PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz
Mumbai: Road to armageddon?

The stunning terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India last November 26, 2008 have brought to the forefront of international debate the issue of how secure is any city from a terrorist attack? Ten terrorists and ten targets proved that it doesn't take a lot of terrorists to wreak havoc any place and anywhere in the world. And like those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the Mumbai attackers were not afraid to die. It's how much destruction that mattered to them.

Although the destruction in Mumbai is pale compared to 9/11, the impact on the Indian psyche is as devastating as 9/11. India, whether she likes it or not, is now drawn -- wittingly or unwittingly -- into the "War on Terror."

With a population of 1.13 billion people of which 151.4 million -- or 13.4% of the population -- are Muslim, India is the home to the third-largest Muslim population in the world. The largest is Indonesia with 195.2 million Muslims which comprise 88% of the population. The second largest is Pakistan with 160.8 million Muslims which comprise 98% of the population.

With a large population of Muslims, India has to pursue a policy that should not be inimical to its Muslim citizens. Having been to war with Pakistan four times since the Kashmir territorial dispute in 1947, going to war with Pakistan at this time would no longer be about territorial disputes but religious differences and intolerance -- Islamists against the "infidels." Today, war doesn't have front lines, it's borderless.

Why Mumbai? Formerly known as Bombay, it is the financial capital and the most populous city in India with 19 million inhabitants. And what a better way to terrorize the entire country -- and mesmerize the world -- than to attack Mumbai and take foreign hostages including Americans, British, and Jews.

If India and Pakistan would follow the way of the gun, the entire region -- South Asia -- could be one hell of a battleground. Just imagine: India and Pakistan with nuclear arms pointing at each other; neighboring giants Russia and China with huge nuclear arsenals ready to be used or peddled to client states; NATO countries stockpiled with American nuclear missiles programmed to strike certain targets; Iran secretly developing its nuclear armament program to be used against Israel; Israel ready to use its nuclear weapons in the event that it is pushed to the brink of annihilation; and Osama bin laden ready to send thousands of al Qaeda suicide bombers to population centers around the world. All these could only lead to the fulfillment of the most dreaded prophecy: the Battle of Armageddon.

It's interesting to note that soon after the Mumbai attacks, Islamic jihadists started talking about Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim state that is being claimed by both India and Pakistan. Kashmir's status has never been resolved since a United Nations-brokered ceasefire ended the second Pakistani-Indian War in 1965.

Today, the entire Kashmir region is split into three parts with India, Pakistan and China each administering a part. There were talks in Islamic circles of establishing a Taliban Caliphate which would encompass half of India and all of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. Well, that could lead to a holy war or "jihad." And a "jihad" could really be bloody and could also draw the big powers and their allies into the conflict.

And where would the United States be in such an event? President-elect Barack Obama said during his campaign that he'd like to withdraw the American troops from Iraq and re-deploy them to Afghanistan to finish off al Qaeda and, if necessary, intrude into Pakistan to pursue elements of al Qaeda.

While both India and Pakistan are presently allied with the United States, an armed conflict between these belligerent neighbors could force the United States to remain neutral. However, in the event that pro-American Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari -- the widower of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto -- is ousted by Islamic forces backed by anti-US elements in the Pakistani military, a Pakistani-Indian war could turn ugly.

The US might be forced to covertly support India with military hardware or, as a last resort, overtly send an expeditionary force to stop the Islamists from overpowering India. The American entry into that war could also force Russia and China to rally behind Pakistan. As a consequence, NATO might enter the conflict in support of the US. A wild scenario? Yes, indeed.

Such a "wild scenario" could trigger the "final battle between Good and Evil" -- the Battle of Armageddon -- in the holiest city on Earth, Jerusalem. Iran would unleash its "secret" nuclear armaments into Jerusalem. And in an almost simultaneous reaction, Israel would send its nuclear missiles into Iran. And at that very moment, all hell breaks loose.

The Battle of Armageddon will probably not happen soon but the events that would lead to that "final battle" could start to happen soon, if they haven't started yet. Some say that it is inevitable and that early signs are manifested. However, some say that we're now closer to the End of Days. With the ascension of Barack Obama as a -- if not the -- world leader, one wonders what would he do to deal with the various players on both sides of the "War on Terror" to preserve world peace.

When Obama announced his selection of the members of his national security team, he said, "The time has come for a new beginning, a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century. We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends. We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. " His biggest challenge would be how to prevent the event -- or events -- that would lead to Armageddon.

While he had unequivocally reiterated his support of Israel throughout his presidential campaign, coming face to face with reality after winning the election is a different story. It is reassuring though when Obama promised to give more emphasis to diplomacy and bring a "new dawn of American leadership."

I remember the chess genius Bobby Fischer who, in a 1964 tour, played more than 20 chess games simultaneously against more than 20 players in each city… and winning them all except a few.

Barack Obama would have to do better than Bobby -- he has to play 120 chess games simultaneously with 120 heads of state. He should neither win or lose. All 120 games must end in a draw. And if he wins one, he loses all. Such is the intricate game of world diplomacy. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)