Mumbai Attacks Point to Needed U.S. Policy Shift

Zbigniew Brzezinski likes to call the part of South Asia that includes the "border" between Afghanistan and Pakistan and related areas the "new Balkans," which is an apt metaphor given the intense ethnic, religious, nationalist and proto-nationalist rivalries of the region that have already drawn in the major powers. Like everything else of consequence in the world, George W. Bush ignored this volatile zone in favor of his misguided unilateral action to remake the Middle East in the image of West Texas. With the recent attacks on luxury hotels in Mumbai, Americans are now getting a crash course on the India-Pakistan dispute in Kashmir, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and an obscure Islamic fundamentalist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has been fighting in Indian-occupied Kashmir since 1989, but can trace its origins, like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, back to the U.S.-supported anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan of the 1980s.

After the spectacular Mumbai attacks, the Indian minister in charge of security, Shivraj Patil, had the decency to resign his post in disgrace instead of serving up lies and spin like National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice did following 9-11. Bush believed that his "national security" adviser, after bumbling the biggest breach of the nation's security in modern history, deserved to be promoted to Secretary of State. I doubt the Indian government will be giving Mr. Patil a promotion any time soon.

A handful of the Lashkar-e-Taiba fighters who assaulted tourist sites in Mumbai might have gotten training from the ISI, but I bet it was freelancers from one of the many global franchises that plotted and carried out the operation. There's plenty of hate to go around and plenty of spin-off groups capable of such an attack. If Pakistan really wanted to use ISI to hit India it has far more lethal means at its disposal. Bush's "coercive diplomacy," which made the "War on Terror" the central organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy, has been not only an epic failure but has strained the stability of Pakistan. Bush's insistence on using drones for targeted assassinations inside Pakistan is stirring up trouble. At this point, in his final forty-two days in office, I guess we are lucky that Bush hasn't attacked Iran and brought on an even wider war in the region.

But what of Bush's other failures in Southwest Asia?

Let me count the ways.

Despite the fact that India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Bush granted the Indian government special privileges in its relations with the U.S. nuclear industry, in effect, rewarding India for stockpiling atomic bombs. Bush also pressed the U.S.-backed President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, to forge stronger ties with India, which fueled unnecessary tensions and provided the context for the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul last July.

Bush gave the now de-throwned Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, $10 billion in arms to help the Americans fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Musharraf diverted a lot of these military resources away from Pakistan's Taliban-dominated western border and toward the east to bolster the permanent face off against India and Indian-controlled Kashmir. Bush supported Musharraf long after his political shelf life among Pakistan's 160 million people had expired. By the time Musharraf resigned last August he had alienated large swaths of Pakistan's moderates and pro-democracy elements, most notably those associated with the judiciary and the legal community. Bush never pushed for any diplomatic "peace process" in Kashmir to relieve the tensions between India and Pakistan, even while selling both nations arms. Bush made demands on Musharraf as if he were a school child and treated Pakistan like a banana republic instead of a nuclear power.

Every time the U.S. military or intelligence agencies kill Pakistani citizens, regardless of the context or justification, the U.S. loses "hearts and minds" inside Pakistan's volatile political mix. American drones attacking wedding parties and towns inside Pakistan have fueled anti-American sentiment and made it more difficult for pro-U.S. moderates in Pakistan to maintain political support. Bush was far too willing to throw money and arms at the ISI and align U.S. interests with warlords in Afghanistan, even with their ties to fighters in Kashmir, including Lashkar-e-Taiba. He made the Taliban more popular by killing scores of innocent civilians and violating Pakistan's sovereignty.

At the same time, Bush insisted on threatening Iran with military attack, saying "all options are on the table," and denounced Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil." Iran's cooperation in fighting the Taliban quickly dried up. Hence, he isolated Iran and cut-off diplomatic possibilities at the very moment the United States needed Iran's assistance the most, not only in Afghanistan but also in Iraq. Bringing Iran into the mix and "triangulating" against Afghanistan's militants could have taken some of the pressure off Pakistan.

