What's a Proper Reaction?

So India has suffered an embarrassing and horrific attack on its citizens, on its' soil, on one of the best known symbols, the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai.  Now what?  India has two options: it could do like the U.S. did after 9/11, and just go wild, using military force to defeat a guerilla foe.  Or, it could do what the U.S. should have done, and work with the leadership of the country where the terrorists came from.  Let's examine the two scenarios.

Option 1: Respond Like the U.S.

Well, it certainly seems to be a popular idea.  All of the pundits and reporters and TV commentators seem to be stuck on the metaphor of "India's 9/11".  And there certainly are parallels.  Like 9/11, it was a devastating attack on India's soil, with a high number of civilian casualties, on a national landmark, with shocking swiftness, preparedness, and surprise.  If India chose to go the route of the U.S., they would likely raid Pakistan to destroy the training camps, because it is the country of the terrorist's origin.

Option 2: Diplomacy and Cooperation

The Indian government could, instead, work with Pakistan to take down the terrorists in a more lasting and damaging way, by building up security and intelligence and then sharing information with Pakistan.  It's not like the Pakistani government was behind the attacks; it was an entirely solo attack by the terrorists.  Pakistan's government is weak at this time, and is unable to effectively root out the terrorists hiding within its borders.  It needs help from other countries, especially India, to fight it's terrorists.  Plus, Pakistan has had some horrible attacks of its own, such as the September attack on the Islamabad Marriott.  It's not like the government enjoys having such dangerous chaos-makers inside its' borders.

So what'll it be?  Go on a reckless military offensive, attacking other countries mercilessly and needlessly?  Or will it be a diplomatic approach, working with other countries to counter-act the terrorists and root them out?  So far, it seems that India is going with route # 2.  I'd say that it's by far the right choice.

Now, what about the Pakistanis?  The terrorists came from their country, and they claim to be waging a jihad against the forces of evil.  What should the people of Pakistan do?  Should they sit by, let the governments make big, sweeping statements about how this cannot be tolerated and the terrorists will be dealt with?  Or should they act on their own, and show the terrorists that they are not helping their Muslim sisters and brothers?

Do you remember when the Muslim world rose up and protested the offensive Danish cartoon about the Prophet Muhammed?  What if the Muslim world rose up again and protested the killing of innocent civilians?  Most of Pakistan is not under the control of the radical fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred of the West.  They can show the terrorists that killing others is not the way to get to heaven and the promised 72 virgins.  

So far, there have been some positive signs of a repudiation of the terrorist's ideology.  The Pakistani government has responded with sincere seriousness and has shown no link to the group involved.  In addition, many of the prominent political and cultural leaders have stated their outrage and dismay and horror at the attack. Now, however, it is time for the rest of Pakistan and the Muslim world to step up.  Because its' one thing for a politician to say something.  It's quite another for the people to rise up as one and agree.

SOURCES: New York Times Op-Ed Column

India's 9/11?  Not Exactly

Calling All Pakistanis

Intolerant Accusations

As we lurch closer to the final 24 hours before the election it seems important to correct a few misunderstandings that have developed. There has been some talk in class regarding the idea that the McCain campaign has, perhaps unwittingly, stirring up racial animosity in an all out effort to win the election. Two specific examples have been pointed to: First, that during a Palin Rally some one shouted out "Kill him" in reference to either Ayers or Obama, most likely Obama; second, that during another Palin Rally someone yelled out a racial epitaph and Palin continued to speak on, unconcerned by this bilious slur. Both of these, particularly the second, seem to have been proven false. On the first count an investigation by the secret service which included interviews with an undisclosed number of undercover law enforcement officials who were stationed among the crowd has found nothing that backs up the story. On the second even a member of the Daily Kos was forced to admit, and provides the relevant tape, that shows clearly that the word shouted was "redistributor". Below I also include a video of McCain supporters, including Muslims, at a rally telling off a kook who was trying to hand out stickers that implied that Obama was a secret Muslim and consequently that being a Muslim was a something shameful.

This contrasts with the recent news that a 53 year old Obama supporter hospitalized a 75 year old McCain fan. The older gentleman was displaying a Pro McCain sign and was shoved into a fire hydrant for his efforts. The photograph at the beginning of this post is one found in a Halloween display in California, showing a Palin like mannequin in a noose.

This is not to say that their are not extremists on both sides of the election, only to point out that we shouldn't be so quick to take the first reports of Republican intolerance as fact or believe that the unhinged exist only on one side of the aisle. Elections, as Tocqueville noted, are apt to stir Americans into a feverish state,  which, luckily, soon afterwords disipates.

"'Long before the appointed moment arrives, the election becomes the greatest and so to speak sole business preoccupying minds. The factions at that time redouble their ardor; in that moment all the factitious passion that the imagination can create in a happy and tranquil country become agitated in broad daylight. . . . The entire nation falls into a feverish state; the election is then the daily text of the public papers, the subject of particular conversations, the goal of all reasoning, the object of all thoughts, the sole interest of the present.'

"And then? 'As soon as fortune has pronounced . . . this ardor is dissipated, everything becomes calm, and the river, one moment overflowed, returns peacefully to its bed.'"

Muslims in America

One of the attacks that many Republican surrogates have been making against Obama is that he's secretly a Muslim - and that's somehow something bad, and scary.  Well, he's not, he is a Christian and has been one his whole life.  But it begs the question - what if he were a Muslim?

In an OP - ED article today in The New York Times, Maureen Dowd brought up the same point.  Sure, there are Islamic Extremists in the Middle East, and they hate us and want to destroy America, but that does NOT, in any way, reflect on American Muslims.  It's disturbing that the Republicans want us to think that all Muslims are evil, and want to kill us, but Obama should show some respect for his roots (his father was a Muslim), and refute the attacks on Muslims.  

It's just as bad as racism, or sexism, to discriminate based on religion.  So far, in class,we've mainly been talking about racism, and how it appears in society.  But religion hatred is just as bad, maybe worse, because it isn't hidden - it's right out there, plain for everyone to see.  In the 21st century, we should be recognize the difference between an extremist and someone who is given solace and purpose by a little religion in their life.  JFK was the first Roman Catholic president, Obama may become the first African-American president, but will we ever be able to elect a Muslim president?