Asia Times: Beware unintended consequences


	September 26, 2001	atimes.com

Editorials

Beware unintended consequences

United States deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has given the - to date - most comprehensive and precise definition of US aims in the war on terrorism declared after September 11. Referring to a broad and sustained campaign against terrorism, he said a few days after the attacks on the US, "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism."

His ominous reference to "ending states" has been interpreted as meaning governments or regimes that back or provide succor to groups considered to be terrorist in nature. Wolfowitz did not provide a list of such governments or regimes, but, of course, those of Afghanistan and Iraq would presumably be on it - as might be others: those of Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Decisions in this regard are being made by the US National Security Council and over coming days and weeks we will see how this plays out.

What concerns us is that the Wolfowitz/US strategy has the eminent possibility of playing right into the hands of the likes of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, whom the US has pinpointed as the prime suspect in the attacks on New York and Washington and as one of the masterminds of global Islamist terrorist networks operating in dozens of countries.

The goals of bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization and affiliated groups are broadly defined by the concept of jihad or holy war. A jihad is fought under strict conditions laid out by Islam for the purpose of restoring peace and freedom for the worship of Allah to countries and places where restrictions are imposed upon the observance of the five pillars of Islam, and where such worship is impossible or under threat. In bin Laden's and his followers' view, places of that nature (labeled darul harb or enemy territory as opposed to darul aman or land of peaceful worship) include numerous Arab and Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan or even Indonesia, which are seen as being ruled by reactionary puppet regimes controlled by the "Great Satan", the United States and its allies. Bin Laden's likely principal purpose in the precision-executed terror attacks on the US was to force Washington into a series of actions that will destabilize and ultimately lead to the overthrow of such "puppet regimes".

The way this might work is only too obvious in the case of Pakistan, where US pressure on the military government of President Pervez Musharraf to cooperate with the US in military operations against Taliban Afghanistan and Musharraf's pledge to do so have split the nation and its principal institutions. According to a Gallup poll last week, nearly two out of three Pakistanis are opposed to the use of the country's territory and resources for an anti-Taliban, anti-bin Laden campaign. An All Parties Coalition of religious and political parties, which includes among its leaders former army chief of staff General (ret) Mirza Beg, former director-general of the Inter-Service Intelligence Lieutenant-General (ret) Hameed Gul, and former president Farooq Leghari, has issued a strong call for non-cooperation with the US. Several serving army generals, among them at least three out of nine corps commanders with Islamist beliefs and strong Taliban ties, have also voiced their opposition. It is by no means inconceivable that a combination of Islamic fundamentalist organizations (with the potential for organizing mass demonstrations) in league with dissident former and serving military and intelligence officers, could force out the Musharraf regime.

As a consequence, bin Laden would have his way and then some: Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state; it could become the first Islamist entity in possession of proven weapons of mass destruction.

US pressure on various so-called moderate Arab states, but also on Turkey or Indonesia, could similarly lead to Islamist upheaval and serious threats to political stability. Wolfowitz and other top US security officials are no fools. They will have considered the type of scenario we have outlined. But that alone does not assure that it won't play out nonetheless. The US cannot do nothing. The control that states at threat have over their populations is limited. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)