And let's not forget that Bush's military occupation of Afghanistan has somehow led to an enormous increase in opium poppy growing. Opium production has ballooned from about 60 tons when the Taliban controlled Kabul to over 4,000 tons today. The hard cash from this bumper crop of heroin provides the Taliban and Al Qaeda with lavish financing at a time when American intelligence officials claim they are trying to close down sources of funding for these organizations. This increase in opium production, and the American tolerance of it, is most likely connected to the tapestry of shadowy groups and Afghan warlords with which the U.S. has aligned in an effort to buy loyalty to the Karzai government. There is also evidence that elements within Karzai's regime are deeply involved in the opium trade.

Bush's aggressive and haphazard military actions in Afghanistan have now spilled over in the form of car bombings and suicide attacks in Peshawar, Pakistan. The violence threatens to destabilize parts of Pakistan where Islamic fundamentalists have strong influence. In short, Bush's policies directed at Southwest Asia have been disastrous, and because of the nuclear component, even more dangerous than his failed policies in the Middle East.

A new report from the Project on Defense Alternatives calls for a dramatic shift in the diplomatic and strategic posture of U.S. foreign policy. "Despite initial successes in Afghanistan and Iraq," the report's executive summary states, "an over-reliance on military instruments has weakened America's armed forces, unsettled its alliances, spurred anti-Americanism, and prompted balancing behavior on the part of China and Russia. Global terrorist activity has increased, not decreased. And there is no real end in sight for U.S. commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, instability is spreading to other countries and so are U.S. military operations." The report goes on to outline the way out: "An alternative security policy would emphasize broad multilateral cooperation in containing and resolving crises, reducing conflict potentials, and redressing the sources of instability in the international system. And, it would recognize that the sources of instability today are not principally military, political, or ideological in character, but instead economic, demographic, and environmental."

With hope, President-Elect Barack Obama will listen to the wisdom of the Project on Defense Alternatives' December 2008 report. Carrying on even a semblance of the Bush policies in Southwest Asia and the Middle East should not be an option. From what I caught Obama saying yesterday morning on Meet the Press, I think he understands the new path we must follow. Although I disagree with sending more troops to Afghanistan and attacking targets inside Pakistan, I think we should give the new president the needed flexibility to begin the arduous process of cleaning up the horrific mess in Southwest Asia that George W. Bush is passing on to him.

Comments

[KoolBreez]

There would have been no violent movement in Kashmir without American jihad against the commies in Afghanistan. All the crazies already gathered in Afghan-Pakistan are descended upon the unsuspecting Indians on the other border.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I know enough about South Asia to understand that the George W. Bush policies have been miserable failures in the region.

[Alethia]

I think Joseph Palermo has hit the nail on the head through this very factual and probing article.

[rkb123]

This article is seriously flawed. Too many authors are opining about South Asia without even remotely understanding the region.

[Pejeal]

Alethia, of course the situation in Kashmir is not satisfactory, for all the conditions that you describe so well. Given all the problems, let us use the Hindu approach, meaning, the current approach used in all India where Muslims live well and in freedom and prosper, as any other religion, Parsi, Christian, Jewish, has done in India for centuries. You can's say the same for Pakistan and Bangladesh, the former started with 25% Hindu population, now is less than 1%, similar in Bangladesh. Hindus are thoroughly discriminated against in those two countries. Reactionary excesses by India army exist in Kashmir, and in this way will be eradicated.

Naivete can be a killer, as proved by Mohandas Gandhi.

Moreover, Radical Universalism tries to teach us that all religions are the same when they are not. This is utterly false. Where have India attacked any other country through history of thousands of years? How many Hindu priests proselytize? Not all scriptures are the same. A peaceful Islam is an oxymoron.
http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

So I say with Krishna:
atha cettvamimam dharmyam sangramam na karisyasi
tatah svadharmam kirtim ca hitva papamavapsyasi
Now, if you refuse to fight this righteous war, then, shirking your duty and losing your reputation, you will incur sin.

[hillpill]

Righteousness is subjective.

[Alethia]

Pejeal, I respect your opinion but disagree with your approach.

I believe in the middle way, not in extreme approaches.

Human beings in the world of here and now must compromise with one another in order to live together.

I refuse to criticise and second guess anybody's religion or belief system.

It is the intentions and actions of individuals that count.

[bobh]

Inevitably, grand juries in the US will hand down indictments against Pakistanis involved in Mumbai.
I would like Obama to withold all further aid pending the total cooperation of Pakistan with those prosecutions.

