On 1st of May, five ABB workers on contract to Exxon Mobil's chemical joint venture in Yanbu were killed outside the plant. On May 29th, gunmen attacked a residential compound in khobar, Saudi Arabia and as if this wasnt enough, On June 18th a Lockheed Martin Employee gets beheaded by al Qaeda terrorists. For Saudi Arabia, I can recall only one word which accurately describes the situation, and surprisingly it comes from a book called, "only the paranoids survive" by Andy Grove. The word is 'inflexion point'. In fact, the ever increasing presence of Armed Forces amidst civilians is not going to be a transient affair. The rubicon has been crossed and a strategic change must happen. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is not alone, there are several countries hit by this nuisance; America, UK, Israel and India to name a few.
Isnt it surprising that small groups can harrass a giant monolithic structure such as the Government, with paltry resources! Where has all the power of this monolith gone? Why can't a country as strong as America, get rid of this nuisance? Would a direct hit on the suspected terrorist bases in their homelands really help? The answer is No. No amount of direct pressure and force will work. To exemplify this point, lets look at Iraq. The US Forces moved in swiftly accross the deserts but were held back by guerilla warfare in the towns and cities of Iraq. And now, almost six months after fall of Saddam, there is only pseudo-normalcy in the region and strikes against the US Forces in Iraq still continue. Loretta Napoleoni, the author of the book 'Modern Jihad - Tracing the Dollars behind the Terror Networks' points out in her gripping research work that this isnt the first time we are facing such situation. It is only becasue of the renewed interest and conviction of the authorities to investigate, that such issues are filling the page-9 of newspapers around the world. Her research shows that counter terrorism began as early as post second world war when Britain and United States were busy containing Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe, France was engaged in a vicious war in Indo-China, where they financed the formation of 'Maquis - men from minorities and hill tribesmen organised in groups of 3000' to fight back the guerrillas using the same terror tactics like public executions and guerilla warfare. This was one of the most effective strategic responses against such an enemy. The next elucidating example, is Afghanistan, where the US government, abetted the formation of mujahideens againts the Russian Army and helped them with ammunitions and finances. Today we are facing the same threat, but there are certain differences. One, the ability of terror groups to share information and collaborate, has been greatly increased by the decreasing asymmetry of information given the internet and other newer forms of instant communication. If you think this is facny, then you are wrong. Remember the Beslan Massacre of September 2004, and sure you would recall the name of 'Shamil Basayev'- the Chechen Guerrilla Leader. The excerpt from the TIME magazine dated 25th OCT 2004, from the article ' Russia's Most Wanted' - "...Besayevs former neighbours comrades-in-arms and friends say he hides during the day in the thick impenetrable forests that carpet the mountains. At night he descends into one of the regions many tiny villages where he recharges the Batteries for his Computers and Satellite Phones...". Second, there is no single state (or Rogue State) which can be taken out like a thorn, which would solve this problem. The terror groups have spread accross all countries and the black economy they govern is estimated to be as big as Five percent of the Worlds GDP. Under such circumstances, the conventional logic which holds that, the peace loving governments of the world must pledge their co-operation ( at G-7s and G-8s of this world) against the threat of terrorism wouldnt work. Those at the helm of it all, would go to war again and the result will be not much different from the bleak picture in Iraq today. In long term this solution is not feasible, instead it simply buys more time for the governments and secures their vote banks too. At the end of it all, the tax-payer neither gets his moneys worth, nor the peace that he pines for.
But, there are no direct or straight answers to this problem, yet there is one solution which stands a genre apart. Consider the situation in Kashmir, a battle-torn state, annexed to India in 1951, to which Pakistan pledges support in their apparent struggle for a sovereign state. It is an omnescient fact that under the veil of a silent and simple islamic country, Pakistan has sponsored terrorist activitities in Kashmir, and the deep links between the Mujahideens and the state's secret service, ISI, have been discussed at depth in the book 'Modern Jihad'. The ISI also runs like an independent body, almost like a Business house, however despicable their business actvity be. Each kashmiri Militant is paid an monthly salary of Rs 2000 or $40, Rs 3500 ($70) or more to an Afghani Militant and Rs 50,000 ($1000) for special planned attacks against Indian Army. A Fidayeen Attack will fetch the militant as much as Rs 1,00,000 or more ($2000). Imagine that ISI is a business house, which employs its only resource which is the militia, at a monthly salary mentioned above. They are trained like servicemen and then infiltrated into the battle ground. Has one ever thought of the consequences of shortage in the supply of required manpower to run this business!!!
If the cost of man-power employed by ISI rises then the whole business model would become unviable. But for this supply pipe to dry-up, it would take some serious conviction and time. If ISI brings most of its new recruits from Northern Afghanistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir, then that is the place (supply source) upon which we must concentrate. Now, consider the following scenario :
Step 1 - India provides humanitarian aid and invest in buiding infrastructure for 'education and healthcare' in these very areas through a Special Purpose Vehicle, which conceals the real identity of its Financer. It could also be through a group of NGOs.
Step 2 - Over the Period the new generation grows into a well educated populace who look for economic opportunities to earn their living rather than fighting to death for a paltry Rs 2000 a month.
Step 3 - Ten years later, the Special Purpose Vehicle invests into the Country's Industries and Services bringing about fresh opportunities for this new generation of educated populace who prefer simpler jobs to fight.
Step 4 - As a result of this developmental activity, the lowest strata of the economy rises and expects more out of life and consequently the number of youngsters opting to join terror camps drop and the Cost per new Recruit rises as more Demand chases lesser Supply.
Thus by investing in the development of Infrastructure through veiled entities and later into Industries and Services, will simply make the business of Terrorism an unviable proposition for the proliferators to continue. Such a strategic step taken today, could save a million lives twenty years from now. This scenario seems more convincing to us than fighting a proxy-with-proxy. The solution is visible, but do the governements have the vision or courage to take such a bold step is the question.
Kaushal Vyas
