Simon Perng It’s your job to keep punk
rock elite. E-mail me at simonperng@hotmail.com.
Click Here for more articles by Simon Perng
The American people are in this for the long haul, and they know
it. As America sends its military forces to Afghanistan, all of us
understand that Afghanistan is only one part of America’s
enduring struggle with terrorism.
Even though we expect the al-Qaeda terrorist network and its
accomplices in the Taliban government to crumble before the might
of our military and the support of our broad-based coalition of
allies, we realize that this is no assurance against future
outbreaks of terrorism at home. Worse yet, our military action
could prompt further acts of terrorist violence.
So what tangible benefit could America possibly gain from going
after al-Qaeda and its mastermind, Osama bin Laden?
Instead of emphasizing the need for a decisive victory over
terrorism, Americans should focus on suppressing terrorist groups
from ever becoming grave security risks. Hence, America’s
current course should be to immediately counteract Osama bin
Laden’s well-financed, well-trained legions of terror that
form al-Qaeda, in order to prevent the fruition of an even broader
and more lethal security risk ““ not just to America, but to
the Arab region and possibly the world.
First of all, the terrorist activities of al-Qaeda could wreak
economic devastation on many Arab countries, which could lead to
civil unrest in some areas. Days after the Sept. 11 attacks in New
York City and Washington, D.C., Pakistan suffered immediate
economic repercussions, resulting in a 50 percent drop in exports,
because of its shared border with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan
(L.A. Times, Oct. 7).
Economic distress could provide one more inflammatory element to
Pakistan’s destructively rioting history, where traditionally
“a volatile minority of extremists fueled by a mixture of
anti-American hate, poverty and religious fervor (take) to the
streets, as the country’s military struggles to keep
order” (L.A. Times, Oct. 10).
While initiated by extremists, many Pakistani riots attract huge
crowds at even a hint of American or Israeli threat or insult to
their religion. The most notorious rioting occurred in 1979, when
tens of thousands of Pakistanis, reacting to a rumor that Americans
had seized the Kaabe (a holy Muslim shrine in the holy city of
Mecca), stormed the American embassy in Islamabad.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin Second of all,
the extremist Muslim doctrines of al-Qaeda could further erode the
influence of moderate Muslims in various Arab governments. The
extremist dogma shared by al-Qaeda and the Taliban that promotes
the establishment of a “pure Muslim state,” coupled
with extremist ties to smaller fundamentalist groups throughout the
Arab world, could pressure other Muslim states to further purge
secular ideas, including democratic institutions and traditions,
that conflict with the pervasive trend.
Right now Islamic extremist acclaim for Osama bin Laden spans
the countries of southern Pakistan, the Philippines, the Gaza strip
and Iran.
Relatively-moderate Muslim Iranian President Mohammed Khatami is
feeling the pressure from hard-line constituents as he attempts to
pave a “third way” compromise stance between the
American coalition and Islamic extremism by criticizing both
terrorism and American military intervention in Afghanistan
(Reuters, Oct. 12).
Al-Qaeda’s continued presence would accelerate these
extremist goals with the elements of fear of terrorism and
increasing sadistic popularity with the citizenry. Even though
there are not a lot of true democracies in the Arab world, no one
can argue that the continued presence of al-Qaeda would be helpful
to the hopes for democracy in the Middle East.
Finally, American objectives abroad might be compromised if
al-Qaeda is allowed enough time to neutralize Arab allies. So far
they have succeeded somewhat. Most of our Arab allies simply cannot
aid our military campaign due to widespread public support or
empathy for bin Laden. Saudi Arabia, a former staging ground for
our 1991 Desert Storm operations, now refuses to allow Americans to
use its military facilities or its airspace. Egypt once contributed
36,000 troops to fight Iraq. Now they have no plans to send any to
Afghanistan (CNN, Oct. 12).
If al-Qaeda ever got its clutches into Pakistan the results
could be disastrous for America and the Middle East. A sizable
segment of Pakistan’s population remains sympathetic to the
Taliban and Osama bin Laden (L.A. Times, Oct. 11). Compound this
factor with economic distress and its massive riots and you get a
state that edges ever closer to upheaval and disintegration.
Al-Qaeda might be able to take advantage of the ensuing chaos to
access Pakistan’s nuclear button ““ and make its
terrorist war against America and Israel an apocalyptic one.
It might be risky and inconvenient for America to wage a war on
terrorism that does not promise a resounding victory or even an
ending. Perhaps a year or two years from now we might still be
fighting the war on terrorism. But given the more lethal and more
unacceptable potential security risks, we simply cannot tolerate
the existence of the threat, bin Laden and al-Qaeda, any
longer.