As the western world reels in horror from the recent outrage in Bali, commentators ask: "Why us?" Once again, the truth that there is no safe place from the war against terror is brutally underscored: overnight, the whole world has become the frontline.
In the aftermath of 9/11, I was flooded with e-mails from Americans suddenly wishing to understand why they were so hated in the Muslim world. But as allied bombs dropped from far overhead and ended the Taliban's barbaric rule and sent the Al Qaeda running for cover, it seemed that western interest in the reasons for Islamic terrorism had waned: Americans had done their worst in Afghanistan, and the world would soon become safe once again.
Except that it hasn't: we have seen that the Pax Americana has its limits, and those limits have been exposed each time the terrorists have struck, whether in Pakistan or Yemen or in Indonesia. Indeed, nowhere have these limits been as savagely exposed as in Washington D.C. where a single sniper has terrorized the capital of the world's only superpower.
Indeed, the global sheriff looks thoroughly befuddled as he threatens war elsewhere while trying to swat at the mosquito that stings him with impunity. And this is precisely the point Bush has been missing: by attacking fixed targets using America's terrifying air power, the best he can hope to do is disperse his tormentors and destroy a few buildings. In Afghanistan's case, apart from the welcome outcome of the defeat of the Taliban, all American might achieved was the death of hundreds of innocent civilians, reducing some wretched villages to rubble, and adding to the misery of a suffering nation.
And here lies the conundrum nobody has been able to solve: when you try and hit an elusive enemy, you inevitably strike at innocent civilians, thereby providing your opposing forces with more volunteers. As terrorists have few targets worth destroying and operate in the shadows, these forces are notoriously difficult to defeat.
The anti-colonial underground movements, ranging from Algeria to Kenya to Indonesia all ultimately succeeded in driving the colonial power out. At times these movements took largely non-violent, constitutional forms, as in India. But if history is any guide, there are no purely military solutions to fundamentally political problems. Perhaps invasion and occupation is one path, but as Israel is discovering the hard way, it is not without its thorns and obstacles.
Small wonder then that the Bush administration is bent on embarking on the easiest of options available to it: by attacking Iraq in the name of 'regime change'; one element in the American government feels that they will be seen to be doing something rather than remaining passive. However, this approach fails to take into account the additional foot soldiers for jihad it would ensure. Also, as the Bali bombing has proved yet again, western citizens and business interests will be ever more at risk the world over.
One major problem in the current shadowy conflict is that the extremists are so dispersed and all of them have different agendas: the Abu Sayaf group in the Philippines is agitating for a separate homeland for Muslims. That they are also enriching themselves by taking hostages for ransom is something their supporters often lose sight of. Several Kashmiri militias are fighting for freedom from India. Some Islamic zealots are killing other Muslims because they differ on points of doctrine. In Algeria, a vicious civil war between the Islamic underground and the secular army has taken tens of thousands of lives.
There are two common elements in the agendas of these various groups: first is the burning determination to cleanse Islam of all impurities wherever they are operating; secondly, a hatred of the West as the source of these impure influences. When the bomb exploded outside the popular Bali nightclub, extinguishing scores of innocent lives, one can imagine millions of Muslims around the world saying "it served them right!" In Pakistan, one of the foremost items on the religious alliance's priorities is to remove all programmes showing singing and dancing from the state-owned television.
Given the extreme position taken by these Islamic groups, it is difficult to see how even a sympathetic West could respond in a manner aimed at meeting all their demands. Much has been written and said about the need to address the root causes of terrorism. But how precisely? If India, Israel, Algeria and the Philippines, for example, refuse to accept the demands of those struggling to achieve certain political goals, how can they be forced to do so? Will the population of the western world change its lifestyle because it is taboo to many Muslims?
Whatever the destruction wrought by these shadowy groups, it is important to remember that ultimately, terrorism is the weapon of the weak. In Palestine, young men and women do not blow themselves up because they are suicidal, but because they are desperate: the illegal occupation of their land has lasted 35 years without much protest from the rest of the world. However, causes and movements need to be evaluated on the merits of their means and ends. No moral human being can condone the random killing of innocents.
In most cases, violent young men gravitate towards charismatic leaders with a cause, no matter how extreme or absurd. Madrassahs produce indoctrinated youngsters with no marketable skills who are natural canon fodder for ideological causes. What is perceived as western arrogance and anti-Islamic policies sharpen grievances. Despotic, inefficient Muslim governments supported by the West are a major source of militancy.
America, so long immune from attack on its soil, has suddenly woken up to the fact that it is a hostile and dangerous world that they share. After 9/11, there was much talk of the American people having 'lost their innocence'. But as Philip Roth, the well-known American novelist asked in an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro: "What innocence?" According to Roth, so much blood had been shed abroad in the name of the American people by their governments that they could hardly claim to be innocent. Since the end of the Second World War, hardly a year had gone past without American soldiers being involved in a conflict somewhere in the world.
Most of the world has had considerable experience of terrorist atrocities: England with the IRA; Spain with ETA; Italy with the Red Brigades; the list is long and bloody. In Pakistan, terrorism is so much part of our existence that unless a western target is involved, we take it in our stride. In this sense, we may ruefully welcome Americans to the frontline.