What if Mexico, not Pakistan, was the epicentre of terrorism?
Aditya Sinha | Sunday, September 11, 2011
======================================================
Aditya Sinha
America since 9/11 has not suffered a major attack, despite the current terror alert. During this decade India has suffered many terrorist strikes, by a seemingly invisible enemy. People lament the fact that India can’t seem to get its act together. Perhaps we ought to see how different things might have been if Mexico and not Pakistan had been the ‘epicentre’ of global terrorism.
The two countries shares similarities, in that what jihadi groups are to Pakistan, dangerous drug cartels are to Mexico. The cartels control swathes of Mexican territory bordering the US and are not under central government control; the Mexican army is fighting them. Jihadis control swathes of Pakistani territory, neither under Islamabad’s control; the Pakistani army is fighting them. If the Lashkar-e-Toiba is a creation and is sustained by a section of the Pakistan army’s shadowy intelligence agency, the drug cartels’ financial clout ensures they get cooperation from ‘rogue’ elements in the local government and police.There are differences between the two countries. At 3,000-odd km, the US-Mexican border is longer than the Indo-Pak border; at least a third of it is fenced or has a wall, far more high-tech than anything India has. And yet an estimated half-million Mexicans manage to illegally slip into the US every year. The illegal crossings into India from Pakistan are far less, yet the few that take place in the Kashmir sector are enough to set into motion the various acts of terrorism.
Article continues below the advertisement...
The illegal immigrants integrate into the Latino American community, a huge 16 per cent of the US population, or even into the Mexican-American community, a significant 10 per cent of the population. And there is the proliferation of arms, explosives and technology in America, though terrorists have shown that you don’t need Army-issue RDX for a blast (the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing used a truck of fertilizer). The easy availability of guns is why America periodically sees an Ajmal Kasab-type deranged individual going on the rampage at campuses and other public places.
Since 9/11, Americans have spent about US $360billion on federal homeland security measures. Airline security has become thorough; border patrolling has become so aggressive that it borders on racial profiling; CCTV cameras are extensive in cities and in industrial or economic sites deemed to be potential targets; and so on.
Despite all this, however, if Mexico was the ‘epicentre’ of terrorism, with badlands similar to Pakistan’s tribal areas — inaccessible and providing refuge for the most zealous terrorists in the world — then it is unlikely that the US would have escaped unscathed.
Newsweek identifies 40 foiled domestic plots by terrorists in the US since 9/11; if Mexico had been Pakistan, then you could argue that 40 would have been the number of successful terrorist plots, even if the foiled plots were ten times as much. That’s what happens near the epicentre of an earthquake; you necessarily suffer much of the damage and the aftershocks.
There’s a big difference between US counter-terrorism and India’s which would work in favour of better American security even in this scenario: the key role played by Muslim-Americans in their military and intelligence agencies. Accounts of Osama bin Laden’s elimination place an Urdu-speaker as part of the CIA-SEAL team.
There have been public accounts of Arab-Americans or Muslim-Americans working both in the US and abroad in counter-terrorism. Such an integrative approach would bear results even if terrorism was hatched next door, in Mexico.
Contrast that with India. Our intelligence agencies are manned by persons who are mostly socially conservative and who follow an unspoken rule of avoiding the induction of Muslims in key posts. No wonder our agencies are unintelligent. Do we have spies watching Hafeez Saeed’s or Dawood Ibrahim’s house in the way that the CIA had people watching Osama’s house? It is doubtful. You could argue this is because the US has more resources or political power than India, but you cannot deny the fact that we have many inadequacies in our mindset and our approach.
If Mexico were the epicentre of terrorism, then perhaps India would face less terrorism attempts simply because of the sheer distance that terrorists would have to travel simply to get here; also, Mexican terrorists might have little motivation to expose themselves in a distant country to help out radicalised Indians — even if they were co-religionists.
This argument, however, overlooks two things. One, much of our terrorism, though abetted by Pakistan, has its roots in our societal problems, governmental apathy and community violence.Secondly, as long as India has a problem in Kashmir, it will always be vulnerable to terrorism.
This is not going to sound good to middle-class or ultra-patriotic ears. But it is a fact. And so it is not enough to say that India suffers because it is located next door to Pakistan, the ‘epicentre’ of terrorism. For all its faults, America is the kind of nation that attempts to solve its political problems. Maybe it is more difficult for India to do so, but there is not even a token effort in that direction. And this is why our record of fighting terror since 9/11 has been far less impressive than America’s.
