An Indian view

To: Retort

"Re-mapping the globe"
Aijaz Ahmad
Frontline (India), vol 18, issue 22, Oct 27-Nov 9, 2001

>>As I begin drafting this essay on 18 October, on the twelfth day of the
war
>>on Afghanistan, it has become quite clear that the real strategic aim is
not
>>so much a change of regime in Afghanistan but to obtain re-alignments of
>>power across the globe. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was by
any
>>reckoning an act of a group of desperados with so few resources that even
>>after twelve days of bombings which have brought the main cities of
>>Afghanistan-Mazaar-e-Sharif, Herat and even Kabul and Kanadhar-close to
>>collapse, the so-called "terror with a global reach" has not been able to
>>retaliate even in one place in the entire world. Yet, the event has been
>>cited by the U.S. time and again as the one that authorises it to make
overt
>>and covert wars wherever and whenever it so desires, in all corners of the
>>globe.
>>
>>In his televised address to the joint session of the U.S. Congress a few
>>days after the hijackers' attack, President Bush claimed that there were
>>tens of thousands of terrorists lurking in some sixty countries and the
U.S.
>>was going to wage a global, permanent war to weed them out from every nook
>>and corner of the earth. As the pounding of Afghanistan began, John
>>Negroponte, chief U.S. envoy to the United Nations, wrote a letter to the
>>Security Council stating "We may find that our self-defence requires
further
>>action with respect to other organizations and other states." This was
>>undoubtedly the first communication in the history of the UN in which a
>>member state notified the Security Council of its intent to make war
against
>>other member states without naming them, nor even revealing how many of
the
>>member states were to be targetted. At about the same time, Canadian media
>>revealed that a Seattle-based company that makes maps had received
>>instructions from the U.S. government to supply all existing maps of all
>>parts of Agghanistan soon after the WTC attack, and that by the end of the
>>month it had received a similar instruction to forward all possible maps
of
>>Sudan and Yemen as well. Were they also to be targetted?
>>
>>A week into the war on Afghanistan, the International Herald Tribune
>>reported that an influential group in the Pentagon which possibly includes
>>Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was arguing that the next step in the
war
>>should be the ouster of Saddam Hussein by American forces in an operation
>>which might include occupation of a part of Iraq so as to install a
>>"government" comprised of Iraqi exiles close to the U.S. and even the

>>capture of oil fields near Basra in southern Iraq so as to sell the oil
from
>>there to pay the expenses of this puppet regime. This, despite the fact
that
>>a whole host of intelligence agencies, from the Israeli to the
Jordanian --
>>not to speak of Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State -- have said
>>that Saddam had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks. The Defence
>>Policy Board, a prestigeous bipartisan board of national security experts
>>that advises the Pentagon was reported to have met for nineteen hours to
>>consider this option, with Henry Kissinger (Nixon's Secretary of State),
>>Harold Brown (Carter's Defence Secretary), James Woolsey (Clinton's CIA
>>director) Admiral David Jeremiah (a former deputy chairman of the joint
>>Chiefs of Staff), Newt Gingrich (the infamous Republican Speaker of the
>>House of Representatives) and other such luminaries in attendance. In
light
>>of his career as a chief spook, Woolsey was assigned the task of
assembling
>>"evidence" that would show Saddam's links to "terror with a global reach"
>>and would then then be used to prepare a "legal case" to justify such an
>>operation. By now, the U.S. has even invented a name for this new global
>>policy: "regime replacement." Any regime that is not to the liking of the
>>U.S. may face such "replacement."
>>
>>In the strict sense of course, this is not a new policy. The U.S. has a
long
>>history of overt and covert interventions around the globe with the
explicit
>>aim of overthrowing existing governments. The Islamicist jehad in
>>Afghanistan which eventually gave rise to the Taliban was itself product
of
>>such a policy, to overthrow the government of the People's Democratic
Party
>>of Afghanistan (PDPA), and the policy had come into force well before the
>>Soviet Union had intervened to defend that government. In more recent
years,
>>such a policy was implemented successfully in Yugosolavia and
unsuccesfully
>>in Somalia. What is new is a certain globalisation of this policy, a
>>declaration that the U.S. has the unique right to make war against any and
>>all governments that it considers inimical to its interests, and the
notice
>>that has been served upon the world to either support this policy or face
>>retribution. Kofi Annan, who does the U.S. bidding in such matters, has
even
>>been awarded a Nobel prize for his efforts.
>>
>>What are the costs and prospects of success for this policy in
Afghanistan?
>>Estimates suggest that even before the bombings began many more Afghans
had
>>died than the total number killed in the World Trade Centre attack, owing
to
>>the chaos and devastation caused by just the threat of U.S. strikes,
>>generating new internal refugees and leading to the collapse of the food
aid
>>programs upon which some half a million Afghans had until then relied.
>>Pakistan now expects a million new refugees; all the other neighbouring
>>states are bracing for upredicted levels of influx. British commanders
have
>>already warned that the campaign against the Taliban shall last "at least
>>into next Summer." The attendant and inevitable human suffering that such
a
>>campaign promises to bring about is strictly unimaginable.

