Mumbai is still trembling. There is a want for blood and retribution. What was Pakistan’s role in the bloodbath? Will Pakistan pay for their role in reaping the carnage?
FOLLOWING the terror massacres in Mumbai, Pakistan may now be the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism, beyond even Iran. Yet it has never been listed by the US State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.
In 1998, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the State Department’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator recommended listing Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. Then secretary of state Madeleine Albright decided against it, saying it would destroy US influence in Islamabad. And that has been the dilemma of Western policy towards Pakistan ever since.
India is now deciding whether to strike at a training base of Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Pakistan-based terrorist group involved in the Mumbai massacres. It may be that prudence will prevent India from conducting the strike. However, in law and morality, India would certainly be entitled to strike. The US has been conducting strikes across the Pakistani border to hit Taliban terrorists, who have been trying to kill NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. India would have the more urgent justification of protecting its civilians.
Should the world require India to hold her powder when, after all, the Bush Doctrine for the past seven years has supported the notion of the USA attacking any sovereign nation that appears to turn a bad eye our way?
Why must India be civilized when the world has been wrecked by a paranoid, destructive, and killing policy of worldwide American terrorist hunting?