The aborted suicide bomb attack aboard a domestic flight, carrying some 289 passengers, in Michigan in the US on Christmas day, underscores the persistence of the ‘terror threat’ in the West and its widespread nature, the continued ‘war against terror’ notwithstanding.

‘There are more just like me who will strike soon’, the 23 year old would-have-been suicide bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab is reported to have told US investigators. The comment coincided with a statement made by a group calling itself Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to the effect that, ‘we will not let Muslim women and children’s blood be spilled without taking revenge’. The group earlier claimed responsibility for the botched bomb attack.

This grim warning came against the backdrop of stepped-up military operations by the security forces of Yemen against militant insurrectionists, which claimed the lives of several persons, mainly civilians. The operations enjoyed the backing of the US.

Meanwhile US President Barack Obama vowed to use ‘every element of national power’ to keep Americans safe. He said every means would be used by his administration to ‘dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us’.

These unsettling developments point to the fact that very little has changed since 9/11 in the context of ongoing efforts by the West to militarily quell ‘terror’. The ‘war against terror’ has been taken into even the heart of South Asia, but the evidence is there to see that the ‘terror’ problem has hardly been dented. On the contrary, ‘terror’ seems to have only won an increasing number of adherents and practitioners, and the proof of this is the increasing number of young people in the West who are reportedly undergoing ‘terror’ training.

Militant ranks could only be expected to relentlessly swell in the wake of news that more and more civilians in Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s North-West, are losing their lives in anti-‘terror’ operations. Needless to say, there is no more effective means of compelling young men and women in increasing numbers to take to arms than by exposing civilians to completely unjustifiable violent deaths. So, rising civilian casualties in anti-‘terror’ operations become the trigger factors in escalating internal violent conflicts.

A trend that should not go unnoticed by particularly Western governments is the strong inclination of some sections of their young, particularly those with Arab roots, to enlist themselves with the Al-Qaeda and Taliban. The simple truth is that the anti-‘terror’ operations of the West are only having the effect of increasingly radicalising sections of their civilian populations and of driving them into the fatal embrace of ‘terror’ organisations.

All in all, the adoption of the military option by governments facing militant challenges to their authority would only help in the process of increasing the appeal of war among the more impressionable sections of their populations. This is obviously happening among vulnerable sections in South Asia, for instance, and among some Western youths of Arab and Middle Eastern origin, as the case of the Detroit suicide bomber graphically illustrates.

It is these more disturbing human costs of war which place a question mark even over Sri Lanka’s attempt to end its conflict by military means. What needs to be factored in is the brutalisation of sections of our population through the exercise of the force of arms. Of what use is a war victory if the country has been irrevocably militarised? This is the reason why, the issue of whether Sri Lanka’s conflict has been satisfactorily resolved should be left for time to decide.

Coming back to the dilemmas facing the US, it is clear that effecting ‘troop surcharges’ in Afghanistan are unlikely to help in facilitating a Western troop withdrawal from that country in the foreseeable future. The principal reason for this is the increasing militarisation of Afghanistan that would inevitably transpire in the wake of these ‘surcharges’.

There is a relative lull of sorts in Iraq, but in the case of the latter some progress has been made in bringing about national reconciliation in that Shiite armed formations are showing greater willingness to cooperate in the process of restoring law and order. This, rather than US efforts to control the law and order situation through the use of extra force seems to be accounting for Iraq’s successes.

The case of Iraq and successful conflict-resolution in parts of India should compel the international community to recognise the merit of democratic development as a means of bringing about peace and stability. It would be interesting to see how India brings a settlement in currently conflict-hit Andra Pradesh, but if India would allow itself to be guided by past successes, it would place supreme emphasis on democratic development as a means of conflict resolution. That is, democratic accommodation of communities would be given pride of place. It needs to be remembered that even in the case of the Sikh issue, the military option did not take pride of place as a means of conflict resolution. The just aspirations of the Sikhs were met and this was the key to stability.

Pakistan is handling the Balochistan issue exemplarily and by virtue of this fact, this troubled province is also emerging as an important case study. Right now the Pakistani centre is opting to offer Balochistan a substantial development package and this is likely to rein in any separatist tendencies in the province.

The West would need to sharply focus of these instances where the military option is not being considered to be of any considerable importance. If some headway is to be made in the direction of peace in 2010, development needs to be seen as holding the key to success.