(Times of India art_id=1802937225)
TODAY'S EDITORIALS
Wages of War
In our last editorial, we had cautioned against India jumping headlong into any military offensive planned by the American alliance in retaliation for the terrorist strikes on the US.
Regrettably, the prime minister's televised address to the nation hints at precisely that kind of over-enthusiasm on the Indian government's part. Not content with demanding that the world join hands militarily to ``overwhelm the terrorists and neutralise their poison'', Mr Vajpayee exhorted every Indian "to be part of this global war on terrorism".
Though the prime minister avoided detailing the exact nature of the `cooperation' India might extend in this war, reports increasingly suggest that India will allow the US the use of specific facilities, including perhaps its airbases, in the event the latter launches an offensive against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Earlier, in an interview to this paper, foreign minister Jaswant Singh made the startling admission that India's offer of unqualified support to the American action was a unilateral one. This gung-ho approach is fraught with danger.
Terrorism respects no logic, as India which has had to pay a horrific price for it knows only too well. In this case, the consequences are graver still because it is the subcontinent that is to act as the theatre for the global war that America and its allies have planned against terrorism.
Unfortunately, rather than adopting a measured and sober response, official India has chosen to echo the hysteria and war-mongering resounding across major world capitals.
There are other reasons too to regard with caution, even reservation, the Indian government's over-eager resolve to join this global war.
To begin with, there is the minor matter of semantics. Before the latest terrorist strikes at the heart of American economic and military establishment, the war against terrorism, far from being a global concern, was the burden of individual countries.
Now that mainland America has fallen victim to terrorist violence, it has overnight become incumbent on "all civilised countries" to contribute their mite to the American quest for retribution.
In his address, the prime minister spoke of the global sweep of this scourge as a justification for the American call for an international war.
"What happened in Mumbai one day is bound to happen elsewhere tomorrow", he said. Ironically, however, he failed to draw the full implications of his own observations. The simple truth is that New York matters, not Mumbai.
``The New War" will be fought to further American strategic interests and not ours. Quite apart from this, there is a danger that in extending our "exceptionally strong support" -- as secretary of state Colin Powell described it -- India might unwittingly get sucked into a war which is neither of its own making nor one whose course it will have any control over, not to mention the costs it might have to bear.
These reservations are all the more important to emphasise today because the Indian government's overhasty support for the American line has found a strong echo amongst the articulate sections in this country.
A recent poll in this paper suggested that as many as 95% readers wanted India to make common cause with America in its war against terrorism.
To be carried away by emotion in a war-like situation is easy, but individual Indians would do well to remember that they will have to bear the consequences of this war long after the Americans have fought it and gone.
(http://timesofindia.com/ art_id=1967442633)
CTBT, NMD & New War
Vidya Subrahmaniam
Don't Play Second Fiddle to US Tunes
LAST week's suicide air attacks on America have evidently lent a new legitimacy to hysteria. Soon after President Bush declared that ``no one can do this to America and get away,'' a BBC newscaster casually tossed a question about tactically nuking Afghanistan to Kevin Obrien, terrorist specialist. Obrien didn't blanch at the suggestion; he merely said he would be concerned if they (the American alliance) ``used it at this point.''
The irony is America was brought to its knees, not by a rogue nuclear nation against whom President Bush has been arming himself with his ingenious Nuclear Missile Defence, but as columnist Maureen Dodd points out, ``by a handful of guys with box cutters and plastic knives.'' Dodd also quotes US defence officials as saying the air attacks happened because ``we're not so good at the threats coming from inside''.
Let's face it. The attacks on the US constitutes the world's biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbour. And part of the reason for this incredible lapse is America's completely misdirected and increasingly manic obsession with fortifying its skies against nuclear missile attacks while ignoring domestic threats. Indeed, even as planes taking off from America's own territory ripped through the economic and military symbols of the world's only superpower, its president was assiduously pursuing another passionate, and no less dangerous, mission.
