M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — In 2004, this columnist
annoyed some of his U.S. friends by rooting for George W. Bush for the U.S.
presidency over his rival, John Kerry. The reason was simple: It was the first
presidential poll since 9/11, and a Bush defeat would have given oxygen to the
fanatics now hiding in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. They would have
ascribed a Bush defeat to no factor other than themselves, as would thousands
of others of like mindset.
George W. Bush has his faults – including a
blindness toward the deeds of his financial backers – but his pulverization of
both the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq ensured that
al-Qaida must cross a very high bar to ensure its geographical preservation
before taking on the U.S. homeland again. Unfortunately, the gains in
Afghanistan are being reversed by a disastrous follow-up strategy.
Kerry would almost certainly have been
tested early in his term with a determined probe, if not an actual attack –
though the odds that this war veteran would respond less forcefully than Bush
may have been close to zero.
By this logic, it may seem preferable for
John McCain to become the next U.S. president, for even Barack Obama’s running
mate, Joe Biden, believes that Obama would be tested early in his term, the way
Kerry would probably have been.
The odds are high it will be Obama rather
than McCain who will be speedily tested by the fanatics. But 2009 is not 2005.
Outside Pakistan and those parts of Afghanistan where NATO has shut out the
Northern Alliance, al-Qaida is weak – relying on life support from a network of
sympathizers fired up by perceived U.S. injustices in Iraq.
Should Barack Obama be elected on Nov. 4,
the odds are high that most of this network would decide there was insufficient
reason to risk hitting a population that had just elected a president with a
Kenyan Muslim father. They would most likely either withdraw or dilute their
support for such an action, thus weakening the blow substantially.
The mindset of those who provide a support
base for Osama bin Laden and his cohorts is based on their own concepts of
morality and ethics. A McCain win would indicate to al-Qaida sympathizers that
the "international anti-Muslim global conspiracy" still retains its
presumed grip over the United States, and would therefore energize their
support for operations against the world's most powerful democracy. Hence,
although the blow may take longer to fall, it would likely be much harder and
more deadly were McCain to become the 44th president of the United States.
In 2004, this columnist looked only at the
immediate threat of an attack on the United States, forgetting the impact Bush
policy would have on the spread of the jihadi mindset within vulnerable
populations. In 2009, worry about an individual attack is less crucial than the
need to dry up the breeding grounds of the fanatics, which Bush-Cheney
occupation policies have helped create.
In the last four years, hatred toward the
West has increased considerably within the Muslim world. This has manifested in
the willingness of even middle- and upper-class women to wear the traditional
abaya in many countries. This is less a religious statement than a sartorial
protest against what is seen as a resurgence of Western colonialism in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Barack Obama is partly wrong in thinking
the Afghan theater needs more NATO troops. What is needed is the mobilization
of anti-Taliban elements within the population, as was done in 2001 and 2002,
before NATO began its Pakistan-induced policy of eliminating the Northern
Alliance.
Also needed are attacks on safe havens
within Pakistan, to snap the supply network that has given muscle to the
Taliban. Obama seems to support this. If the United States follows in the
footsteps of the Soviet Union and leaves the bases inside Pakistan unmolested,
NATO will go the way of the Soviets before long.
Under a President Obama, the silhouette of
the United States within the Muslim mind would likely shift to a less
oppressive imprint. This would lower the ability of al-Qaida to win recruits
and cash, thus helping to defeat an organization that is spreading like a
cancer in societies across the globe.
Were Obama to do what he has said and
complete a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the result would be not chaos
but stability. Sadly, most within the United States and Europe still seem to
buy the argument Winston Churchill used to withhold freedom from India – that
the country "would descend into chaos if the British were to leave."
Certainly John McCain thinks so.
As for the present financial meltdown,
Obama is much more likely than McCain to ensure that those responsible for the
present situation are punished. This needs to take place before the rest of the
world will again trust Western financial institutions and governments with
their surpluses.
Finally, the election of an
African-American by an electorate still dominated by white voters would draw
the poison from those who claim that people of color will never be allowed to
succeed in a white-majority country – even though this proposition has already
been discredited by the success of Indians and other Asians in the United
States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
President Obama would be the herald of the
ancient Indian dream of "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" – the world is one family
– he of mixed Kenyan-Kansan blood, with people of so many nationalities as his
close relations. Almost a year ago, this columnist wrote that "an Obama
win could win the world." Nothing has taken place since then to change
this view.
-(Professor M.D. Nalapat is
vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and
professor of geopolitics at Manipal University. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)
No comments:
Post a Comment