>>
>>Afghanistan is now in the midst of the scenario we had predicted
(Frontline,
>>12 October 2001). The first phase of this scenario involves a round of
>>massive bombings and well-orchestrated operations by "special forces" to
>>disorganise the Taliban resistance and destroy what little infrastructure
>>the devasted and drought-ridden country still had. At the time of this
>>writing, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has already promised a new
phase
>>soon and all indications seem to be that the landing of ground forces is
>>imminent, first to occupy some outlying areas to establish bases of
>>operation and then to occupy ghost cities from where the population will
be
>>made to flee through saturation bombings. Regardless of what the U.S. says
>>about its intent to avoid civilian casualties, population centres shall be
>>bombed precisely because it is into the general population that the
Taliban
>>and their allies shall melt away. The U.S. would prefer to not occupy
>>Afghanistan for long. Domestic support for this operation is likely to
>>evaporate if any significant number of Americans start dying in the
>>battlefields. They would like to hand over the occupied country to the
>>United Nations which would be required to finish the job that the U.S.
>>itself cannot.
>>
>>There are problems, however. Whether the spectacular strikes end in weeks
or
>>in months, they will not be followed by peace. Afghans do not take to
>>foreign occupation kindly, and there is bound to be a long period of
>>low-intensity warfare, hit-&-run skirmishes and so on, which would involve
>>many more than just the remaining Taliban. This would then be complicated
by
>>regional, ethnic and tribal conflicts and shifting alliances, among the
>>larger nationalities but also even among the Pashtuns themselves who
>>comprise some 40 percent of the population. The U.S. has thought up four
>>responses to these difficulties. First, much hope is pinned on Zahir Shah,
>>the 86-year old former king who has been cooling his heels in Rome since
>>1973 and whom Richard Haas, a senior State Department official, went to
>>visit before the bombing began, with the offer of a long-forgotten throne.
>>Second, this fraudulent monarchical restoration is to be buttressed by a
>>UN-sponsored loi jirga (grand gathering of the elders and notables from
>>different ethnic groups) so as to prop up the pretense of a broad-based,
>>indigenously constituted government. Third, a "green force" authorised by
>>the Security Council and comprised of troops drawn from some Muslim
>>countries is being mooted as a peacekeeping force to ovrsee a post-Taliban
>>transition and the dawn of a new order. Turkey, a Muslim country that
>>commands NATO's second largest army, is being proposed to lead such a
>>multilateral force. Finally, the US hopes to win the loyalty of the
>>vanquished Afghans with huge amounts of humanitarian aid for the populace
>>and development aid for the well-healed.
>>
>>Each of these proposals is beset with difficulties, however. A quick end
to
>>the operations is unlikely not only because the cessation of large-scale
>>bombings would be followed by long-drawn low-intensity warfare but also