Consider the following: In January this year, the US air force's Space Warfare Centre spent a fortune simulating an attack from an unnamed red country. In July, the defence department spent a 100 million dollars in its fourth attempt to intercept a long-range ballistic missile carrying a mock warhead. Analysts say it will take many tests and at least a decade for the US to build a reliable NMD. Not that this would deter Mr Bush. Last month he went another step and offered to let China do further nuclear tests as well as expand its missile force in return for support to the NMD. Mr Bush was very unsubtly letting the world know of the US's own plans to conduct more nuclear tests, when before his disbelieving eyes, terrorists plunged hijacked domestic planes into landmark American buildings.
The daring attacks on New York and Washington apart, American intelligence has routinely failed over the years, from the 1995 nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system to the monetary crisis in Mexico to India's nuclear weapons tests to terrorist bombings of various US missions.
The tragedy is that this hasn't stopped the world's blind faith in the US's ability to offer protection. India itself wants to plunge headlong into anything the US asks it to do, whether that is the CTBT, the NMD or the war now proposed in our backyard. Strobe Talbott took Jaswant Singh through adozen gruelling rounds of talks on the CTBT before the US Senate imperiously thumbed down the treaty. No apologies to us, of course. Then came President Bush, waving the NMD to the consternation of most of the world. Most of the world, except us. India signalled its support to Bush Jr's crazed plan to erect an astrodome over the US, ahead of every major power. And our security experts began lobbying for the NMD, arguing exactly as in the case of the CTBT that this way lay India's self-interest. Their case: With Pakistan out of America's favour and China posing a threat to the US, an Indo-US compact on the NMD would lead to unimaginable strategic and material gains for India. Earlier the logic was that as a nuclear power we could accept not to test under the CTBT - and benefit. Now it was that as part of the NMD, we can test all we want - and benefit!
Mr Bush may still push for the NMD, but the suicide attacks have forever shattered the myth of nuclear deterrence. There can be no deterrence against men possessed of a suicidal rage. And none at all when such men are assured the support of a network operating from within the US. What if the hijackers had dropped a suitcase nuclear bomb? Or if they had employed a chemical or biological weapon? Can anyone certify that such weapons are not already in the hands of non-state players?
Which is what makes Mr Bush's ``prolonged war'' in our immediate neighbourhood so frightening. From all accounts, Osama bin Laden - assuming he is guilty - has a breathtaking network of men and material spread across the globe. That some of his recruits trained and worked in the US is now clear. So how is Osama's ``den of evil'' to be smashed? Even in the unlikely event of Laden perishing in a military offensive on Afghanistan, there's no knowing how many of his worldwide volunteers would take up from where he left off. God help us if ``the prolonged war'' should extend to the madrasas in Pakistan or to possible hideouts in J&K. Then we would truly be caught between vengeful Americans on one hand and angry jehadis willing to use any kind of weapon on the other.
No, we cannot go along in this war. The US leaves behind a huge mess wherever it goes, and in this case the mess will be in our backyard. Even worse would be to assume that we can acquire America as an ally. The mutual support thesis which was the basis of India's eager response to the CTBT and NMD has already been shown up for what it is: A naive calculation.
Soon after Black Tuesday, India made the necessary noises about the tragedy. But alongside there was unhidden glee that Pakistan had finally got its comeuppance. Official India typically decided that America would crack down on Pakistan and insist that it clean up its act in Kashmir. A necessary corollary of this was further bonding between the US and India. How pathetically wrong this assumption turned out to be. So, even as Jaswant Singh was unilaterally offering India's help to ``good friend America'', general Musharraf was seeing his own opportunity in what everybody decided was Pakistan's nemesis.
This is not to say that president Bush will agree to any of Pakistan's demands, which predictably includes US intervention in Kashmir. Musharraf also has the awesome task of contending with the Taliban and other home-grown jehadis. What India must understand is the fickleness of US policy. If the US had begun tilting our way, it can as easily reverse the tilt towards Pakistan.