Thoughts of Terror (part 2)

Bombing public transportation is one of the most heinous and unpredictable forms of terrorism. I guess that's what makes it so effective. From the constant bus bombings in Israel to the hijacking of airplanes in the US and subway bombings in Europe, public transportation seems to be the new target du jour among the fashionable terrorists. And the more frequently they occur the more sophisticated they get. Witness the seven timed and remotely detonated bombs that shook Bombay trains on 11 July, 2006, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.

Although no single group has taken credit for these bombings, and no proof has been disclosed that points to any one organization, this does not (and should not) preclude the world from tackling the larger issue. In fact, it's almost a good thing, in the sense that we cannot blame one group but must instead examine the entire terrorist edifice in all its horror, with all it's linkages between different groups and causes.

The are two possible reasons for these Bombay bombings, assuming that these are Islamic terrorists who perpetrated this crime (given the history, not a bad assumption i think). The first is clearly the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. It's caused 2 wars, brought us to the brink several other times, and has resulted in thousands of deaths. At this point it's impossible to say that either side is completely in the right -- both have committed atrocities. The only innocents are the Kashmiris who suffer the consequences. As a result of this conflict, Kashmiri Islamic terrorists (or separatists, depending on your view) have periodically carried out terrorist attacks such as this one in India. The second possible reason is the religious tension in India between Hindus and Muslims. While the vast, vast majority of Indians that I know living in India don't really care if their friends are Muslim or Hindu, the minority that screams the loudest gets heard. Especially when they tear down mosques/temples, or incite riots as we witnessed a few years ago in Bombay.

As a result, the terrorist attacks probably had one of two purposes -- to either derail the slowly emerging peace talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, or to incite Hindu/Muslim violence in Bombay. Thankfully neither of these seems to have happened, largely due to a levelheaded and responsible approach to this crisis by Manmohan Singh, a man who I increasingly respect.

Now it's possible, even probable, that Lakshar-e-Taiba or a related Kashmiri group is to blame. But it's not too early nor is it reasonable to rule out other groups such as al-Qaeda. And although the differences between these groups are certainly not insignificant, the similarities in their terrorist tactics and militant religious fervor are striking. This is what ties these groups together with Hizbollah and Hamas, even though their causes and leaders can be very different. They represent the next great challenge for our times.

India is in a difficult position here. It can't really respond the way that Israel responded -- by trying to dismantle Hizbollah using brute force and decimating Lebanon in the process. There's no way that India wants to risk war with Pakistan over this. And yet there are few other options.....what other pressure can India put on Musharraf to put the brakes on these groups? Can Musharraf, given his precarious position straddling the West and hardline Islamists, even do that? Does he have the power? There really seems to be a very limited set of options except to continue the talks and try to resolve the Kashmir dispute as quickly as possible......but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Thoughts of Terror

This past week has seen some very scary developments in the Middle East and South Asia, and the recent historical trends all point to even more frightening possibilities. I'm focusing here on the Middle East, but South Asia is on my mind and will probably be the subject of another post.

In the Middle East the unexcusable kidnapping of a young Israeli soldier by Hamas set tensions aflame. Ehud Olmert does not have the hardline credentials of someone like Ariel Sharon, and thus really had no political choice other than to strike hard and fast. That's not to say he did not do the right thing or something that Sharon would not have done; but his options were limited in a time when limited options are not a good thing. The Israeli incursions into Gaza in fact were probably a bit premature -- I still believe that Hamas can be talked out of increasing hostilities, or at least that Israel should have tried. Isolating Hamas economically and politically, as the US and Israel have done since it came to power, has done almost nothing constructive. In fact, it's led to increased Palestinian poverty overall, increased anti-Israel and anti-US sentiment on the Gaza streets, and a near complete collapse of the PA. All of these things actually serve to strengthen the one element that we want to see die off -- the viscious and militant extremist groups in Gaza and the West Bank.

Of course, this was all compounded by the horrible killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. The timing of this attack is pretty significant, as well as the act itself. The kidnapping is somewhat unusual. It has been done in the past, and Israel has set a rationally dubious precedent by agreeing to free hundreds of prisoners in exchange for 1 or 2 captured soldiers. But there has not been a kidnapping for a while, in fact Hizbullah's activity in recent years has been toned down signficantly after the Israeli pullout, and it appears to be focusing more on integrating with the Lebanese government. This is also partly due to the "Cedar revolution" and the Lebanese backlash against the Syrian instigated assasination of their former leader, since it's well knows that Hizbullah is Syria's (and Iran's) proxy in Lebanon. As a result, it's been much quieter on the southern front. But not anymore. So why now? And why such a provacative move?

