When the terrorist attacks began in Mumbai, India, two weeks ago, Fox News’s Neil Cavuto explained to viewers that no one really knew who was behind the attacks at that moment, but noted that India was a successful, capitalist country and that terrorists always like to strike places where freedom and success are abundant.
Much of talk radio echoed the same sentiment. Some reasoned that the terrorists attacked India because George W. Bush had made it too difficult for them to attack us here, as if India was merely an easy target chosen at random by terrorists, in lieu of attacking the U.S. According to such childish logic, Switzerland should now prepare for an imminent attack, as that country’s success, wealth, and non-American status makes them ripe for the picking.
Without fail, that left-wing, Islamofascist rag called The Post & Courier dared to suggest there might be a different motive in a recent editorial: “The appallingly brutal commando-style raid on hotels in India’s financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay), by terrorist gunmen may have been meant to goad nuclear-armed India into a confrontation with nuclear-armed Pakistan.”
Wait a second. Was the P&C suggesting that these terrorists might have had actual political objectives? That they don’t just hate freedom and wealth? Who has ever heard of such a thing?
With more than 170 dead and countless more bruised, battered, and broken, what many are calling “India’s 9/11” initially provoked a reaction similar to our own. The shock and horror turned to rage, and the questions raised — “Who’s responsible?” and “Who should we fight?” — were familiar to Americans who were asking the same things not-so-many years ago. However, most leaders and pundits around the world, including the U.S., advised India not to go to war with Pakistan. As of this writing, India’s government seems inclined to agree with them.
But by not going to war with Pakistan, isn’t India simply appeasing the enemy? In the days and months after 9/11, when so many Americans were trying to make sense of the tragedy and the rest of the world was urging our nation not to go to war with Iraq, National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg believed the U.S. should follow something he called “The Ledeen Doctrine” named after fellow neoconservative Michael Ledeen. This doctrine, according to Goldberg, was that “Every 10 years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”
Goldberg added, “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”
Should India now show the world that it remains strong by going to war with somebody? If so, who might make the most sense?
If they were following the Ledeen Doctrine, a good candidate might be Indonesia. Al-Qaeda has a presence in Indonesia, even carrying out attacks in Bali in 2005, and the current president is Muslim, which makes him suspect. The fact that Al-Qaeda might have not been behind the recent attacks or that Indonesia had nothing to do with the terror in Mumbai shouldn’t concern Indian officials any more than the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 concerned U.S. officials. Goldberg might even support sending U.S. troops to help with the invasion.
Then there is the obvious choice of going to war with Pakistan. However, if the intention of the attacks in Mumbai was to provoke a war with Pakistan, wouldn’t India be giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted? Would not striking Pakistan swell the ranks of the terrorists?
These are the sane and logical questions being asked in a very unstable India at the moment that were either never asked or shouted down as “unpatriotic” when brought up in the United States after Sept. 11, 2001. As far as I know, there is no Indian Toby Keith threatening to “put a boot in Pakistan’s ass, ’cause it’s the Indian way.” If there is, such hot-headed irrationality is not likely to become official government policy.
And strangely enough, India doesn’t seem to believe that their answer to this tragedy should be to spread freedom, democracy, and Indian values around the world — whether the world wants them or not.
The primary objective of 9/11 was to provoke a large-scale war against the West. With the invasion of Iraq, America gave Al-Qaeda exactly what it wanted, their ranks swelled, and the terrorists won. Having to actually live in that troubled region, Indians cannot afford to harbor the same myths and fantasies many Americans do about what actually causes terrorism. And in their wisdom, India is much less likely to reward evil men for their deeds by starting wars that amount to little sense and more terrorists.
Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50 a.m. on the “Morning Buzz with Richard Todd” on 1250 AM WTMA.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
