In perhaps what has been his most difficult speech in recent times, U.S. President Barack Obama, told his nation on Sunday that he will not flinch[flinch(draw back,घबरा जाना)] from using his government’s military might to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or IS as it is more popularly known. This was in the context of the San Bernardino (California) killing of 14 people on December 2, 2015, by a couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, in what the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified categorically to be a terrorist attack.
The savagery[sa-vij-ree(brutality,क्रूरता)] — the two used assault weapons to mow down[maw dawn(kill,हत्या)] Farook’s colleagues
Those who have watched and listened to Mr. Obama on television after similar gory[go-ree(bloody,लहूलुहान)] incidents in the past — some terror-related and others the work of deranged, but dangerously armed, individuals who had run amok[run a'mók(insane,खून सवार होना)] — may not have been convinced that the President had still the ability or the energy to handle terrorism imaginatively. On this occasion, Mr. Obama was not exactly the picture of assurance that he used to be. He looked jaded[jey-did(tired,थके हुए)], and his brave rhetoric[re-tu-rik(language,शब्द)] on television sounded perfunctory[pu'fúngk-tu-ree(formal,औपचारिक)] and superficial[,soo-pu'fi-shul(unimportant,ऊपरी)] , despite the doubtless sincerity of the man. You can’t, however, fault him, because with the tragic frequency of such gory events even for an eloquent[e-lu-kwunt(fluent,वाक्पटुता)] speaker like him, using appropriate adjectives and emotions to describe them will be difficult now.
Terror attacks are, undoubtedly, becoming increasingly unpredictable. More and more soft targets are being used to demoralise not only the community, but also law enforcement. The world strongly believed after Osama bin Laden’s liquidation, in May 2011, that we had seen the end of unremitting[ún-ri'mi-ting(continuous,लगातार)] terror. Even experts have been proved wrong. As a relatively small outfit that does not boast of a central directing hierarchy[hI-u,raa-kee(structure,वर्गीकरण)] , and with less than 20,000 active members, the IS is now holding most of West Asia to ransom. Its lure[lûr(entice,प्रलोभन)] has become nearly irresistible to a large number of Muslim youths drawn from various parts of the world, including India.
This phenomenon has baffled[ba-fuld(confuse,चकराना)] governments as well as intelligence agencies. It explains the ease with which Paris was attacked recently. Interestingly, while the Paris massacre[ma-su-ku(slaughter,हत्याकांड)] was the outcome of coordinated action by a group of more than 10 people across Europe, the San Bernardino incident was the act of two lone wolves bound by matrimony. This contrast alone highlights how counterterrorism had become a nearly impossible mission.
Farook and Malik were a nondescript[,nón-di'skript(ordinary,साधारण)] couple who had aroused little attention prior to the incident. Farook, an inspector in the Department of Public Health, was an American citizen of Pakistani descent, and his wife Malik, a Pakistan-born legal resident of the U.S. This Pakistani connection, however slender[slen-du(thin,पतला,कम)] it may be, should cause dismay[dis'mey(discourage,निराश)] to many detractors[di'trak-tu(critic,निंदक)] of the Modi government who assail[u'seyl(attack,हमला)] it for its mindless hostility[hós'ti-lu-tee(enmity,शत्रुता)] to Pakistan. Police investigation has revealed that Farook had gone to Saudi Arabia for Haj in October 2013. A Facebook entry now unearthed reveals how Malik had sometime ago pledged[plejd(commit,वादा)] her allegiance[u'lee-jun(t)s(loyalty,निष्ठा)] to the IS. The couple, killed in the police chase after the incident, leave behind a daughter, less than a year old. How on earth could you expect such a young couple to indulge[in'dúl(involve,लिप्त होना)] in this kind of violence?
It is easy to fault the FBI, which covers domestic intelligence in the U.S., for having failed to identify the couple before the incident. This is the complexity of the task that daunts[dont(frighten,भयभीत)] intelligence agencies the world over.
One cannot brand intelligence and police agencies as total failures. Do we know how many terrorist attempts have been foiled[foyld(unsuccessful,विफल)] ? We don’t, however, let us know of some of their achievements. A very recent example is the arrest of a few Lashkar-e-Taiba cadres in New Delhi who are said to have been prowling[prawl(roam secretly,संदिग्ध रूप से घूमना)] around for quite some time to strike. It is said that one of their targets was Prime Minister Narendra Modi. We need to laud the Delhi Police and the Intelligence Bureau for this remarkable piece of work.
It would be equally unfair to believe that anyone in Mr. Obama’s place could have done better. Such is the highly insidious[in'si-dee-us(dangerous,खतरनाक)] nature of modern terrorism that we can hardly expect from any government the kind of dramatic results we desperately want.
Mr. Obama was skating on thin ice while referring to Islam in his address.He pointed out how a large number of Muslims themselves were victims of terror. While this benign[bi'nIn(kind,दयालु)] outlook to Islam is unexceptionable, I thought we had gone far beyond these trite[trIt(old,घिसा पीटा)] statements in outlining a future strategy.
The President’s statement that terrorism was still evolving in the form of IS and that counterterrorism had to adapt itself was striking for its home truth. In this context, increased gun control and greater use of technology seem to be of limited value in neutralising groups that are openly promoting and abetting[u'bet(incite,उकसाना)] the IS’s cause. But what about the lone wolves acting recklessly[rek-lus-lee(carelessly,बेपरवाह)]? There is no answer as yet.
In the final analysis, citizens the world over are no longer willing to accept governments’ excuses for non-performance in any sphere. This is particularly true of terrorism. They want hard results by way of prevention. They may be artless and naive to believe that terrorists can be extirpated['ek-stu,peyt(destroy,विनास)], and that governments could do a lot more. But then they simply don’t want to be victims of religious fundamentalism. It is as simple as that.
No comments:
Post a Comment