Aditya Sinha | Sunday, September 11, 2011
======================================================
Aditya Sinha
America since 9/11 has not suffered a major attack, despite the current terror alert. During this decade India has suffered many terrorist strikes, by a seemingly invisible enemy. People lament the fact that India can’t seem to get its act together. Perhaps we ought to see how different things might have been if Mexico and not Pakistan had been the ‘epicentre’ of global terrorism.
The two countries shares similarities, in that what jihadi groups are to Pakistan, dangerous drug cartels are to Mexico. The cartels control swathes of Mexican territory bordering the US and are not under central government control; the Mexican army is fighting them. Jihadis control swathes of Pakistani territory, neither under Islamabad’s control; the Pakistani army is fighting them. If the Lashkar-e-Toiba is a creation and is sustained by a section of the Pakistan army’s shadowy intelligence agency, the drug cartels’ financial clout ensures they get cooperation from ‘rogue’ elements in the local government and police.There are differences between the two countries. At 3,000-odd km, the US-Mexican border is longer than the Indo-Pak border; at least a third of it is fenced or has a wall, far more high-tech than anything India has. And yet an estimated half-million Mexicans manage to illegally slip into the US every year. The illegal crossings into India from Pakistan are far less, yet the few that take place in the Kashmir sector are enough to set into motion the various acts of terrorism.
Article continues below the advertisement...
The illegal immigrants integrate into the Latino American community, a huge 16 per cent of the US population, or even into the Mexican-American community, a significant 10 per cent of the population. And there is the proliferation of arms, explosives and technology in America, though terrorists have shown that you don’t need Army-issue RDX for a blast (the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing used a truck of fertilizer). The easy availability of guns is why America periodically sees an Ajmal Kasab-type deranged individual going on the rampage at campuses and other public places.
Since 9/11, Americans have spent about US $360billion on federal homeland security measures. Airline security has become thorough; border patrolling has become so aggressive that it borders on racial profiling; CCTV cameras are extensive in cities and in industrial or economic sites deemed to be potential targets; and so on.
Despite all this, however, if Mexico was the ‘epicentre’ of terrorism, with badlands similar to Pakistan’s tribal areas — inaccessible and providing refuge for the most zealous terrorists in the world — then it is unlikely that the US would have escaped unscathed.
Newsweek identifies 40 foiled domestic plots by terrorists in the US since 9/11; if Mexico had been Pakistan, then you could argue that 40 would have been the number of successful terrorist plots, even if the foiled plots were ten times as much. That’s what happens near the epicentre of an earthquake; you necessarily suffer much of the damage and the aftershocks.
There’s a big difference between US counter-terrorism and India’s which would work in favour of better American security even in this scenario: the key role played by Muslim-Americans in their military and intelligence agencies. Accounts of Osama bin Laden’s elimination place an Urdu-speaker as part of the CIA-SEAL team.
There have been public accounts of Arab-Americans or Muslim-Americans working both in the US and abroad in counter-terrorism. Such an integrative approach would bear results even if terrorism was hatched next door, in Mexico.
Contrast that with India. Our intelligence agencies are manned by persons who are mostly socially conservative and who follow an unspoken rule of avoiding the induction of Muslims in key posts. No wonder our agencies are unintelligent. Do we have spies watching Hafeez Saeed’s or Dawood Ibrahim’s house in the way that the CIA had people watching Osama’s house? It is doubtful. You could argue this is because the US has more resources or political power than India, but you cannot deny the fact that we have many inadequacies in our mindset and our approach.
If Mexico were the epicentre of terrorism, then perhaps India would face less terrorism attempts simply because of the sheer distance that terrorists would have to travel simply to get here; also, Mexican terrorists might have little motivation to expose themselves in a distant country to help out radicalised Indians — even if they were co-religionists.
This argument, however, overlooks two things. One, much of our terrorism, though abetted by Pakistan, has its roots in our societal problems, governmental apathy and community violence.Secondly, as long as India has a problem in Kashmir, it will always be vulnerable to terrorism.
This is not going to sound good to middle-class or ultra-patriotic ears. But it is a fact. And so it is not enough to say that India suffers because it is located next door to Pakistan, the ‘epicentre’ of terrorism. For all its faults, America is the kind of nation that attempts to solve its political problems. Maybe it is more difficult for India to do so, but there is not even a token effort in that direction. And this is why our record of fighting terror since 9/11 has been far less impressive than America’s.
— The writer is the Editor-in-Chief, DNA, based in Mumbai
=================================================
.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_what-if-mexico-not-pakistan-was-the-epicentre-of-terrorism_1585915
No comments:
Post a Comment