Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Laurie Baker, the British architect who had made India his home, would not be surprised at the crisis confronting the US military in Iraq. When confronted with designs that incorporated thick and expensive concrete roof slabs, he would ask whether an elephant will ever dance on the roof. Short of that, the extra strength that the slabs provided vis-a-vis his favoured recipe of tiles would be valueless. In much the same way, the immense power of the US armed forces is proving ineffective against a much weaker, smaller enemy. The reason for this is the limits to the use of such power set by international public opinion with access to cable television.
The British were among the more civilised colonialists. When faced with a revolt in 1857, they did not wipe out the indigenous population the way the Spaniards did in much of South America. They did not herd the indigenous population into tiny reservations the way the colonisers of Australia did. All they did was to hang hundreds of supposed malcontents and send cannon balls hurtling through hundreds. In the same way as Saddam Hussein eliminated serious opposition in Kurdistan, the British used short, bloody reprisals to ensure that nascent resistance was aborted. This was the method used by Germany in Europe in World War II.
The only example of a military that has come to terms with the new limits of unconventional warfare is the Indian army. In Kashmir, the Indian army does not use helicopter gunships or strike aircraft to pound mujahideen positions, with the exception of Kargil, which was in effect a conventional war against regular Pakistan forces. Artillery is absent, sidearms being the only weapons used. Russia in Chechnya, Israel in the West Bank and US-UK forces in Iraq deploy a much greater range of weaponry, with much less effectiveness in controlling the resistance.
In most of the territories they took over, European colonists conducted a Bodywar, killing a substantial proportion of the local population. In contrast, the tactics used by the Indian army in Kashmir are those suited for a Mindwar, in which the effort is to ensure the cooperation of the local population after hostilities cease. In Chechnya, Moscow is unlikely to subdue the resistance unless it inflicts loss of life on a scale impossible in today8217;s Global Information Village. As for Israel and the US, both have emulated Russia in seeking a controlled Bodywar, where the effort is to stun the opponent into submission. Today, both Israel and the US have achieved a miracle for their enemies, uniting local populations against themselves.
The Palestinians need an international airport and seaport much more than they need to reclaim their land. They need investment in billions from their Arab neighbours. They need educational institutions. Again, the example of India comes to mind. Unlike Islamabad, which huffs and puffs over 8220;Occupied8221; Kashmir, New Delhi has in effect written off the PoK and Aksai Chin, recognising that reclaiming lost lands would involve a cost that would set back by a generation India8217;s quest for fulfillment of the 8220;Kalam8221; vision. In the same way, provided Israel withdraws from territory not deemed essential to its security, the Palestinians would do well to concentrate on what is left, rather than continue a self-destructive effort at rolling back historical fact. Al Jazeera has given them the chance of half a loaf, just as it has prevented their tormentors from getting control of the full loaf.
Today, it is technology and not territory that powers the economic advancement that is the objective of any rational government. New Delhi must nudge both its Israeli and its Palestinian friends into accepting a cordon sanitaire that seals off Israeli territory from terror attacks and gives Palestinians the chance to set up the infrastructure to join the international economy.
In its policy on Iraq, New Delhi needs to remind its newfound ally 8212; the US 8212; that Mindwar is very different from Bodywar, and that the sooner power is handed over to the local population, the better. Also, India needs to stress the importance of avoiding 8220;Jehadi Creep8221; in Iraq, as it is taking place in Afghanistan, thanks to collusion between the CIA and ISI. If the OIC regards secularism as desirable in India, so too is it in Iraq, where the new constitution should ensure equal treatment for people of all faiths and regions. It is incongruous that OIC wants to protect sectarian rights for its members, while preaching secularism outside. Unfortunately, the US has usually gone along with such a vision.
Today, 8220;conquest8221; in the classical sense is no longer a viable option. At best, it means the creation of an atmosphere in the target country that welcomes co-operation with the other country. The flow of ideas and population across frontiers has made impracticable the techniques of the past. What is needed is their replacement with methods that are a mix of the 8220;hard8221; with a generous dose of the 8220;soft8221;, so that the security benefits all equally, Palestinians as well as Israelis, Iraqis as well as Americans, Indians as well as Pakistanis. Otherwise, 8220;victories8221; won by the democracies will only be as tactical and short-lived as those in the West Bank or Iraq. Conquest in the time of Al Jazeera has to be mutual.
