The world today obsesses with the ISIS possibly for good reasons. But the one that is constantly swept aside is that the Global War on Terror was flawed and selective. Had tackling Al Qaeda and Taliban been not so selective with so-called Pakistan sensitivity in mind, the problem could have been contained or maybe not risen at all.
It started with state support to jihadi terrorism in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s. The Al Qaeda and Lashkar eTayyaba were born during this phase of the Cold War. The Taliban came later and so did a huge number of terrorist organizations against India that the world conveniently ignored ostensibly in the name of ideals of self-determination but more to allow Pakistan to get away with all its criminality.
The tactic today of fighting a war from the air in the hope that terrorism will be solved militarily is mistaken. Terrorism might be militarily contained temporarily but the solution lies in ideologically defeating the terrorist. We need the rest of the world to ensure the former and the entire Muslim world to participate in the latter. So long as we have sectarian warfare, with suspicions and desire to control the Islamic world, matched by the desire to control the resources and global ambitions, this is going to be virtually impossible.
It is not appropriate for a non-Muslim to advice but this is more an Indian who is concerned about what is happening around the world and how it might impinge on us. The world is today focused on events in West Asia and more specifically on the violence and brutality by some in the name of religion. What right thinking people must accept that the rest of the world is getting used to a particular and not very edifying image of Islam. This needs correction quickly before it is too late and what is considered fringe becomes mainstream tomorrow.
Having managed to extricate themselves from Afghanistan, the Americans find themselves caught in their conflicting interests in the West Asian quagmire. It is now expected that the rest of the world will fall in line with their strategic security objectives in the region.
Also Read
There is no doubt that the ISIS is a menace, and that it has to be tackled. There are two observations that are pertinent here. When the ISIS first burst on to the scene, it was felt that this terrorist organization could be used to get rid of the Iraqi PM Nouri Al Maliki; in the larger diplomatic strategic interests, ISIS was allowed to grow. Terrorism in Syria and Iraq escalated and turned rogue against the Saudis and Qataris.
The Saudis, described by the American sociologist, Immanuel Wallerstein as "a de facto paracolonial dependency of the United States, which however permitted the very extensive royal family to grow wealthy and "modernize" - not only in their ability to use technology but even in a cultural sense, bending in their own lives many of the restrictions of Wahabite Islam" also became fearful that the US was moving away from them.
The American reorientation towards Asia Pacific and away from the Atlantic, along with moves to ease relations with Iran, was seen as a threat to their security by the Saudis. The impending withdrawal from Afghanistan was seen as another indication of declining US interest in the region. When the ISIS announced the formation of the Islamic State and Abu Bakr Baghdadi announced himself as the Caliph, the Saudis shivered.
The initial reaction of US allies to President Barrack Obama's call for a coalition of the willing was lukewarm except for the Saudis. The Germans were initially ambivalent, the Turks said no and even the British declined. Besides, Beijing was cautious and Moscow wanted a UNSC resolution.
Second, that is not the only menace that has to be tackled by the world. Osama bin Laden had to be taken out by stealth while in the custody of ally Pakistan. The terrorism that was there is Pakistan and Afghanistan since the 1980s has not gone away. In fact, it has become worse and has to be tackled. There are no global takers for this, beyond homilies.
This too has to be part of the global war on terror or as the new phrase says tackling "violent extremism". No, India is not risk averse if it simply wishes to opt out of military attacks on and in Syria and Iraq. The situation in Syria-Iraq is not a black-and-white or us-and-them situation.
There are conflicting local regional interests and there are global interests. It is just that unlike the US, India does not have the capacity to take on battles heedless of consequences, considering that none of the major American military excursions since WWII have been successes.
India cannot afford to have these setbacks and hope to survive. It is important for India to be sure who or what the target is and on whose behalf the battle is being fought. Nor are Indians free loaders merely because they wish to look at situations from their point of view and interests. Just as much it does not become global policy anymore because the US says so. That is what we have learnt in recent years.
The US with all its gunpowder, has been unable to make a dent. Instead the manner it has done this has only exacerbated matters. Al Qaeda was born in the mountains of Afghanistan and led by an old CIA buddy, the billionaire construction engineer Osama bin Laden and jihad moved from the mountains of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region to West Asia when Al Qaeda and its Arab volunteers had followed American troops into Iraq.
They had not preceded the Americans. AQ came back to AfPak in the first decade of the 21st century until the outbreak of the Arab Spring when its members started going to new battle grounds for jihad in West Asia. Finally, it now shows signs of reappearing in our neighbourhood. Each time it has morphed into a deadlier version and has spread to Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, and the Maghreb. There are signs that the next target will be Turkey and parts of Europe. The US would be erring grievously if it assumes that it or its various assets and friends are safe forever.
In the process the likes of ISIS made Kalima and Azaan symbols of their terrorism. This has to be reclaimed by the moderate Muslim and cannot be done by the rest of us. Reform, assertion and correction all have to come from within in any society.
If the moderate and true Muslims let the thugs use Islam and their brutal interpretation of Islam to kill fellow Muslims and others in the name of their Islam, then the rest of the world will walk away from them. Islam is under threat not from other religions but from within. Increasingly, the world seems to feel it is under threat from the violence and brutality in the name of Islam. It is under threat from those who have hijacked Islam and others who have not the courage to defy them. Others cannot succeed if there is no will and courage to reassert from within.
To defeat the violent extremism of ISIS and others globally, the moderate Muslim must reclaim Islam.
The views expressed in the above article are that of Mr. Vikram Sood, former Secretary R and AW, Government of India, and currently an a dviser to the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.
