Bush anti-terror plan deserves credit

Scores of anti-war protests or political maneuvering in various world bodies may delay the inevitable, but there is no way to avoid installation of a U.S.-friendly government in Baghdad. And, this has almost nothing to do with either the Iraqi oil or vengeance against Saddam Hussein, at least directly. It is sad that most political pundits and world leaders have suggested Bush's policies towards Iraq originate at his Texas ranch. The reality couldn't be further from truth.
Bush and his team deserve a lot more credit for their determination and far-sightedness, especially when it comes to waging their battle against international terrorism. In order to battle international terrorism, of which the United States remains the most prominent victim, it is critical to examine its source, instruments, and ideological support.
Events of Sept. 11 have led to the conclusion that the true source of all jehadi terrorism is Saudi Arabia, from where not only 15 of the 19 plane hijackers came but it also finances tentacles of Wahhabism throughout the world through Islamic Madrassas, the training grounds for the likes of Taliban.
Wahhabism Islam is named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (died 1792), an 18th century Maulavi who joined hands in 1744 with Muhammad ibn Saud, a tribal leader of Ad Diriyah at the time, to establish modern day Saudi Arabia after crushing many moderate Muslim groups. Saudi Arabia is a state intricately interwoven with extremist Islam such that its very existence depends on it.
Osama bin Laden is but a natural extension of the original philosophy of the foundation of Saudi Arabia. Consequently, there is no ideological instrument available in Saudi Arabia (or rest of the Middle East) to blunt Osama or his followers. On the contrary, Saudi rulers have bribed the extremists to spare them in the kingdom, which also happens to be the seat of Mecca and Medina, the highest holy places of Islam.
To tackle terrorism emanating from extreme Islam, the Saudi system must be dismantled thoroughly so that moderate voices within the faith can emerge and provide leadership to modernize their ideology. A frontal attack on Saudi Arabia is not possible for several reasons.
A direct military attack or even harsh diplomatic action against Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producing country, would invite strong retaliation from its rulers, crippling the world economy. The United States gets 10 percent of its oil imports from Saudi Arabia and would be heavily affected.
Two, Saudi Arabian investment in the U.S. economy is on the order of $750 billion. Any move by the United States to browbeat Saudis into compliance with anti-terror measures would certainly tempt the Saudis to withdraw their funds from U.S. corporations.
Three, a direct confrontation with Saudi Arabia, the sole destination of Muslim pilgrimage in the world, will definitely be projected as an onslaught on Islam itself.
Therefore, an effective containment of terrorism coming out of Saudi Arabia must be carried out with an alternative path, which has to go through Iraq for a variety of reasons, including a ready-made conflict, second largest oil reserves, and a long border with Saudi Arabia.
Is war with Iraq necessary for this strategy of containing terrorism? Absolutely not. If U.S. policy makers are willing to make some very ordinary adjustments, such as offering job security to Saddam Hussein and a prominent role to Iraq in Middle East affairs, Iraq's cooperation might be easily forthcoming.
Such an arrangement with Saddam is not too much to ask for, given what the United States had to offer Gen. Pervez Mussharraf of Pakistan, a dictator and proven jehadi supporter, to get his assistance in the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Not only was Mussharraf a trustee of Al-Rahita Trust, a front organization of al-Qaida and Taliban, but he has continued to connive with al-Qaida and Taliban forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan much to the chagrin of his supporters within the Bush administration. Mussharraf has openly threatened to use weapons of mass destruction against India and reports say that Pakistani government scientists may be assisting North Korea, Osama, and even Saddam Hussein.
Mussharraf himself is not only in cahoots with Saudi Arabia but many of the elements of extreme Islamists, and he believes in their ideology.
Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is a secularist and has kept fanatic Islamists firmly under his thumb so much so that Osama even calls him an infidel. He may be brutal like all the rulers in that part of the world, but he is not a traitor like Mussharraf who has been backstabbing the United States despite billions of dollars being poured in by Uncle Sam in return for his fairly treacherous cooperation. Saddam has even better control of his people than Mussharraf, as he managed to get a 100 percent vote, to only 98 percent for Mussharraf in their respective single-candidate elections.
Even if the Bush administration is not willing to deal with Saddam Hussein, it can certainly be credited with a far-sighted approach in dealing with terrorism. Why is such a brilliant approach not being discussed? It could at least bring more support to President Bush's aggressive policy against Iraq. However, it will upset the Saudis prematurely and cause a major diplomatic row. As it is, Saudi Arabia is working overtime behind the scene with France and Germany to foil U.S. efforts against Iraq.
And, finally, a word for the peaceniks. It has been a well-established fact that most terrorist groups use and even establish non-governmental organizations to shield themselves and advance their designs against humanity. It is much easier to preach morality against war when one does not have the responsibility of protecting innocents against terrorist violence.
Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D.
Mr. Singh is a chemistry professor and director of the Center for Indic Studies at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth


This story appeared on Page A16 of The Standard-Times on March 6, 2003.