The Merchants of Threat
 |
|
Threat, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. If you see a threat - with your perceptive eye of course - you have a threat. If you don't, you are at peace. 'Well not quite', you might say, 'that sounds like the proverbial ostrich'! It does. But then how else do we understand threat perception? I mean we are not talking about identification, analysis or assessment of threat. We are talking about perception of threat; and that too in times when perceptions are said to be more important than realities.
We in the military were quite used to, and quite contended with, threat assessments. Enemy's armed potential compared to ours, juxtaposed on likely areas of operations, adjusted to militarily usable infrastructure, and we had a fairly good picture of the military threat. Only when we started mixing up with civilian strategists, and got involved in disciplines like the national defence, were we exposed to more sublime, almost divine, threats. We were now required to consider interests, intentions, aspirations, ideologies, machinations and a host of other factors regarding neighbours, regional powers, super powers, in the short- term, in the long-term, so on and so forth. Only then, we 'might' have an 'idea' about a 'possible' threat, 'provided'!
Given a chance a military analyst could still have handled it (especially if he was of the gunner variety). He would have made a proforma, given all relevant factors certain weightages, multiplied the sum with the variable 'V' ( a state secret of course), and would have concluded - 'we are sixty three percent threatened'. Well, at least you had something to start with.
But a national strategist belongs to another creed (I almost said 'breed'). He lives in an amorphous world; his field is more complex; he deals with intangibles; assessments are for lowly analysts, he has visions; he does not even breathe the air of the ordinary mortals; and he does not have a clue of what is going to happen; and he has therefore never made a commitment; and he has therefore never been wrong; and we are therefore stuck with the perceptions of those who deal with threats.
It is now their perception of the enemy, in fact their perception of the enemy's perception, which in turn is his perception of their perception - ad infinitum. So if there were threats that they did not see, we can imagine the consequences. But what if they perceived threats where non-existed? I believe we do not know the consequences.
A threat specialist is a very perceptive man. He can see threats that the others cannot. For the benefit of the less perceptive ones, he has to corroborate his discovery with startling evidence, resolve hither-to-fore inexplicable events, see through conspiracies, write fairy-tales, and create 'reasonable doubt'. After that he can sit back and wait for his prophecies to come true. And as sure as hell they will come true. Because!
During the period when our expert was moving heaven and earth to shake us out of our slumber, his counterparts too had been alerted and had inevitably triggered a response mechanism of their own. In that, they were more or less replicating his efforts to create the same effects on their side, if anything with greater justification. Because our perceptions were being translated into their realities. Before we knew, both of us were faced with real threats. Both would suffer the consequences. The only winners will be our perceptive strategists. Ours more than there's, because after all we cast the first stone.
Indeed countries have real threats, and not only perceived or the created ones. In fact as long as the international system is based on relations between nation-states, whose very foundations are built on national interest, every country is threatened. Even if a state were to pursue as harmless a national objective as exploitation of its own natural resources, it could draw uncomfortable attention. And only a few years ago in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet threat, the leading strategic interest of the United States may well have been containment of Japanese economic power (Samuel P Huntington, in one of the 1991 Foreign Affairs). But that was before the US and the West, and indeed Professor Huntington, discovered more useful threats. Yes, threats can be very useful. Actually they are so useful that we cannot do without them.
In the first place there are those who exist, because there are threats. Some of them deal 'with' threats and the others deal 'in' threats. They are a fairly large number; the armed forces, the intelligence community, the strategists, the ideologues, certain categories of entrepreneurs and so on. For some of them it is business. So the normal rules of business apply: the higher the (threat) index on the stock market the better for their business; more serious the threat more reasons to exist. For ease of reference we can call them 'The Threat Syndicate' ('Threat Mafia' may be better).