What has happened to the Pakistani convicted of murdering Daniel Perle, by the way?

[Alethia]

Dear Pejeal,

As you I'm sure you know, there are lovely devotional songs from the Hindu religion called Bhajans.

There is one which sends an outstanding message to all human beings be they Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish, Parsi, Jain and Buddhist.

It's called Sharena Paray. And the song means:

We are all under God's feet...

[Alethia]

O.K., Pejeal. Tell me, do you think that the status quo in Kashmir is satisfactory? Millions of Kashmiris living in fear and suffering from the dual effects of terrorists and the Indian security forces. And yes, Pundits living in miserable conditions outside Kashmir in refugee camps. A constant enstrangement between India and Pakistan to the point of going to the brink of war every few years. The world community with hearts in their mouths at the sight of all of this. Friends of India and Pakistan worrying (such as me) constantly about their friends' safety who live in both countries. Tell me?

I am a bit of a spiritual person such as yourself, Pejeal.

I hold in high esteem the Gita, Guru Granth Sahib, Quran, Bible and other holy books.

And yes, I believe that God orders everything.

But humankind does have a freewill also to make the right choices.

And with our two feet on the ground, human beings must compromise with eachother, forgive one another and face bravely the reality of the world in which we live.

[Pejeal]

The problem with Kashmir is the domino effect. If it goes free, which is what Kashmiris really want, from both Pakistan and India, it won't last a month. If India lets it go, now comes Janmu, then Punjab, so where is the end?

The Islamic Terrorists tactics is pretty obvious.

And what about the Kashmir Hindu Pundits plea? 300,000 or so refugees in camps around Delhi, or crowded in Janmu, many others massacred in ethnic cleansing. Before anything happens in Kashmir, they must be returned there. Do you think that the Islamists will accept that?

It is incorrect to think that force must be the last resort. Especially with people like those who came uninvited to Mumbai the other day. Mohandas Gandhi wrong Ahimsa, fasting, and appeasement of Jinnah, ended up in almost 2 million Indians dead during the walks on Partition. Talk about non-violence results.

Arjuna must prepare again to fight, and fight big, to heed the call of Krishna in Kurukshetra. Otherwise, the decline isimminent, for the enemy is cunning, and bent on total destruction.

[gsc 99]

This article motivated me to create a log-in and comment:

- Any 3rd party intervention in Kashmir will be unacceptable to India. During 1971 US had tried to intimidate India by sending in the Nuclear armed USS Enterprise into the Indian Ocean during East Pakistan War to liberate Bangladesh. India went to USSR for military support and soon detonated its nuclear device in 1974. India like any democracy wants to settle Kashmir issue based on its self-interest, any interventions, military or diplomatic won't help. Recent rumors about Barack Obama appointing Bill Clinton as special envoy for the subcontinent to help solve Kashmir were shot down immediately by New Delhi.

- Kashmir issue also involves China. Part of Kashmir called Askai Chin was gifted by Pakistan to China during 1963. Subsequent to Dalai Lama's political asylum in India and China's attack on India during 1962 relations between India and China have improved. China wants India to kick out Dalai Lama and millions of Tibetans from India for friendlier relations

- India has been friendly to Afghanistan despite American pressure not to. India had supported Mohammad Najibullah, after the Soviets left. India has a vested interest in being friendly with Afghanistan, which is to keep Pakistan from achieving strategic depth on it's western borders against India

- Indian nuclear research is mostly indigenous. India has refused to sign the NPT because it considers the nuclear monopoly enjoyed by five permanent members of UN security council as unfair. This nuclear deal was criticized

[Alethia]

India can no longer maintain that the Kashmir dispute is its business only just as Pakistan can no longer maintain that terrorism emanating form its soil is not its responsibility.

The Kashmir dispute and its resolution is now everybody's business.

And every day that this dispute is allowed to continue, the security of the entire world is at risk.

[Samstud]

Do you really think that Al Qaida or LeT will stop if Kashmir conflict is resolved. Do you seriously think that if Isreal Palestine conflict is somehow resolved there will be no islamic terrorism ?

