By Stephen Zunes
It appears that the United States is preparing for a major military strike against Afghanistan. There is no question that the United States needs to respond forcefully to bring the perpetrators of last week's terrorist attack to justice and to prevent future attacks. A large-scale military action against that country, however, would be a big mistake.
We are not fighting a government with clear fixed targets, such as command and control centers, intelligence headquarters, or major military complexes. A loose network of terrorist cells does not have the kind of tangible assets that can be seriously crippled by military strikes.
The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has given Bin Laden and his supporters sanctuary, but this is not a typical case of state-backed terrorism. As a result of Bin Laden's personal fortune and elaborate international network, he does not need and apparently has not received direct financial or logistical support from the Afghan government. Destroying government resources in Afghanistan, therefore, will not in any way cripple Bin Laden and his cohorts.
The Afghan people are the first and primary victims of the Taliban, perhaps the most totalitarian regime on Earth. It would be a tragedy to victimize them still further through a large-scale military operation that would almost certainly lead to widespread civilian casualties. The Taliban's lack of concern for their own people is already evident--as is the Afghan people's hatred for but inability to challenge this reactionary theocracy.
Mass military action would not only fail to change their policy but it would punish the wrong people, who have already suffered through a 23-year nightmare Communist dictatorship, foreign invasion, civil war, competing war lords, and fundamentalist rule. Indeed, attempting to destroy the country's infrastructure would do little good. It has already been done.
Should the U.S. bomb Kabul or other Afghan cities, Taliban leaders would likely escape harm in their bunkers or in remote mountain outposts. The deaths of civilians would likely strengthen support for the regime and even for Bin Laden himself, as people under attack tend to rally around their flag.
A ground invasion, as the Soviets learned all too well in the 1980s, would put the U.S. in an unwinnable counter-insurgency war in a hostile terrain against a people with a long history of resisting outsiders. In addition, large-scale military strikes would put America in violation of international law, since the use of military force is legitimate only for self-defense, not for retaliation.
A limited attack against suspected terrorists--involving small commando units, Special Forces, SWAT team-style operations--could bring those responsible to justice and break up the terrorist cells that could commit attacks in the future, yet not create the backlash a more blunt use of force would create.
To fight international terrorism requires international cooperation. The U.S. needs the active support of Muslim countries to track down and break up Bin Laden's terrorist cells, which exist well beyond the borders of Afghanistan. Precipitous military action could threaten the unity needed to deal with this very real threat. A large-scale military response would distract world attention away from the crimes of this past Tuesday where it belongs and onto the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the American attack.
There is an enormous irony if the U.S. goes to war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan, given that the U.S. played a major role in bringing these Islamic extremists to power. Indeed, the Central Intelligence Agency trained Bin Laden and many of his followers in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s. One of the reasons that he has such a far-flung multinational network is that the CIA actively recruited radical Muslims from throughout Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa to join the Afghan mujahadin in their fight against Soviet forces and their puppet regime in Kabul.
If there is any logic to the terrorists' madness, it is to have the U.S. over-react and turn large segments of the Islamic world against the West. To launch a major military operation against Afghanistan would play right into Osama bin Laden's hands.
(Stephen Zunes <stephen@coho.org> is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as a senior policy analyst and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project.)
THE ROVING EYE
Only pawns in the game
(By Pepe Escobar, The Times )
Shame on the United Nations. Shame on the International Committee of the Red Cross. And shame on the theological-militaristic rhetoric of a new "crusade" of "Good against Evil" which has detonated an even more deadly humanitarian crisis than Afghanistan is already used to.
By any standards, the evacuation of UN and ICRC staff from Afghanistan is nothing less than revolting - even under pressure from the Taliban, who allegedly could not guarantee their security. A bunch of pampered, high-salary bureaucrats can leave anytime - in air-con luxury. But what about the Afghans who remain behind - either trying to manage the complex humanitarian machine, or just utterly helpless?
Even before the menace of having parts of it bombed deeper into the Dark Ages by American ballistic fury, Afghanistan holds the world's most horrifying records in practically everything: life expectancy; infant and maternal mortality; adult and female literacy; access to safe water; the estimated number of land mines; the proportion of mentally or physically disabled people; the millions dependent on food aid; the millions of refugees and IDPs (internally displaced people, in UN newspeak). Since the beginning of the jihad against the Soviets in the early 80s, more than a million Afghans have been killed, and more than 800,000 women have been turned into so-called "widows of war".
The current abdication by the UN and the ICRC of what the civilized world defines as social responsibility is as revolting as the failure of the international community to accept full responsibility for the ongoing Afghan humanitarian crisis. The blunt reality is that the immediate future of at least 12 million Afghans - in a population of around 20 million - simply does not matter in the new global geopolitical map, or in the new Great Game in Central Asia. For American talking heads on "kill them" overdrive, Afghan civilians are a totally expendable sideshow - as were Cambodians and Laotians during the Vietnam War.