And then there are those whose business is the State. And that is where we learn to our utter dismay, that even the state or a system of states cannot do without threats; real, perceived or created - as long as these will sell. Only threats can help them govern, focus efforts, ask for 'necessary' sacrifices, build consensus, and of course cover up inadequacies, fiascos, even debacles. For them threats are as indispensable as 'God' for those who believe that if there were no God, one would have to be created. Without a credible system of threats, the entire concept of national security would collapse.
So if you believe that when the Warsaw Pact disintegrated there was universal celebration in the other camp, you have another thought coming. In fact when the 'evil empire' was collapsing, virtually like a house of cards, there was panic, even mourning, in the Western Syndicates, who saw in this victory the germs of their own destruction. They were now faced with budget cuts, their operational scope was being limited, and in some cases their very existence was being questioned. Obviously they were to lose the limelight. Empires like these have an inbuilt defence mechanism, that gets activated whenever they are threatened. And therefore, they always strike back.
Their initial reaction was panicky, even impulsive, almost like grabbing at straws. Some of them were desperately clinging on the old (sinking) ship: has communism actually been exorcised; isn't it a tactical manoeuvre to tide over their economic difficulties; let us wait till all of them can became good Christians; is anyone looking at China? etc. etc. But there were others who were thinking more 'positively'.
The intelligence took the lead. Obviously. It fights its battles ahead of everyone else (despite what the foreign service might believe or claim). While some of them were exploring new sources of threat, the others, including certain military organisations struggling for survival, sank to the (unclean) level of chasing drug peddlers. Close on their heals were the arms merchants creating new demands to maintain their essential levels of supply. Then came the military, desperately trying to 'adjust the reduced force goals to a coherent structure in view of the unemployment levels'. In simple text it read: 'let us stagger the whole exercise till relief comes'. And sure enough god provided the much needed relief to all those in distress.
Of course it wasn't the God of the Universes, the all Merciful and all Benevolent. It was only the god of the NWO, who decreed that Saddam was the reincarnation of the devil, the greatest threat to mankind, and therefore a jihad against him was obligatory for all faithful. Indeed the less able could chip in with worldly goods, while the true defenders of the (new) faith fought with their (upgraded) hearts, souls and torsos.
One could agree with the Saddam part. Even then the celebrations after the Gulf War looked pathetic: the sole surviving super power gloating over a victory won with the help of the rest of the world over a third rate third world despot. But that is where one missed the point.
More impressive and more dreaded than the victory in the Gulf was the performance of the Mafia. They brought home the 'enormity' of the peril to the right quarters, convinced them over one response that could win for the Brotherhood the much needed breathing space, and saved Saddam just in case!
Of course it could only be a temporary reprieve. Because neither Saddam nor drugs, nor for that matter the danger of the Yellow Yen, were good enough rallying points in the long run. Either the myth would be exploded or the response eventually so structured that the Syndicate would not get the clout that it had been used to. The next threat had to be at least as good as the last one, preferably better, more credible, more comprehensive, more versatile (only conventional ones were not adequate), and with potential to endure. It should be a matter of great comfort and satisfaction, that only Islam met the bill. (We are not that bad after all !).
Indeed the Muslims have many attributes to qualify for this honour; history, geography, ideology, grievances, deprivations, desires, potential and so on. But it did require a well considered strategy to create and build up the threat. It would be wrong for example to target Islam or the entire Muslim World, directly or right in the beginning. Remember how Communist Russia had to be tolerated, even sustained till some other threats could be disposed of, or for that matter care had to be exercised in making distinction between the Russian and Chinese brands of socialism ! Similarly it could be revolutionaries like Khomeni at one time and demagogues like Saddam at another; one could swing from the 'fundamentalists' in Algeria to the 'moderates' in Pakistan; issues could be varied from terrorism to drugs to nuclear to MTCR; some sympathetic noises might be necessary for Kashmir and Bosnia, as long as one did not forget that the Indians could be useful in the great game and the Serb - French - British axis would be important just in case the Germans got too big for their boots (again).
