Guns and Bloody Roses

Yet another tragedy waiting to happen. A man of Vietnamese origin killing himself after shooting 13 people dead in Binghamton, NY, continues America's sorry story on gun violence. Then we have the usual scenario of reactive law enforcement doing its thing after the fact. Too little and definitely too late. I am more surprised by the surprise expressed in media over these incidents, when the chances are so much higher in the gun possession prolific US than elsewhere.

Some pundits have proclaimed through studies that there is definitely a connection between economic downturns and increase in violent incidents. Even a quick look at history will show that. Wasn't it poverty that lead to the violent takeover of the American continent by Europeans at the expense of indigenous cultures? They are reluctant to connect the difference in potential for violence with and without a gun.

A person with a knife or club or stick can rarely coerce 4-5 or more persons to bid his will unless he is a Bruce Lee/Rambo type of a fighting superstar. A person with a gun definitely can, even if he is the ridiculed 5 foot 80 pound local wimp. He could coerce 5 NFL footballers if he wanted, so long as they were unarmed and he was.

The promoters of gun culture in the US portray it as their right to defend themselves from attack in a violence prone society. The proliferation of guns actually makes the US a far more violence prone society in the first place. And in the majority of cases, the gun is used as a weapon of offence or coercion far more often than for any self defence. In a number of serial killing cases, the gun plays a very important role, though victims may be killed in some other way. One has to just go through the entire list of prolific serial killers in the US (which somehow seems to have a higher number here as well) to see how effective a gun made them.

So, inspite of having the world's best means, resources and technology to deal with crime, the free gun culture is a massive achilles heel to the entire US security infrastructure. They have the cure and no clue about prevention. This leaves it seriously vulnerable to terrorism in the future (Update below) . A patient enemy just needs its combatants to have a clean record, migrate to the US, get citizenship in the 6-10 year period and arm themselves and carry out coordinated massacres across the country. If they are open to suicide, this leaves a reactive law enforcement, however quick, too late to help counter such a strike and hence ineffective.

Till the US gets the balance between the freedom to carry a gun and the ease of using a gun for violence against fellow citizens, similar incidents will continue to be common place. The US will continue on all fronts including having the most people in prison, having the most in solitary confinement and having a massive drug control problem.

Update. The Pakistani Taliban is claiming credit for the massacre, though it is more likely a bluff, but this is sure to give them and the US security structure something to think about.

Is Swat the new Rhineland

The Taliban takeover of Swat, a slice of Pakistani territory, is a historic first. A sovereign nation has succumbed to a hardline Islamic outfit and handed over its territory. Through effective use of bluff, bluster and deception against a weak democratic government, the Taliban has officially entered Pakistan.

Before WWII Nazi troops took over Rhineland, through bluff, bluster and deception against a weak democratic French government. Will Kashmir by the new Austria with Punjab-Sindh playing Czecho-Slovakia to the Taliban's war dance?

Nazi Germany never became a nuclear power. Pakistan is one with the least deterrence or control. The probablity of a first nuclear terror attack just went up. Will India will be the first target for such an attack? Israel and the US are more distant and harder to target.

India has historically been the primary target for the Jihadist version of Islam. Fighters were easier to get in poverty deserts of Persia, Arabia and Turkey with dreams of a rich region, fragmented and easy to raid and loot. Converting or destroying a rich, prosperous, predominantly non Islamic region was always on the agenda.

India, in the middle ages, was never united in fighting Islam. Has that changed now? A higher percentage of Muslims exist now than in the middle ages. Most are peaceful, moderate, nationalist. But even a tiny percentage would be enough. Just 1% of 1% of 134 million, still creates a significant pool of 13,400 the size of a pretty large enterprise.

Throw in Bangladesh, the Maoists - the Nepali and the Naxalite variety and it gets even better. Add their growing Hindu counterparts to the mix. A modern, liberal, democratic India looks to be under serious threat.

Is this the beginning of an inevitable regional skirmish leading to bigger things?