Thursday, December 1, 2011

India, the United States and Terrorism


Jas Elmer
Professor Dylan Craig
SIS 105-001H
November 20, 2011
Terrorism and its Effect on a Nations Power: An Analysis of India and the United States
As weapons and warfare have become modernized a shift has occurred in the power of non-state actors. Among these actors are terrorist organizations. As terrorists have gained more economic, social, political and military power they have become significant players within international relations and have begun to play a role in the power and roles of countries. The influence of terrorist organizations has also become to prohibit upcoming powers from gaining more international presence and in turn may be helping super powers keep their power. In comparing the United States and India, the U.S. is viewed as a hegemonic power and India as a potential rising power. Both states face similar terrorist threats, being they have terrorists from within their borders but most of their threats come from foreign citizens, often from the same groups. However, terrorism is a bigger problem for India because they are geographically closer to countries with a high number of terrorist organizations, they are attacked more frequently and their military does not have the same technological capabilities as the U.S. The comparison between these two states represents how terrorism affects a states rank in society. This is because although the United States also receives terrorist threats, it is not costing the U.S. a significant amount of power. However, as a rising power the terrorist acts in India prohibit them from gaining more power and achieving the level of security enjoyed in the United States.
            A huge reason why India faces a greater risk of terrorist attacks is they are geographically close to where many terrorist organizations operate. Afghanistan and Pakistan are considered the “epicenter of terror” (Choudhury). Because India shares a border with both nations they have a much higher rate of terrorist attacks. Home Minister P. Chidambaram has identified that “four out of five major terrorist groups are based in Pakistan and three of them... continue to target India” (Choudhury). Due to weak border security many people from neighboring countries move in and out of India and the government has been unable to control large-scale illegal immigration (Rediff). India has been facing problems of both insurgency and terrorism in areas of the state which border Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Nepal (Rediff). Although the United States also faces illegal-immigration issues, most of the immigrants come from Mexico or neighboring Latin American states and have not added to the risk of terrorism in the U.S. as the immigrants to India have. The importance of geographical location is shown in the number of terrorist attacks the countries have had.
            The only recent terrorist attack which was carried out against the United States has been the bombing of the Pentagon and Twin Towers on September 11th. In contrast there have been 46 terrorist attacks in India since 1999, counting suicide terrorism alone (Rediff). While the terrorist attacks on September 11th have caused more casualties than the most recent terrorist attacks in India, the estimated 19 attempted terrorist attacks since have been thwarted by the United States law enforcement (Carafano). However, the prevalence of attacks in India is much higher. A main reason for this higher prevalence is the difference in technology between the police and military forces of the two states.
            The strength and capability of the Indian and United States militaries are very different. This is heavily affected by the military technology each country possesses. In India many military weapons are so old that they have become obsolete, a main reason “Indian law enforcement remains ill-prepared” (Bradsher). In a recent standoff with terrorists in the Taj Hotel the sharpshooters for the Indian military “had neither protective gear, nor the high-powered telescopes that their counterparts in Western countries would most likely use in a standoff with terrorists” (Bradsher). In interviews preceding the standoff a sharpshooter, who spent 60 hours perched outside the hotel, said that “he nor his partner had fired a shot because they were not sure how to distinguish the gunmen from ordinary civilians trapped inside the hotel” (Bradsher). This is just one example of how lacking technology weakens India’s ability to fight terrorism. On the other hand the U.S. military spend a great deal of resources on military technology and are constantly updating their military weapons. In upcoming years the U.S. Army plans to dedicate an additional $124 billion to develop a Future Combat System (Boot). Increases in funding for military technologies are often awarded because “information technology is central to American military dominance” (Boot). The extent to which the Indian and U.S. government can counterterrorism is highlighted by the strength of their Navies.
            The strength of the U.S. military has been unprecedented. The U.S. dominance is so substantial that no one “even tries to challenge the U.S. Navy anymore on the high seas” (Boot). Of course this is possible because “the U.S. Navy regularly updates the electronics and weapons aboard” (Boot). In contrast a parliamentary investigation found that the Indian Navy and Coast Guard were unable to monitor sea routes due to a lack of long-range surveillance equipment (Bradsher). The shores are so inadequately protected that terrorists have been able to sneak into Mumbai through the sea (Bradsher). The security flaws in both the Indian Navy and the rest of their military allows terrorism to be a more frequent occurrence and prevents them from gaining a heightened level of security.
            In our current world terrorism is a very important international issue. The states which have the highest security from terrorists are those who are geographically further from their centers of operation and those that have the military technology needed to counteract and prevent attacks. Countries which have less successful terrorist attacks also happen to have more world power. This trend is highlighted by India and the United States. This is because the United States is a militarily strong hegemon, whereas India, although a rising power, is geographically near to many terrorist groups and has a lacking military; making it more difficult for India to thwart terrorist attacks and gain more international power.






Works Cited

Boot, Max. "The Paradox of Military Technology." thenewatlantis.com. The New Atlantis, 2006.

Web. 26 Nov. 2011.

Bradsher, Keith and Somini Sengupta. "India Faces Reckoning as Terror Toll Eclipses

170." nytimes.com. The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.

Carafano, James. "U.S. Thwarts 19 Terrorist Attacks Against America Since 9/11." heritage.org.

The Heritage Foundation, 13 Nov. 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.

Choudhury, Uttara. "India Blind to Hindu, Muslim Terrorist Threats from Within the

Country." firstpost.com.  First Post, 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.

"Terrorism: India’s Unending War." rediff.com. Rediff India Abroad, 4 Apr. 2003. Web. 26 Nov.

2011.



5 comments:

  1. This is an interesting view on how terrorism has deepened the divide between the global North and South. Though India appears to be ill prepared to deal with terrorists, the US has also had limited success with counterinsurgency, as well. Given the state of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could be argued that that America is not handling the war on terror well either. How would you respond to this argument?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great paper Jas!
    I'm glad you added the part about attempted terrorist attacks on the United States in order to show the strength of the United States Intelligence organizations. I was wondering how you would increase the level of technology in the Indian army? Should the United States provide aid or should the world system wait until India is able to afford it itself?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sagatom- I think that is a great point. The U.S. has not been successful in dealing with terrorism outside its borders. Due to guerrilla warfare and the challenges of fighting against a force which is scattered among civilians it has been difficult to combat. However, as far as protecting our own nation the U.S. has been much more successful than India. Although we haven't been winning the War on Terror we have been, with the exception of 9/11, very successful at preventing terrorist attacks on our own territory.

    Jonathon- That's a really good question, I think it would definitely depend on how much it would actually cost to bring the Indian military up to technological speed. However, if there was a way to fund it I think it would definitely be in the interest of the United States. Many of the same groups which our attacking India are also groups which have attempted attacks upon the U.S. Additionally, many of these groups have actually been sneaking into India and training groups there. If the Indian military was able to fight against terrorism within their own borders more effectively they would be able to weaken the terrorist organizations which threaten us. Although it would be expensive to improve their technological capabilities it might actually save us money in the long run. If India could be more successful at fighting against terrorists we might not have to spend as much fighting against them internationally or spend as much protecting our own borders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is a very good point, Jas. While the War on Terror has not been very successful abroad, there has not been another terrorist attack at home in America. Since the Mumbai terrorist attack, has India had many attacks on its own soil?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only major terrorist I was able to find information on was an attack which occurred in 2010 in Mumbai. However, SATP estimates that about 2,000 people have been killed in terrorist every year following. Also there are more small scale outbursts of violence in India which although not identified as terrorism could potentially be terrorists at work.

    ReplyDelete