09-15-2003, 10:37 PM
Strictly speaking this goes in the India/US thread, but it has repercussions on India's relations with the West Asian countries. Swapan Das Gupta feels that Washington is excluding I'bad from its war on terror. The situation is in reality more complicated than that. There is no question in my mind that the ultimate aim of the US in West Asia is the emasculation of the KSA, especially its royal family.
The US has decided (wrongly imview) that they cannot fight too many fronts at the same time and have chosen not to confront the Pakis with their gloves off. However, sentiment in Washington is running heavily against the terrorist state, so all bets are off as to how long this marriage of convenience will last.
[url="http://online.wsj.com/barrons/article/0,,SB106340946955691500-search,00.html?collection=barrons%2F30day&vql_string=pakistan%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29"]BARRON'S ONLINE, SEPTEMBER 15, 2003[/url]
FINDING THE WAR
The "central front" is one of many battlefields
WHERE IS THE BATTLEFIELD in America's war on terrorism? In this solemn anniversary week, there are many possible answers.
The "central front" may be in Iraq, where "enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand," as President Bush declared the other day. U.S. forces are taking casualties there, in what appears to be a war of attrition. But that front has two theaters, and the more important one is the more theatrical: Former tyrants and would-be tyrants are waging war against the American people's will to fight.
The military battlefield in Afghanistan is another important front. Ultimate victory against terrorists and their allies there seems as far away as in Iraq, if not farther. In fact, the possibility of victory on that front seems to be across the border in Pakistan , in mountains where a dangerously weak government cannot govern.
The diplomatic front in Pakistan is challenging. We have an ally who does not dare to be a public friend. That government does not dare to give American troops permits to hunt al-Qaeda, and does not dare to effectively curb the terrorists it has sponsored in Kashmir. And, of course, that government possesses nuclear weapons, which some have dared to refer to ominously as the "Islamic Bomb." We may not wish to be seen changing Pakistan , but it must change.
There is a similar front in Saudi Arabia, with complexity added by its financial power and its Muslim evangelism. There too, a grudgingly allied government has given aid and comfort to people who are its own enemies and ours. It finances religious schools teaching hatred around the world. Its charities buy weapons for terrorists and support the families of suicide bombers. So far, we are fighting the money more than the people who provide it. We may not wish to be seen changing Arabia, but it must change.
There are fronts all over the developed world, where security agents and spies fight secret wars against underground enemies. They should not be seen, and their victories may go unreported.
Another front is in Baltimore, and New Hampshire, and Iowa, and South Carolina, and wherever the Democratic candidates for President come together to debate what they see as President Bush's war in Iraq and Attorney General John Ashcroft's war at home. The nine candidates must remember that they are asking the American people for authority to conduct the war differently, not to abandon it. And the Republican administration must accept their opponents' right to criticize strategy and tactics in strong terms, without charging back that they have no zeal, or worse, are deserters in the war. Our enemies and our friends will judge us and our cause by how we fight as well as where we fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Page Editor Thomas G. Donlan receives e-mail at tg.donlan@barrons.com.
The US has decided (wrongly imview) that they cannot fight too many fronts at the same time and have chosen not to confront the Pakis with their gloves off. However, sentiment in Washington is running heavily against the terrorist state, so all bets are off as to how long this marriage of convenience will last.
[url="http://online.wsj.com/barrons/article/0,,SB106340946955691500-search,00.html?collection=barrons%2F30day&vql_string=pakistan%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29"]BARRON'S ONLINE, SEPTEMBER 15, 2003[/url]
FINDING THE WAR
The "central front" is one of many battlefields
WHERE IS THE BATTLEFIELD in America's war on terrorism? In this solemn anniversary week, there are many possible answers.
The "central front" may be in Iraq, where "enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand," as President Bush declared the other day. U.S. forces are taking casualties there, in what appears to be a war of attrition. But that front has two theaters, and the more important one is the more theatrical: Former tyrants and would-be tyrants are waging war against the American people's will to fight.
The military battlefield in Afghanistan is another important front. Ultimate victory against terrorists and their allies there seems as far away as in Iraq, if not farther. In fact, the possibility of victory on that front seems to be across the border in Pakistan , in mountains where a dangerously weak government cannot govern.
The diplomatic front in Pakistan is challenging. We have an ally who does not dare to be a public friend. That government does not dare to give American troops permits to hunt al-Qaeda, and does not dare to effectively curb the terrorists it has sponsored in Kashmir. And, of course, that government possesses nuclear weapons, which some have dared to refer to ominously as the "Islamic Bomb." We may not wish to be seen changing Pakistan , but it must change.
There is a similar front in Saudi Arabia, with complexity added by its financial power and its Muslim evangelism. There too, a grudgingly allied government has given aid and comfort to people who are its own enemies and ours. It finances religious schools teaching hatred around the world. Its charities buy weapons for terrorists and support the families of suicide bombers. So far, we are fighting the money more than the people who provide it. We may not wish to be seen changing Arabia, but it must change.
There are fronts all over the developed world, where security agents and spies fight secret wars against underground enemies. They should not be seen, and their victories may go unreported.
Another front is in Baltimore, and New Hampshire, and Iowa, and South Carolina, and wherever the Democratic candidates for President come together to debate what they see as President Bush's war in Iraq and Attorney General John Ashcroft's war at home. The nine candidates must remember that they are asking the American people for authority to conduct the war differently, not to abandon it. And the Republican administration must accept their opponents' right to criticize strategy and tactics in strong terms, without charging back that they have no zeal, or worse, are deserters in the war. Our enemies and our friends will judge us and our cause by how we fight as well as where we fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Page Editor Thomas G. Donlan receives e-mail at tg.donlan@barrons.com.