>>because the U.S. does want the Taliban government to collapse but does not
>>want to have the Northern Alliance occupy the cities on its own. The
>>Alliance is supported by not only India, which makes it impossible for
>>Pakistan to allow it to triumph, but also Russia and Iran, whom the U.S.
>>itself will not like to give so prominent a role in the final settlement.
>>Musharraf claims that he has "iron-clad" guarantees from the U.S. that the
>>Northern Alliance will not be allowed to gain much advantage in case of a
>>Taliban collapse. Indeed, Pakistan is reported to have threatened to close
>>its airspcace to U.S. aircraft and cancel other kinds of support if the
U.S.
>>allows the Northern Alliance to occupy Kabul. Internally, the Alliance is
>>comprised mainly of Tajiks and Uzbeks, so that its victory is likely to
>>unite most of the Pashtuns behind the Taliban. On the ground, therefore,
the
>>present situation is ambiguous.
>>
>>The fighting front between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance lies some
>>fifty-five kilometers from Kabul, and in stead of disintegrating the
Taliban
>>are reported to have sent reinforcement to the front, assuming that the
U.S.
>>will not bomb them for fear of letting the Northern Alliance march on
Kabul.
>>The U.S. is indeed faced with a hard choice. It can either bomb the
Taliban
>>positions, let the Northern Alliance enter Kabul, allow the coalition
around
>>Pakistan unravel and accept enduring Russian influence in the country; or,
>>it can leave the nucleus of the Taliban forces in tact and send its own
>>occupation fore into the cities before taking on those forces, facing the
>>possibility of guerrilla attacks on its operating units. Sketchy reports
>>seem to suggest that the U.S. has started bombing the Taliban forces and
>>that units of the Northern Alliance led by Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek, are
>>closing in on Mazaar-e-Sharif, a largely Uzbek city, while units of Ismael
>>Khan, a Tajik, are likewise closing in on Heart. Significantly, both
Dostum
>>and Ismael Khan are supported by Iran while Dostum in particular has also
>>received aid from Russia and India. The U.S. thinking on all this remains
>>unclear.
>>
>>Thanks to the prospect of continuing low-intensity warfare in which the
>>indigenous guerrillas would have great advantage, the US and UK are keen
to
>>disengage as soon as possible but the UN itself is not keen to step in,
for
>>fear of unsustainable level of casualties. Nor is it at all clear that
many
>>Muslim countries would volunteer troops for such an engagement. On paper
at
>>least, Iran has not even allowed its air space to be used for US
operations.
>>It is also well-known that before agreeing to offer all the support to the
>>US even Pakistan got the latter to agree that its own troops shall not be
>>available for operations in Afghanistan. Turkey is complaining that its
>>compliance with the US-imposed blockade of Iraq, previously its largest
>>trading partner, has already cost it $30 billion. Nor can the government
>>there ignore the fact that in a recent poll only 29 percent of the Turks
>>supported the U.S. action at all, let alone the deployment of their own

>>troops. Arab governments are so fearful that Saudi Arabia itself, the arch
>>enemy of Osama bin Laden, has refused to freeze bank account of companies
>>and charities associated with him, despite US pressure, for fear of
>>reprisals. Impressive anti-American protests have already taken place in
>>every Muslim country, from Indonesia to Kenya, Iran to Morocco, not to
speak
>>of Pakistan where protests have broken out not only in the larger cities
>>like Karachi or Peshawar or Quetta but even in the small town of Jacobabad
>>in the interior of Sindh where thousands rampaged through the town and two
>>were killed.
>>
>>American difficulties regarding the projected post-Taliban setup are
equally
>>formidable. It is doubtful that Zahir Shah has much following beyond the
>>circle of exiled notables or that any of the contenders for power inside
>>Afghanistan want to be subjected to his titular authority. The Irani
regime,
>>heir to an anti-monarchical revolution, has made known its great
displasure,
>>and Pakistan was not enthusiastic about any such dispensation even in the
>>1980s when both the Soviets and the Americans had considered it at one
time
>>or another. Negotiations to bring back the king are reported to have
stalled
>>already. Nor would a loi jirga called by the Americans to install a
>>government favoured by them be acceptable to any of the Islamicist groups,
>>and it is yet to be seen if many of the Muslim countries that could carry
>>conviction in Afghanistan would be forthcoming to take over the
>>responsibility to clean up the mess Americans are making.
>>
>>Given all these factors, it would appear from currently available evidence
>>that the US would either be unable to extricate itself speedily from the
>>engagement it has taken upon itself and would continue to bomb and kill in
>>the name of what its ideologists and philosophers would sell to the world
as
>>a "just war"; or, the US would at some point declare its war on al Qaida
won
>>and would then withdraw, leaving Afghanistan with a human tragedy even
worse
>>than what it currently faces. The one great asset the US does have is
money,
>>in unimaginably large quantities, which it can use to buy clients among
the
>>elite or to feed some of the millions whom its policies of the past twenty
>>years have rendered hungry and hopeless. So, they are likely to throw
money
>>at the corpses and call it 'humanitarian aid'.
>>
>>The compulsion to withdraw may come also from the shape of the U.S.
economy
>>which declined in September for 12th consecutive month, experiencing the
>>longest decline since 1975. The WTC attack only worsened the state of the
>>investors' confidence which had been plummeting for a whole year, despite
>>nine interest cuts by the Federal Reserve which brought the lending rate
>>from close to 6 per cent down to 2.5 percent within that year. This
absence
>>of investor confidence despite great incentives and inducements mirrors
the
>>loss of consumer confidence in an economy where hundreds of thousands of
>>jobs have been lost during these months and millions of families are
fearful
>>of losing stable incomes and therefore reluctant to spend. This fear is
fed