No!...these issues are exploited by these people to drive a wedge, and recruit people. Kashmir is a very complex issue and until recently, India and pakistan were making slow, but steady progress on a number of fronts. There are no radical solutions to kashmir....it will take years of confidence building measures and diplomacy. Peace was slowly coming back to Kashmir, terrorism was down...till a dispute erupted earlier this year...and as soon as things were going back to normal....terror has stuck., and put diplomacy back by years. It will take a long time now before India can trust Pakistan again.

Everytime there has been a progress in talks, there has been a major event that has pushed things way back. Just after Vajpayee and Sharif had a peace summit...Kargil happened...and now this.

BTW. Kashmir is a bilateral issue....just like Isreal and palestine. It may affect everybody, but that does give US, or UN the right to interfere.

[KoolBreez]

Turning Kashmir into Gaza Strip was the very objective of the violence.. That won't slide because the Indians have been in continuous residence there since before there was an Islam.

Every point which is in the favor of either party in the Palestine Israel conflict, is in favor of India.

[Alethia]

I agree with Joseph Palermo that the Kashmir dispute between India, Pakistan and Kashmiris must be solved for there to be any semblance of peace in the region or, indeed, peace in the world.

Anyone who compares India's holding on to Kashmir with the USA holding on to California (as a commenter in this column has) doesn't know what they are talking about and certainly doesn't have any understanding of history.

Kashmir is a dispute on the books of the UN contained in a few UN Security Council resolutions and it is thus a de jure dispute between two contesting nations: India and Pakistan. One of the resolutions states that the people of Kashmir must be given the right to a vote to join India or Pakistan. However, India has been obstructing the solution to Kashmir for 60 years.

It is correct that the world community is putting pressure on Pakistan to weed out terrorists on its soil that may be involved in the attack at Mumbai.

But it's also about time the world community put pressure on India to cooperate in Kashmir.

[HybridTea]

Pakistan has long had difficulty managing the North West Frontier province which by ethnic and geographic divisions should really should be part of Afghanistan

And what about the Kurds - whose land is now split between Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. And the Armenians. And Tibet. Should we have a vote on the same day and be done with this business.
Oh and I forgot the people of Darfur who are being chased from their oil rich lands by the Arabs of Sudan. Should we just make Darfur a separate country so they are not killed in their own land. I am sure that the rest of Africa wasn't divided up with matching ethnic groups in each country.

The thing to keep in mind is that when British India was partitioned many people crossed over to India or Pakistan and there are also those who simply remained where they had lived for centuries. Even today Pakistan has pockets of Hindus in distinct geographic areas and India ,which has a larger Moslem population that Pakistan, has Moslems in distinct geographic areas. Should these groups also be given the right to self-determination?

And the Buddhist people of Leh (now administered as part of Indian Kashmir) - with a distinct ethnic and geographic identity - will they also be given the right of self-determination. And what about the Hindus of Kashmir - keep in mind that Hinduism and Buddhism predated Islam in this part of the world and not everyone bowed before the conquering

[Samstud]

"However, India has been obstructing the solution to Kashmir for 60 years."

60 years ago the UN resolved to hold a plebiscite was to be held in Kashmir to help them choose. But before a plebiscite could take place Pakistan invaded, and India defended...and Kashmir was split into Indian and pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK).

In truth it is pakistan who has been obstructing things. POK does not have elections or any local government. There are more settlers from Pakistan in POK than kashmiris. Pakistani "education" has systematically brainwashed people in POK....giving them a curriculum that is heavy on islam and presents a distorted version of history.

The UN resolution has no relevence today.

[TheEnticer]

That is the first world view of the situation.. anybody knows how easy it is to get those resolutions passed. Let me give an example, in the 60s when India liberated Goa(a state now in the Indian union) from the oppressive rule of the portuguese, the US, China and allies were bent on passing a UN Security resolution, condemning the spread of democracy and liberation for millions of people in Goa...

Alethia, what you are saying is nonsensical. Just because somebody starts a fight with you, doesnt make it legitimate. If a plebiscite is so "democratic" why dont we hold one in Texas? Or for that matter umpteen of those former colonies... Fact of the matter is Raja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession after Pakistan attacked Kashmir. So legally that kingdom then became part of the new Indian Union. India had never ever signed up for this "plebiscite"; you are making stuff up (Nehru had referred to it against the will of his Home minister Patel).