It can't be a coincidence that this occured so soon after Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier. It's also not an easy thing to do -- sources have confirmed that this has been planned for months (clearly with Iran/Syria's tacit, if not explicit, approval). The need to plan this months in advance, and the timing directly after Hamas, speaks to a level of coordination between Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran that has got to be very scary for Israel. The problem, of course, is what to do about it.

Israel is currently engaged in very heavy attacks against Lebanon. They are bombing the heck out of that country, destroying everything from bridges and buildings to major airports. This is silliness. The Israeli calculation is basically the following: they can't get Hizbullah very easily, since they are so integrated into Lebanon as a whole. If Israel could simply target the Hizbullah bombers and fighters and take them out, along with their amazing stockpile of missles, I have no doubt they'd do just that. But they can't. And so they do the next best thing -- they punish the country and people that harbors and protects Hizbullah in order to send a clear message that this will not stand. They are clearly going after military installations which Hizbullah uses, but the bottome line is that they are hurting/killing ordinary civilians to a greater degree than they are hurting/killing Hizbullah fighers. But this is strategy of punishing the country is based on two problematic assumptions.

First, it assumes that if the Lebanese government wanted to do get rid of Hizbullah, it could do so. This is not a matter of willpower - Hizbullah is better armed, organized, and funded than the Lebanese government or their military. They would win, and that would not be good. Second, it assumes that making the population pay a heavy price will act as a deterrent against future attacks. This very well might happen, but it could just as easily go the other way and radicalize the population against Israel. We've seen both in the Middle East, and I really don't think anyone has a clear idea of how the Lebanese people will react to this (other than just praying for some peace and quiet. i can imagine most people would be happy with that.) The leader of Hizbullah in Damascus, Mr. Nasrallah, declared "open war" against Israel. Why is he doing this? To what point and purpose? I don't think he wants open war, and neither do Syria/Iran, as that would cause them more harm than good. But he wants to bait Israel into more useless incursions into Lebanon.

Also, veering further into speculation, I do think that to some degree these attacks are messages from Iran and Syria to the United States. They are basically saying "Don't threaten us. We know you can't do anything to us while mired in Iraq. But we can do something to you. So back off." Clearly that's not the only reason this is all going on, but I do think to some extent that they are both getting a chuckle at Israel's inability to get to Hizbullah and the US's inability to do anything at all except issue strong language.

Of course, in the face of hundreds of innocents on both sides dying, this is a reprehensible position to take. Iran and Syria need to be reigned in. I just don't know how to do it.

Movin' on...

Well, that time has come. As pretty much everyone who reads this blog already knows, I have decided to quit my job with a prestigious internet company and return to school. It's an odd decision for some, but to me it makes a lot of sense, although I do feel like I'm leaving a lot of great relationships behind. Hopefully they'll survive the distance.

The Big Apple is my destination, specifically the upper westside which is home to Columbia. To be completely honest I have no idea whether I'll enjoy life in NYC, but I'd like to try it out and see. My wanderlust has never really left me, and it's just itching to get out. I imagine my life in NYC will consist of a lot of studying and a lot of travelling, now that I don't have to take time off work or get permission from my boss. Plus, NYC is one of those cities that I just have to try on. It's like seeing a really nice jacket in a store, or new guitar, or whatever. You know you'll probably never end up together, but you still have to try it on, or pick it up and strum out a few chords. Otherwise there'd always be that twinge of regret....and I don't do regret anymore.

I have had tons of folks asking for my blog address, which I'll probably give out in a mass email soon. I'm sure that I'll be posting much more in the future as most ppl who read this are out in California, and as some friends have demonstrated, keeping a journal of the travails of going back to school in a new environment can be quite entertaining if done well. I'll do my best.

For the near future though, I'll be trying to tie up all the loose ends here in SF and say goodbye to this fair city. It'll probably keep me quite busy. I really do enjoy SF -- in fact, I'd venture to guess right now that I'll probably end up in either the SF Bay area or in the Washington DC area when all is said and done. SF is just so beautiful at night. Right now I'm looking out over the SF skyline at dusk, in a dark room with a glass of whisky listening to Tom Waits. Definitely a moody and somewhat reflective evening.