>>further by the fear of war and terror, not to speak of warnings by the
>>Federal Reserve itself that the economy shall decline further before any
>>recovery can be firmly predicted.
>>
>>Faced with this crisis of spending, a whole host of Western leaders, from
>>Jospin, the Socialist Prime Minsiter of France, to officials of the US
>>Treasury, have started preaching a new kind of patriotism-"the patriotism
of
>>shopping" -whereby spending money, even money that one takes on loan, is
>>said to be a patriotic duty. But spending on what? Fear of hijackings have
>>already led to such a fear of flying that cutbacks in the number of
flights
>>have led to 200,000 job losses in the airline industry in just over a
month.
>>12 percent of the world's consumer spending is now tied up with tourism,
25
>>percent with entertainment as such; those beset by fear of war, terror and
>>unemployment begin to abstain from such spending, contributing to
>>stagnation. It is possible that a section of the capitalist class shall
>>itself step forward to put an end to the zealotry of the warmongers even
>>more effectively than the street protests can do.
>>
>>It would be extremely foolish, however, to imagine that the US is headed
for
>>a policy failure. The retreat, if it comes, shall be an orderly one, with
>>gains already made.  For, the internal settlement in Afghanistan, or the
>>well being of its inhabitants, is an insignificant part of US objectives.
>>More crucial is the project to re-draw the geo-strategic and political
maps
>>of the world. If the relentless destruction of Iraq has been a project to
>>consolidate the Western alliance and silence the Third world through a
>>decade-long demonstration of what the "sole superpower" can do to a Third
>>World country after the "other superpower"-the Soviet Union-has been
>>dsmantled, this so-called "war on terrorism," starting with one of the
>>poorest and long-suffering countries on this earth, is designed to draw
the
>>OECD countries actively into junior partnership in warmongering and to
tell
>>the Third World that is not only to be silenced but to actively serve in
the
>>imperial project, much as native armies used to be activated for colonial
>>conquest.
>>
>>Under Blair's stewardship, Britain has been drawn actively into a military
>>action which, for that wretched country of colonial nostalgia, serves
>>something resembling the fourth Afghan War, with success guaranteed by the
>>US this time around. In Germany where the postwar settlement had
restricted
>>the country's military might at home and military operations abroad,
Gerhard
>>Schroder, at the head of the Socialist-led government, announced
"unlimited
>>solidarity" with the U.S. "war on terrorism," won 71 per cent of public
>>support in the polls, and went on to announce the possibility of German
>>troop involvement abroad, while his coalition partners, the supposedly
>>pacifist Greens who supported the US in the Kosovo invasion, sit gaping.
In
>>Japan, equally constrained after the Second World War, a parliamentary
panel
>>has already drafted a new law that would enable Japan to despatch troops
for
>>war operations abroad. China, the most powerful country in the Third
World,

>>has abandoned its long-standing policy of opposition to any UN role in the
>>internal affairs of member states, calling upon the UN to play an active
>>role in putting together the ruling coalition in Afghanistan after the
>>Americans have succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban regime.
>>
>>The case of Russia is the most pathetic. Inheriting a land that had been
>>defeated by the United States when the latter foisted a bunch of
Islamicist
>>murderers upon Afghanistan, the current Russian Duma simply passed a
>>resolution echoing the words of Bush to the effect that not only terrorist
>>organisations but also governments that support terrorism must be
punished.
>>Putin briefly balked at the idea that member states of the Commonwealth of
>>Independent States (CIS) would offer any facilities for the Americans, but
>>then fell in line as other states simply ignored him. Tajikistan, a member
>>of the CIS Collective Security Treaty, offered its airspace; Uzbekistan
went
>>further and offered its military bases; Kazakhstan offered air corridors
for
>>access to Afghanistan, as did Kyrgyzstan; and Turkemanistan, eyeing the
>>possibilty for a pipeline for its gas through Afghanistan and thus
>>re-aligning its oil economy with the US instead of Russia, opened up its
>>airspace as well as territory for military operations. In the process,
>>Uzbekistan became almost as important as Pakistan for the American war on
>>Afghanistan. At length Russia too offered airspace for so-called
>>"humanitarian aid."
>>
>>These items of piecemeal news in fact signify a historic re-alignment in
>>maps of global power. For, America's Afghan War which began in the Soviet
>>period and has now lasted for over two decades has always had the key
>>dimension of a fight for control over the immense and largely untapped
>>economic resources of the Asian republics of the former USSR. The
>>competition for pre-eminence in the region has been fierce between Russia
>>and the US even after the dissolution of the USSR. Even the Taliban were
>>brought in, by the Pakistanis but with American backing, with the
>>calculation that their dependence on Pakistan would facilitate the
American
>>and Pakistani economic interests in the region, notably the oil and gas
>>interests in Turkemanistan. Turkey itself was once encouraged to play a
>>forward role in the region on America's behalf, thanks to its historic
ties
>>with the region, harking back to the Ottoman period, and if Turkey now
>>agrees to play the gendarme in Afghanistan, it would be with an eye to
that
>>role in a region for which Afghanistan is something of an underbelly. What
>>this current phase of the war on Afghanistan has brought about is this
>>re-alignment of the resource-rich Central Asian states with the U.S. at
the
>>expense of Russia, in a time when Russia itself has no alternatives.
>>
>>Iran presents us with an equally important and complex case. Khamenai,
heir
>>to the authority of the chief jurisconsult in Iran after the death of
>>Ayatullah Khomeini, has denounced American attack on Afghanistan and the
>>government of Presdient Khatami has dutifully denied the US the use of
Irani