[Alethia]

Some of your arguments are valid while others are invalid. Your references to a plebiscite in Texas and elsewhere are stated as a diversion. And it was, in fact, Prime Minister Nehru who referred the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations (please read your history). The ensuing UN resolutions call for a plebiscite to held in Kashmir. But yes, the Maharaja of Kashmir did sign an accession instrument to India.

And therefore, India and Pakistan both have a legal basis to claim Kashmir. One on the basis of accession, and the other on the basis of UN resolutions. So frames the de jure dispute.

I'd also be quite confident, that if India were to agree to a UN-supervised plebiscite, that Pakistan would withdraw its troops and allow it to be held.

But the third dimension brings to the fore the most aggrieved party: the Kashmiri people themselves. These people are being cowed into submission by Indian security forces' brutality.

It is about that aspect and about the self-determination of the Kashmiri people that the conscience of the world community, in the "1st world" or wherever, is stirred.

[Alkelly340]

mr. palermo, didnt you hear? bush declared the white house a "bummer free zone" till the end of his presidency. He no longer wants to hear of his failures.

[Carolab]

Hamid Gul was on CNN yesterday and told Fareed Zakaria that the attacks in Mumbai were an "inside job".

After break, Zakaria said: "Some of General Gul"s views are simply false. There is a mountain of evidence about 9/11 that refutes his assertions," but Zakaria failed to cite any of it.

Zakaria was then joined by counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen who said that the Mumbai attacks bore all the hallmarks of a "clandestine operation or a covert operation style activity," but when pressed he refused to directly implicate Pakistan in the attack.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6402

I don't like the way this is shaping up at all--the finger-pointing at ISI/Pakistan is particularly worrisome in light of this:

http://timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=22637

[Carolab]

Does anyone feel safer now? Gul has been on record before saying 9 1 1 was an "inside job" and now he says the same about Mumbai. We know about the CIA's involvement with the ISI/Al Qaeda. We also know about other likely state intelligence agency actors. Now we are being told by Bob Graham in some report that it is "likely" that WE will be attacked by Pakistan.

What does this tell you?

[2PartyDictatorship]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who reads between the lines.

[Carolab]

Could it be any more obvious? Why doesn't everyone see how this is being set up?

[OmnesOmnibus]

Pakistan has been at war with us at least since 9/11 (and certainly before). But we have not been at war with them. We mindlessly pursue a head in the sand strategy wanting to believe their silken reassurances of being our "ally in the War on Terror" as they continue to support terror plot after terror plot against the West both in the Middle East, East Asia and in Europe and on our soil. They allow Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their own home grown terror groups to operate with impunity and in fact, with their support. Far from stopping this, we just pour money into Pakistan much of which no doubt ends up in terrorist hands. What will it take to wake us up? Probably, sadly, we will not respond until we suffer the attack predicted by the non Partisan commission (they predict an attack by nuclear or biological means from Pakistan within 5 years). If ever there was a genuine rational for preemptive means, Pakistan is it. Obama realizes the problem, no doubt about it. But will he do what has to be done?

[Carolab]

B.S. Pakistan has been our ALLY since at least 9 11. Where have you been?

[fightorleave2]

Mr. Palermo, you flippantly contend that Pakistan's ISI has 'far more lethal means' at its disposal than a couple of kids with guns and grenades. I wonder if you intend to mislead your readers or if you just don't understand the admittedly complex situation in Pakistan. However, anyone with a modicum of understanding of Pakistan knows that the Lashkar exists only because the Pak army lets it exist. It is also accepted, despite their denials, that Lashkar, like essentially every other militant group and religious group in Pakistan, exists because they serve the Pak army. I also just realized that your contention that 'if Pakistan used the ISI' also implies to your readers that the Pak government controls the ISI, which is not true or accurate.

Lethality was not necessarily the intent of the Mumbai attack. In fact, I believe you are correct: the intention of the Mumbai attack was to garner world attention, which is an old trick of Pakistan, particularly in the Kashmir dispute. I'm not sure what else I should say, except it is most likely that the militants who actually carried out the attack were tools of a state security apparatus, whether they even knew it or not. Whether it was Pakistan, the US, Russia, China or India, the public will probably never know for sure. Just look at the half-baked investigation or prosecution of Benazir Bhutto.