacks on the United States on September
11. Understandably, there is widespread anxiety about the duration of the
war, its scope and repercussions.
Though President Musharraf expects
it to be short, nothing definite can be said about how long it will last.
With the Taliban resolving, at an emergency cabinet session on Monday,
to fight back against the US-led military forces, and ruling out any change
in its policy of protecting Osama bin Laden, much would depend on the success
of the US-led military operations. Even if the strikes by missiles and
aircraft, which were targeted at 30 sites comprising training camps, military
airfields and air defence installations, have been fully successful, much
more obviously have to be done. The terrorist infrastructure that the Al
Qaida and other fundamentalist Islamic organisations have built under the
aegis of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has many fronts and
functions under various names through a skillfully managed and carefully
financed network of terror. The scope of the operations needed to disrupt
the latter would involve a number of financial and other moves undertaken
with the cooperation of a multiplicity of countries. This will not come
about in a day. Besides, the goal of the US-led coalition being the apprehension
of Osama bin Laden and the replacement of the Taliban government with a
civilised and representative one, the air strikes have to be followed by
military success on land. Here again, much would depend on the Northern
Alliance, that has been fighting the Taliban since 1996 and which, by all
accounts, has synchronised a fresh offensive with the US strikes.
The US clearly understands the complex
nature of the task at hand and is prepared for a long haul which would
require sacrifices. In this context, there is, understandably, widespread
anxiety about the repercussions that may follow in other parts of the globe.
While Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have declared the attacks to be on
all Muslims and their religion, extreme reaction has been confined to hardline
fundamentalist Islamic groups. This, including the violence that has occurred
in Pakistan and the threat of violence elsewhere, has not assumed unexpectedly
alarming proportions. A global polarisation between Muslims and the US
and its allies, which the latter have sought to avoid, does not appear
to be on the cards. That, however, should not spawn complacence. Efforts
to underline the fact that the war is not against Islam but demented people
who have brought disgrace to it, must continue; so must the meticulous
care that has been taken to minimise civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the
threat to the West and India, which has had to cope with Pakistan-sponsored
terrorism for more than two decades, lies in terrorist strikes. Understandably,
both the US and UK have beefed up security, as has India. New Delhi has
rightly viewed the strikes in the context of a broader battle against terrorism
as a global phenomenon whose elimination requires a concerted international
campaign. Both the US and UK will be inviting trouble in future if they
fall for General Pervez Musharraf's efforts to sell terrorism against India
as a 'fight for freedom'.