>>airspace for those operations. However, that same government has offered
>>cooperation in rescuing and safeguarding any personnel if it were shot
down
>>in that airspace and is urging the Northern Alliance to cooperate with the
>>US. This paradoxical policy framework is related to the fact that Iran
>>almost went to war with the Taliban in 1998, has always feared for the
>>plight of the Shia sectarian minority under the rabidly Sunni rule of the
>>Taliban, is host to over a million Afghan refugees, and is fearful of the
>>influx of more refugees, narcotics and weapons. It also fears that the war
>>may lead to a North-South division of Afghanistan and a continued civi war
>>as a consequence; or that Pakistan would engineer a government out of its
>>clients, past and present; or that the monarchy would be re-established in
>>Afghanistan. Its official position is that Burhanuddin Rabbani's
government
>>which is recognised by the UN, should take power after the Taliban have
been
>>routed, as an interim step before a broad-based government is assembled.
In
>>this context, then, Iran is reported to have intelligence-sharing
>>arrangements with the U.S. and is in active dialogue over the question of
>>the post-Taliban dispensation in Kabul. The US has returned the favour by
>>carrying out a comprehensive policy review so as to prepare a 'tilt'
toward
>>Iran against Iraq. Enemies of the recent past are fast becoming strategic
>>allies.
>>
>>Tests of loyalty have been required globally. Most of the bombing missions
>>have been carried out from offshore aircraft-carriers but troops have been
>>stationed in "countries within striking distance," such as Saudi Arabia,
>>Kuwait, Oman, Tajikistan, Pakistan, as well as Diego Garcia. NATO was
>>reminded early that the US had treaty rights to seek cooperation.
Australia
>>has been pressed to promise active military support while Canada is
pressed
>>to alter even its own regulations for immigration and border
>>checking.Indonesia has had to pledge support in the face of a popular
>>opposition so threatening that US operatives are already stationed in the
>>country to pick out the more militant elements. Even North Korea has
issued
>>a statement that could be construed, and has been so construed in
>>Washington, as a declaration of support for the US.
>>
>>For us, undoubtedly, the most important is the re-alignment of forces in
>>South Asia itself. US interests in India remain as before but in relation
to
>>Afghanistan India is, in the view of the US, a periphral element. The
>>shameless alacrity with which the Vajpayee government offered Indian
>>airspace and naval facilities was at best abject. Actually, the US does
not
>>even need Indian airspace, given Pakistan's availability, but India is a
>>significant force in Asian affairs and it should have required from the US
>>guarantees that Pakistan would cease sponsorship of militancy in Kashmir.
In
>>actual fact, India got as little out of this unilateral concession as it
did
>>from the earlier, equally abject support for the American National Missile
>>Defence programs.

