Military

DATE=12/19/01

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=TERRORIST ATTACK IN DELHI

NUMBER=6-125511

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=Washington

INTERNET=YES

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: Just as fighting appeared to be diminishing in Afghanistan, a terrorist attack in the region has greatly heightened tensions between India and Pakistan.

A group of armed men tried to enter the Indian parliament building in New Delhi last Thursday but were killed by security forces. Thirteen people, including five terrorists, were killed in the attack that India blames on Islamic militants backed by Pakistan. The United States press is beginning to react with apprehension to this latest crisis in relations between the two, long-time antagonists on the sub-continent. Now, here is _________ with a sampling in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: The Indian government alleges Pakistan sponsored the Islamic militants killed in the suicide mission. Pakistan denies any involvement. There is reported to be growing political pressure on the Indian government to answer the attack on parliament, with military strikes on Muslim rebel training camps in the disputed terroritory of Jammu and Kashmir.

We begin our sampling of United States editorial comment in New England, where The Boston Herald says:

VOICE: The Indian government has solid evidence that Pakistan-based terrorists are responsible for last week's attack on its parliament. If Washington wants to avoid a war between two nuclear powers, it had better pressure our new ally, the government of General Pervez Musharraf, to crack down on anti-Indian terrorism.

Police in New Delhi have arrested four men with ties to two terrorist groups operating openly in Pakistan. Both engage in suicide bombings and other acts of criminal violence in an effort to wrest Muslim-dominated Kashmir [and Jammu] from India. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence has long been suspected of masterminding the violence. The shadowy spy agency also had a role in the Taleban's rise to power.

Pressure is growing on the Indian government to retaliate for the attack ... by bombing terrorist camps in Pakistan. After September eleventh and the start of the war in Afghanistan, Americans can sympathize with a desire for direct action. Still, an Indian strike might provoke another war between two countries with one-sixth of the world's population.

TEXT: Excerpts from a recent Boston Herald editorial.

Ohio's Cincinnati Post agrees with the Herald, suggesting that the "attack ... creates a delicate and dangerous problem for the Bush administration."

VOICE: India blames longtime enemy Pakistan for the attack, which left 13 dead, including five terrorists, and is threatening to go after terrorist camps in Pakistan in retaliation. The attack, no less than the assault on Washington, was intended to decapitate India's political leadership and demolish a symbol of its democracy. The Indians, by any standards, including those articulated by President Bush after September eleventh, are entitled to protect themselves from future assaults.

[President] Bush is urging caution on India, as the United States is in nearby Afghanistan hunting down the remnants of the Taleban leadership and al-Qaida terror network. ... It would be hypocritical of the United States to tell India, in effect, that our war on terrorism has to take precedence over their war on terrorism.

TEXT: The views of the Cincinnati [Ohio] Post.

In Jacksonville, Florida, the Times-Union newspaper laments: "Last week's attack ...was another chilling reminder that the entire world has a stake in the war on terrorism." And it continues:

VOICE: The gunmen were Islamic militants trying not just to wrest control of Kashmir but also... [reportedly] to impose Islamic rule over all of India. On the same day, a series of terrorist attacks left ten dead in Israel - - and gunmen linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida were attacking Christian villages in Indonesia, killing people and destroying churches.

India has had political violence before and an armed attack on a national legislature isn't without precedent, either. Five members of [the U-S] Congress were wounded when [Puerto Rican nationalist] terrorists opened fire from the spectators' gallery in 1954. But never has terrorism been as widespread or as organized. Either al-Qaida will be smashed or anarchy will reign. There can be no middle ground.

TEXT: Opinions of The Florida Times-Union published in Jacksonville.

On the West Coast, The Fresno [California] Bee worries: "India and Pakistan, always at odds, are trading warlike words in the wake of [the] attack..."

VOICE: At this point war seems unlikely, but the volatile atmosphere needs to be cooled...[and] the United States has good reason to help in the process. Indian officials say the attackers were from an Islamic extremist group based in the Pakistani-controlled part of [Jammu and] Kashmir, the disputed Himalayan state that was the cause of two of the three wars India and Pakistan have fought. Pakistani authorities deny responsibility, saying they give only moral support to the group's cause: independence from India. To add fuel to the fire, a Pakistani general accused India of staging the attack to discredit Pakistan.

Thus do these two nuclear-armed neighbors risk provoking another armed clash. ...General Pervez Musharraf ... should move to rein in extremist groups. He also should determine whether Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence agency was behind the attack in New Delhi, as India claims. ... For its part, India's government must reassure the international community that it will not aggravate an already volatile situation at a time when both countries are aligned with the United States against the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Taleban regime in Afghanistan that harbored it.

TEXT: With those suggestions from California's Fresno Bee, we conclude this editorial sampling on the recent terrorist attack against the Indian Parliament.

NEB/ANG/FC