She could hardly become the secretary of state-designate at a more perilous time. The attacks on Mumbai have prompted The Telegraph of London to proclaim India one of the 20 most dangerous places in the world.The Washington Post editorializes that India and Pakistan must work together to preserve the peace. "The United States ... must continue nudging these two rivals toward cooperation," writes the Post.
As secretary of state, that will be Clinton's mission. One of many.
Dean Nelson writes, in The Times of London, that authorities in India "claimed to have proof that the Mumbai terrorists were receiving instructions from Pakistan and discussing tactics with their handlers during the three days of attacks in which they killed at least 195 people," an allegation that is all but guaranteed to raise the tension level in that part of the world.
Joshua Kurlantzick warns, in The New Republic, that terrorism won't be beaten in India any time soon.
It is also said that Obama will announce tomorrow that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is staying and retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones will be national security adviser.
"All of the selections are hardly a surprise after weeks of fevered speculation," reports Ed Henry of CNN. "In fact, they're such an open secret that retiring Republican Sen. John Warner, a veteran member of the Armed Services Committee, released a statement Saturday night praising all three nominees before they have been officially named at Monday's rollout."
Gates is already in office, but there's plenty to keep Clinton and Jones occupied until they start their new jobs in the next couple of months.
It seems hardly likely that the importance of Mumbai in foreign affairs will diminish in any way between now and the inauguration. But until this past week, many Westerners didn't seem to understand the vital role Mumbai plays in maintaining economic stability in that part of the world.
Today, only a few days after the terrorist attacks in that city, India and Pakistan appear to be mobilizing — possibly for war.
DEBKAfile reports that "Asia's two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, took their first steps towards a conventional war. India, claiming evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the Islamist terrorist assault on Mumbai, placed its air and missile units on war preparedness, while Pakistan, disclaiming the charge, diverted its armed divisions from the Afghan border to its frontier with India."
The escalating tension between Hindus and Muslims, combined with the presence of nuclear arms on both sides, makes it a hot spot in international politics.
It's not the only one, of course. Just the one that's been in the news lately.
"[T]he attacks will aggravate a growing fault line between Hindus and Muslims within India itself," cautions Robert Kaplan in The Atlantic.
There's no shortage of those who are ready to point fingers at the real culprits and victims in these attacks.
"We already know what we really need to know," writes Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times. "The sites of their attacks may vary ... but the object of their quarrel with history remains the same: modernity."
Mark Steyn warns, in the Orange County Register, that the attacks in Mumbai could happen again — anywhere, anytime. He's right, of course, but there are certain things that make some places less likely to be targets than others.
Major commercial centers are always prime targets, especially at a time when the global economy is struggling. It's one of the factors that has made New York such an appealing target for terrorists in the past.
To say that it could happen anywhere any time may well be true, but it isn't accurate. It misleads the listener into thinking that the local Holiday Inn is as likely to be attacked as the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai.
That's how fear operates.
No comments:
Post a Comment