On the ground, for quite some time, there could not have been a greater gulf than the one between the international community's apparent concern for the millions of Afghan refugees and IDPs, and its almost total failure - via the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan - to effectively pressure the Taliban to be more sensitive to the overwhelming human tragedy.
Non-governmental organizations operating in either Taliban-controlled or Norther Alliance-controlled parts of Afghanistan, along with travelling journalists, affirm how the UN machinery is terribly expensive, non-flexible, and overstaffed with people totally unsuited to the tremendous job they face. In most cases, the UN agencies are not involved in anything apart from food distribution. By contrast, NGOs like the French-based Acted, for instance, are involved in a series of programs - like transportation, rebuilding, shelter construction, brickmaking and women's programs (food for work), not to mention wheat distribution.
Acted runs women's centers in many villages in Badakhshan province, in non-Taliban Northern Afghanistan. They run 4-month-long programs supervised by Afghan women: former lawyers or doctors, like Runi, who directs the program in the village of Rohrat. Women are involved in sewing and tailoring children's clothes, and there's also a food-for-work scheme, through which they make quilts for IDPs. The cotton usually comes from Dushanbe, in Tajikistan: when it doesn't, they have to scour the local bazaar for scraps. Just a few weeks ago - when an American attack was not even contemplated -, the women were terribly afraid of what might happen next, workwise: in such difficult conditions, it's hard for the programs to be sustainable when there is only a smuggling economy in place.
Reducing the dependency on handouts is a crucial part of the NGOs' job in Afghanistan. It is absurd to limit aid to humanitarian assistance when work-for-food programs like Acted's are not only possible but essential to prevent millions of Afghans from becoming beggars inside Afghanistan or crossing the border and becoming beggars in Pakistan.
Afghanistan represents the largest and most complex humanitarian disaster in the world today. The British Agencies Humanitarian Group (BAAG) defines it as nothing less than apocalyptic. In a report published theree months ago, BAAG states that "the survival of most of the population will very much depend on the ability of the World Food Program, along with NGOs, to provide food aid to hundreds of thousands of people through an expansion of refugee camps in Afghanistan" (again the emphasis only on food aid). At this very moment, no UN, ICRC or NGO foreign staff are left in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The survival of millions of people is at stake.
The refugee situation gets more and more dreadful by the day. There are already 2.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, mostly Pashtun - and more than 2 million in Iran, mostly Tajik and Hazara. At this moment, it's still theoretically possible for refugees to flee to Tajikistan - if they are able to negotiate the treacherous crossing of the Amu Darya river, and if they are able to sneak through more than 20.000 Russian troops patrolling the border.
Iran and Pakistan have oficially closed their borders: the only remaining checkpoint is at Chaman, on the road between Kandahar - the Taliban seat of power - and Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan, in Pakistan. Half of Kandahar (population 100,000) has already fled the city, including the families of the Taliban leadership, now safe in Pakistan's tribal areas. Already 20,000 new Afghan refugees have crossed the border in Chaman in the past few days, including some of the 100,000 people who have fled Kabul. Bad news for them: most are not Pashtun, the overwhelmingly dominant ethnic group among the Taliban and in Pakistan's tribal areas.
This correspondent recently visited the largest Afghan refugee camps near Peshawar in Pakistan - Jalozai and Nasir Bagh - and subsequently some of the refugee camps in the areas controlled by the late commander Ahmad Shah Masoud's Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The situation inside Pakistan was already extremely frightening even before the attack on America: hundreds of thousands of refugees risked being deported back to Afghanistan. In northern Afghanistan, their situation was not exactly comfortable.
Zamonkor is a refugee camp only one hour from Masoud's home in the Panjshir Valley. Six months ago, 150 families lived in the camp: now there are only 60. Most have lived there for two years. Their tents were provided by the Red Cross. Two families live in a "de luxe suite" - inside a gutted 1970s German tourist bus.
The refugees say that for a whole year they haven't had support from anybody. The World Food Program is heavily criticized: they haven't showed up in 2 years. The last time the refugees had some wheat was through Acted, the French NGO. Many families cannot afford to eat even once a day. But through their own efforts, they set up a primary school under a tent, with five teachers and one headmaster. Nobody receives a salary. When the teachers approached the Northern Alliance's Minister of Education in the Panjshir Valley, he said he would contact NGOs for help, but nothing happened: through an official, the refugees learned "there is a war, so education is not a priority."