>>
>>Musharraf, by contrast, has been the main beneficiery and has played his
>>cards well. Sensing the extent of the U.S. dependence on him, he has
>>extended his own term as army chief for an indefinite period and got rid
of
>>the senior generals who had helped him come to power in the first place.
The
>>network of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agancy (ISI) operatives
in
>>Afghanistan and the information they possess is invaluable for America's
>>regional aims. The US also knows well how intimately the Afghan situation
is
>>connected with the refugee camps, the Afghan settlers, the religious
>>seminaries, the Islamicist establishment, the military-bureaucratic elite
in
>>Pakistan, and that the Pakistani and US interests coincide not only in the
>>Gulf region but also in Central Asia. Knowing that he has suddenly gained
>>almost as much leverage as did General Zia when the Afghan War began in
>>1978, Musharraf has bargained for major concessions across the board.
>>
>>On the economic front, Musharraf has already obtained an estimated $1
>>billion in aid, debt re-scheduling and indirect benefits arising from
>>Washington's decision to lift the nuclear-related sanctions. In a parallel
>>move, the European Commission rushed through trade concessions worth $1:35
>>billion, removing all tarrifs on textile exports which account for 60% of
>>Pakistan's exports to the EU, so as to compensate for the expected decline
>>in export earnings owing to the global recession and sharp rise in
insurance
>>costs. As America's military and strategic involvement in Pakistan gets
>>revived, large sums of money are likely to pour in, forcing much of the
>>upper class and the military to fall in line.
>>
>>On the matter of Afghanistan itself, Musharraf has won the key concession
>>that the Northern Alliance shall be cut to size, that some sections of the
>>Taliban be accomodated in the new dispensation. In the joint press
>>conference with Powell, Musharraf emerged as the more vocal partner and
>>outlined the overall strategy of the successive phases of military
>>destruction, political re-alignment and economic reconstruction as a
>>long-term solution for the Afghan problem. "We agreed," he said, "that
>>durable peace in Afghanistan would only be possible through the
>>establishment of a broad-based multi-ethnic government representing the
>>demographic contours of Afghanistan." Translated into plain language, the
>>formulation implies that the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other ethnic
>>minorities shall receive their due share but Pushtun dominance shall
>>continue. This should reassure not only the Pashtun population in
>>Afghanistan and the refugee camps but the 20 million Pakistan Pashtuns as
>>well, including that 25 percent of the Armed Forces which are drawn from
>>among them. Pakistan will undoubtedly seek a prominent role in any
>>post-Taliban settlement and one can fairly well assume that just as US
>>troops have arrived at bases in Sindh and Baluchistan, Pakistani
operatives
>>are active within Afghanistan even more than the American or the British.
>>

>>By far the most important concession was that Musharraf got Colin Powell
to
>>speak of Kashmir in the language that Pakistan prefers: that the Kashmir
>>dispute "be resolved in accord with the wishes of the Kashmiri people."
>>This, along with the continued operations of the Pakistan-sponsored
>>militants in J&K, is what he will take to the people as he launches his
>>attack on the domestic Islamicist groups, as evidence that he has not
>>compromised Pakistan's interests in Kashmir by offering support to the
>>American designs in Afghanistan. Nor is it likely that the US shall now
>>press Pakistan to cease its meddling in J&K, however much it may be
>>displeased by particular terrorist acts there. The US-Pakistan alliance
has
>>been revived for good and is here to stay, unless a full-scale Islamicist
>>uprising undoes it.
>>
>>That sort of uprising seems unlikely in the short run. Musharraf has
>>re-shuffled the command structure and has gone on the offensive against
the
>>Islamicist groupings, even to the extent that Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the
>>Jami'at-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), the most illustrious of the pro-Taliban
>>clerics in Pakistan, has become the first leader to be charged with
treason,
>>for inciting the armed forces. This long-awaited offensive, on the part of
a
>>soldier who once declared himself a Kemalist, is the only good thing that
>>has come out of the global re-alignment of forces. So far the offensive is
>>succeeding because the Islamicists in Pakistan represent a vocal, well
>>organised, partially armed but still a very small minority. However,
public
>>outrage at America's crusade in the region is very much on the rise and
can
>>only increase as long as the war continues. And if the US does settle down
>>to a perpetual war, as Bush has proposed, we may yet see a Pakistan in
which
>>the elite gets regrouped behind America, in pursuit of wealth and economic
>>benefit, while the masses of people move into a settled opposition and
>>resentment which gets to be represented by a new generation of populist
>>Islam. That is all the more likely in the absence of a strong enough
secular
>>force harnessing that anti-imperialist sentiment for rational purposes.
What
>>effect all that may have for the Armed Forces themselves, especially among
>>the junior ranks and the common soldiery, it is too soon to tell. That is
so
>>because we are witnessing only the first few skirmishes of a war that
>>imperialism itself foresees as being globalised and perpetual. Much shall
>>change over the next few weeks, months, years. India seems ill-prepared to
>>cope with the uncertainties of that future.
>