Skeptics Synonymous

On the one hand, the loop around Afghanistan is tightening; but on theother, skepticism and fear haunt President George Bush's internationalpartners in the midst of massive military build up. President Bush hasrecently warned that it would be a long drawn anti-terror pursuit incooperation with the alliance he's trying to form. However, his global compact is not yetsure footed. 

What are President Bush's constraints? Numerous reactionsfrom the Middle East and Pakistan surfaced in the last few days -- Egyptand Saudi Arabia are not excited to fully meet Washington's militarywish list. The Arab League does not want any offensive against any ofits members while speculation is floating that the military optionsmight go well beyond Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. 

Six Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates(UAE) and Qatar have promised "total support and cooperation" to theAmerican drive against the alleged mastermind of the suicide bombers in New Yorkand Washington. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have cut off diplomatic tieswith the Taliban regime. Still, they have not itemized the nature ofmilitary help they are willing to extend. 

A high level US team just visitedPakistan, evidently to explain the military objectives. Pressed by thecoalescing countries, Washington has agreed to share the evidence ofbin Laden's complicity in the terrorist attacks on September 11 andbefore. But there have been confusing noises from Powell and Bush on that scoretoo.

President Bush and his militaryanalysts want to go after theprime suspects -- Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida, his worldwide network andtheir sanctuary giver, the Taliban regime, which controls most ofAfghanistan. Washington has focused on Pakistan's diplomatic andmilitary support for punishing the suspected terrorists in Afghanistan.After some initial confusion, Islamabad has conceded "unstintedcooperation" to Washington. 

Fearful of a civil war and border raids bythe Talibans, the Pakistani leaders point out that the Americanmilitary would use their soil only as a last resort. So far, the frenetic Pakistani diplomaticto and fro has failed to obtain the surrender ofthe suspected terrorists. Washington waits. 

Meanwhile,the United States has received unspecified logistical cooperation fromUzbekistan and Tajikistan, two northern neighbors of Afghanistan. TheCIA-backed Northern Alliance, holding about ten percent of the Afghanterritory in the North has recently come out of the shadows, and promisedhelp to Washington's expected military operation against the Taliban,their political and military rivals. Well known as it is, in previousconfrontations with the Taliban, the hotchpotch of the northern frontlost partly because of its internal disunity.

The logistical nightmare andthe unsavory political fallout ofany sustained military confrontation are gradually sinking in; fewobservers are predicting a quick fix for the Americans -- not even theWestern allies. One influential newspaper recently reported that thestrategic planners were having difficulty to identify important militarytargets in Afghanistan -- few exist since the Soviet invasion andprotracted civil war.

As of this writing, President Bushhas not launched any knownmilitary attack, but even his otherwise more-careful-than-usual phraseology -- his "crusade" and Old West  "dead or alive"-- has not gone well with his Muslim allies. Infinite Justice has alreadybecome Enduring Freedom. TheArab countries that expect Washington to rein in Israel's heavy handedretaliation against the Palestinians had little to celebrate whenPresident Bush addressed the joint session of the US Congress earlierthis month. 

The much touted clash of civilizations, the "Islam Vs Western Civilization"polarization by themedia and the political leaders' unabashed purveying of similarsentiments has brought a variety of discrimination upon the Arabs, theMuslims,  and all those who "look" like them in the United States. Ifthere is any vigorous military campaign against the perceived"enemies"in the Muslim world, the American Muslims (and those who might"resemble" them) would become the domestic front line of attack onAmerican soil, as happened to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Most moderate Muslim countries, the US-based Islamicorganizations and the American civil rights watchdogs have expressedtheir deep concern for the estimated 7 million Muslims who live inAmerica in the event of military actions against targets in Afghanistanand elsewhere.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" has made itdifficult even for the US-friendly Arab countries (also Pakistan) who do not like such lumpingtogether of all those who use terror for political purposes. Washington knows itvery well that the Arab countries would not accept the Palestinian"occupation fighters" against Israel as the despicable militants.

As long as the ruling incumbents cooperate with President Bush'sdefinition of the enemies and support necessary actions against them,the strategic community in Washington would not lose any sleep over theblistering doubts in the streets of Cairo, Amman and Islamabad. But there is a chasm between the pro-Western elite perceptions and the popularfeelings in the Muslim countries when it comes to work in tandem withWashington. 

Saudi Arabia is already walking on a tight rope. There is aringing question if the Saudi rulers would allow the Americans to usetheir strategic facilities for invading Afghanistan or any other suspectedMuslim country. Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, is the emotionalbellwether of the Muslim world. This is not the last Gulf War. Saudi Arabia cannot allow the Americans to campaign against the fellow Muslimcountries -- this old argument has gained new strategic meaning as theAmericans are readying themselves for reprisals against those countriesthat allegedly harbor the terrorists. Saudi Ambassador in London earlierthis week warned against the disastrous consequences if the US-ledcampaign becomes the West-Islam split in the global stage. President Bush'spieties notwithstanding.

Islamabad will possibly leadPresident Bush's posse toAfghanistan, the epicenter of anti-American animosity at this time.However, the new Washington-bestowed importance could also becomePakistan's nemesis in the near future. Pakistan's political landscape istense with the pro-Taliban and anti-American slogans. Usama bin Laden'spictures plaster the walls in Pakistan's big cities, and the Pakistanistreets are strewn with burnt effigies of President Bush. 

The brewinganxieties about what Pakistan would face if Afghanistan unravels arereaching Washington through the well-crafted diplomatic messages frommost countries in the region. Informed observers have been reporting theswirling doubts beneath Pakistan's public commitment to support theAmerican war against terrorism.

Such anxieties of the old and new allies are the setting for a riftbetween Washington's hard-liners seeking immediate revenge in a largerwar theater and those who prefer a protracted isolation of terroristsplus surgical strikes against them. 

After weighing different options fornearly two weeks, President Bush has apparently decided not to risk theyet-to-solidify global coalition by hasty targeting of some Arab states,already listed as the patrons of anti-American radical groups. Lastweekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that a phasedstrategy of targeting Osama bin Laden was Washington's new goal againstthe terrorists and their hideouts. How long will President Bush take before he risks a regional flare up by the not-so-distantmilitary actions against Afghanistan, anticipated and supported by mostAmericans?

(M. Rashiduzzaman, from Bangladesh, teaches Political Science at Rowan University,Glassboro, New Jersey, USA)