Is the ideology espoused by people such as Osama bin Laden a 'Clash of Civilisations' or a reaction to a deepening ties.— Photo from AP/File

AFTER 9/11, many historians argued that we had entered an era of the clash of civilisations, that the events of 9/11 were symbolic of a larger conflict between Islam and the West, and they were not the acts of a few individuals who hated America and the West.

This type of thinking did away with the local and regional elements of various conflicts around the world, such as the Kashmir dispute and the Israel-Palestine conflict. An all-encompassing clash of civilisations fed right into the mindset of those who promulgated the Iraq war.

Current terrorist movements can be explained in terms of the regional conflicts as well as a larger phenomenon, something that is quite the opposite of 'clash of civilisations.' In this larger context, today's terrorist movements can perhaps best be understood in terms of an embrace of western civilisation, particularly the American culture, by large segments of moderate Muslim populations.

Clearly regional conflicts would have to be resolved to undercut the extremists, but the long-term solution to the problem of religious extremism lies in the cultural context, especially in Pakistan's case.

There is no doubt that the dominant civilisation of our era is the western civilisation, America being its most potent symbol. This is witnessed in many countries through the celebration of various western holidays. Halloween is celebrated in South Asia amongst many other regions; gifts are exchanged on Christmas in many non-Christian cultures; icons of American pop culture are household names throughout the Islamic world.

Western influence is not necessarily a bad thing as civilisations throughout history have borrowed from other cultures for their own benefit. For instance, medieval Europe borrowed heavily from the teachings of Muslim scientist/philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes), referred to by many historians as the father of secular thought in Western Europe.

Thomas Aquinas, one of the leading philosophers of the time, cited Ibn Rushd more than 500 times in his works. Muslims around the world recount such facts with nostalgia, but the point is often missed — i.e. civilisations must be open to good ideas, without regard to their origin, for their own progress.

The embrace of western ideas does not sit well with large segments of Muslim populations around the world, and they have reacted to it over the centuries by entering an intellectual cocoon. The extreme manifestation of this opposition to western ideas is terrorism. It is in this light that the Taliban movement in Pakistan and Afghanistan should be seen.

Terrorist movements in essence stem from weakness and insecurity — recent events in Pakistan should be looked at with this in mind. Attacks by the Taliban on GHQ and a spate of bombings throughout the country must not be seen as a symbol of the Taliban's strength but as acts of desperation; violent pleas for survival.

It would be easy for anyone living in Pakistan to be demoralised by the recent violence but that is exactly what the Taliban want. They need a demoralised nation and a divided military and civilian government to flourish. We must not fall into their trap and we must believe that the times are against the extremist forces. Through its offensive in South Waziristan, the government has taken a clear stand against the Taliban and deserves full credit.

The US must also gather its resolve in its efforts in Afghanistan. There is a debate going on in the US in which many are arguing for the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. While a debate of this kind is essential, the argument for a troop withdrawal is evidence of a perplexing case of amnesia.

In the 1980s the US pulled out of the region as soon as the Soviets left Afghanistan. This allowed for conditions in which Al Qaida took root and was able to plot attacks against the West including the attacks on 9/11. The long-awaited troop surge should take place in Afghanistan, as most recently advocated by Gen Stanley McChrystal.

One of the reasons being cited against the troop surge in Afghanistan is that the insurgents would cross into Pakistan, making Pakistan's campaign in South Waziristan more difficult. But to prevent that, Nato should do all it can to secure the border with Pakistan. While Pakistan is fighting the Taliban in South Waziristan, Nato and the US should step up their campaign in Afghanistan so the enemy is pushed from both sides.

If the insurgents in Afghanistan are not combated with full force, the Taliban in Fata could find a refuge across the border in Afghanistan to regroup. President Obama should listen to his commander in Afghanistan and provide him with the necessary resources to fight the enemy.

Also the cross border movement cannot be controlled without formalising the disputed Durand Line as the accepted border between the two neighbours. As part of its long-term strategy Pakistan should establish a permanent military base in South Waziristan and take steps to incorporate Fata into the political and social mainstream.

The war against the Taliban, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, is likely to be a long drawn-out affair, with the enemy retaliating in the cities. South Waziristan would be the key to breaking the militants' back, and a victory there would allow Pakistan to tackle terrorism in other parts of the country, including southern Punjab where the Taliban seem to be consolidating their foothold.

The current conflict in Pakistan would have to be won by force, maybe even overwhelming force, but to become a peaceful nation in the long run Pakistan would have to create an open society — open to ideas from other civilisations and open to the reconstruction of old ones. The challenge would not be to preserve our way of life but to change it.