The object of giving these examples is merely to illustrate that for our 'specialist', once the target has been selected, working out a plan is not a big deal - only a matter of professional expertise. To drive the point home, if one were to believe certain 'think tanks' in Washington or some of the former heads of western intelligence agencies (to deny them free publicity, no names need be mentioned), compared to us the Russians were merely misled 'Europeans' who at least played by recognised rules. In our case however, the western civilisation was up against devious pirates from the 'South' (what happened to all the wise men from the 'East'?), who would destroy them from within (starting with the World Trade Centre (WTC), I presume - as good a heart of the modern civilisation as any other).
Execution is usually the most demanding part of any operation. In this insidious game the devil helps. You only have to spark the ignition. After that the inevitable 'threat - response' cycle takes over. In case the militancy in the Islamic world is selected to be the target in the first phase, simply drop a hint. A reasonable number including many amongst the Muslims would be alerted. Some may go on defensive and some are bound to 'hit back'. Focus on the likes of Turabis, Islam Bulis, Omer Abdul Rehmans, Ramzis and Bin-Ladens, and you already have a world wide terrorist network. Wait for an explosion a la the WTC (or stage - manage one; remember the Ganga hijacking?), and we have all the proof that was required to believe that the Fourth World War would be fought against terrorist Islam backed by an odd billion barbarians, all primed to settle a score long overdue.
Some simmering of restlessness or defiance have been transformed into a made-to-order threat. The 'Empire' can now easily be saved, in fact may have to be strengthened to combat the new challenge. After all such an enemy cannot be permitted to control strategic spaces or materials, or allowed access to technologies that can be misused. The Syndicate can now sit back and bask in the glory of perceptiveness, not much worried about the threat itself. That will be taken care of by 'friends' in the enemy ranks, who have been warned that they would be the first target. (Notice how many of us are scared stiff of the 'fundos'?). Just don't forget to enflame the passions every now and then.
This was just one example of what our threat experts could do merely to 'survive'. But of course they are always there adding fuel to all fires.
When the Russian and American tanks faced each other across the great European Divide, it could be soundly argued that it provided as good a security to the region as any other. But the specialist preferred to count tanks per square kilometre to determine the size of the powder keg on which Europe was critically balanced. And when the Soviet Union was struggling for its survival, the Mafia was convinced that the 'Commies' would go down with a bang and take Europe with them.
It may be a matter of professional satisfaction to Pakistan's military intelligence that our estimates about Iraqi armed forces during the Gulf War, were conceded to be more accurate than those of the others which were grossly exaggerated. Two years after the event it wasn't much help. And if no blueprint of Kenyan or Tanzanian explosions was found in Khartoum, it did not matter in the least. The purpose of the exercise is not to discover the plan but to muddy the water. This fish can only survive in murky waters.
Make no mistakes. These past masters of intrigue, disinformation and discord are not confined to any camp or operate at any particular level. They are to be found every where and at all tiers. Ever heard of the 'wrecker-crews' in Islamabad, that keep the Governments at tenterhooks with all their coups on 'Pindi-conspiracies' ! No wonder they grow in stature, since they deal with them - the non existent threats - so 'successfully'. It does not help in the end because they cry wolf once too often.
Time for us to pause and ponder. Is that the purpose of a security apparatus? One would have thought that it was meant to eliminate threats, not to accentuate them or to create new ones for its own well being. In fact any security system works towards its own dispensability. An efficient police system should ultimately reduce itself to an unarmed Bobby in a community. A good government (which is also a security organisation) works towards less government. And the international system must also aim at reducing, containing and defusing tensions, rather than enflaming and exacerbating them.
This of course will not be possible as long as our destinies are in the hands of a select group that thrives on confrontation and tension. They are the merchants of threat who must ensure that its share on the stock market remains high. They excel in transforming their weird perceptions into our dreaded realities. In fact we have stopped seeing reality except with their eyes. They are the real threat.
