FOCUS
Is there pre-emptive talk to deal with the backlash?

By Dan Berman

Dan Berman, president of the East-West Center Alumni Association, is a retired school teacher.

While the president and his advisers have bombarded us with "reasons" for war, they are not telling us what we are going to do about the fallout after the war.

For starters, how will we be able to shore up the moderate Muslim states in Asia who have barely been able to control the fundamentalist elements in their nations to date? Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia — as well as Turkey — are witnessing a surge of fundamentalist activity based on the "Islamic card," which holds that the United States is attempting to destroy Islam.

These, not the Arab states, contain the overwhelming numbers of Islamic peoples in the world. Won't the strong secular-minded middle class supporting these governments be undermined by this war?

How will we explain to India why they should not use a "pre-emptive" strike to protect their interests in Kashmir? Or North Korea? Or ... ?

For the sake of a war coalition, isn't it futile to continue to support those 17th-century-like kings and emirs of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates when the ultimate fall of such kings had given rise to the Saddams, ayatollahs and Gadhafis of the present? Do we support democracy in Iraq while turning away from the hopes of peoples in these political anachronisms?

At worst, in the United States, where there are more Muslims than Jews, how do we deal with the incipient anti-Islamic sentiment? While they may not be placed in internment camps, they will be subjected to suspicion, profiling, taunts to "go home" and general intolerance.

How will we protect the essence of our diverse culture, given this inevitable fallout?