Collective passion
Can the voice of rationality be heard over the war drums? Edward Said hopes so
Spectacular horror of the sort that struck New York (and to a lesser degree Washington) has ushered in a new world of unseen, unknown assailants, terror missions without political message, senseless destruction. For the residents of this wounded city, the consternation, fear, and sustained sense of outrage and shock will certainly continue for a long time, as will the genuine sorrow and affliction that such carnage has cruelly imposed on so many. New Yorkers have been fortunate that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a normally rebarbative and unpleasantly combative, even retrograde figure, known for his virulently Zionist views, has rapidly attained Churchillian status. Calmly, unsentimentally, and with extraordinary compassion he has marshaled the city's heroic police, fire and emergency services to admirable effect and, alas, with huge loss of life. Giuliani's was the first voice to caution against panic and jingoistic attacks on the city's large Arab and Muslim communities, the first to express the common sense of anguish, the first to press everyone to try to resume life after the shattering blows.
Would that that were all. The national television reporting has of course brought the horror of those dreadful winged juggernauts into every household, unremittingly, insistently, not always edifyingly. Most commentary has stressed, indeed magnified the expected and the predictable in what most Americans feel: terrible loss, anger, outrage, a sense of violated vulnerability, a desire for vengeance and unrestrained retribution.
There has been nothing to speak of on all the major television channels but repeated reminders of what happened, of who the terrorists were (as yet nothing proven, which hasn't prevented the accusations being reiterated hour after hour), of how America has been attacked, and so on. Beyond formulaic expressions of grief and patriotism, every politician and accredited pundit or expert has dutifully repeated how we shall not be defeated, not be deterred, not stop until terrorism is exterminated. This is a war against terrorism, everyone says, but where, on what fronts, for what concrete ends? No answers are provided, except the vague suggestion that the Middle East and Islam are what "we" are up against, and that terrorism must be destroyed.
What is most depressing, however, is how little time is spent trying to understand America's role in the world and its direct involvement in the complex reality beyond the two coasts that have for so long kept the rest of the world extremely distant and virtually out of the average American's mind. You'd think that "America" was a sleeping giant rather than a superpower almost constantly at war, or in some sort of conflict, all over the Islamic domains. Osama Bin Laden's name and face have become so numbingly familiar to Americans as in effect to obliterate any history he and his shadowy followers may have had (e.g. as useful conscripts in the jihad raised 20 years ago by the US against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan) before they became stock symbols of everything loathsome and hateful to the collective imagination.
Inevitably then, collective passions are being funnelled into a drive for war that uncannily resembles Captain Ahab in pursuit of Moby Dick, rather than what is in fact going on: an imperial power injured at home for the first time, pursuing its interests systematically in what has become a suddenly reconfigured geography of conflict, without clear borders, or visible actors. Manichean symbols and apocalyptic scenarios are bandied about, with future consequences and rhetorical restraint thrown to the winds.
Rational understanding of the situation is what is needed now, not more drum-beating. George Bush and his team clearly want the latter, not the former. Yet to most people in the Islamic and Arab worlds, the official US is synonymous with arrogant power, known mainly for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements and people who have real grievances.
Anti-Americanism in this context is not based on a hatred of modernity or technology-envy as accredited pundits like Thomas Friedman keep repeating; it is based on a narrative of concrete interventions, specific depredations and, in the cases of the Iraqi people's suffering under US-imposed sanctions and US support for the 34-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, cruel and inhumane policies administered with a stony coldness.
Israel is now cynically exploiting the American catastrophe by intensifying its military occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. Since 11 September, Israeli military forces have invaded Jenin and Jericho and have repeatedly bombed Gaza, Ramallah, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala, exacting great civilian casualties and enormous material damage. All of this, of course, is done brazenly with US weaponry and the usual lying cant about fighting terrorism. Israel's supporters in the US have resorted to hysterical cries like "we are all Israelis now," making the connection between the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and Palestinian attacks on Israel an absolute conjunction of "world terrorism," in which Ben Laden and Arafat are interchangeable entities. What might have been a moment for Americans to reflect on the probable causes of what took place, which many Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs have condemned, has been turned into a huge propaganda triumph for Sharon; Palestinians are simply not equipped to defend themselves against both Israeli occupation in its ugliest and most violent forms and the vicious defamation of their national struggle for liberation.
Political rhetoric in the US has overridden these things by flinging about words like "terrorism" and "freedom" whereas, of course, such large abstractions have mostly hidden sordid material interests, the efficacy of the oil, defence and Zionist lobbies now consolidating their hold on the entire Middle East and an age-old religious hostility to (and ignorance of) "Islam" that takes new forms every day. The commonest thing is to get TV commentary, run stories, hold forums, or announce studies on Islam and violence or on Arab terrorism, or any such thing, using the predictable experts (the likes of Judith Miller, Fouad Ajami, and Steven Emerson) to pontificate and throw around generalities without context or real history. Why no one thinks of holding seminars on Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) and violence is probably too obvious to ask.
It is important to remember (although this is not at all mentioned) that China will soon catch up with the US in oil consumption, and it has become even more urgent for the US to control both Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea oil supplies more tightly: an attack on Afghanistan, including the use of former Soviet Central Asian republics as staging grounds, therefore, consolidates a strategic arc for the US from the Gulf to the northern oil fields that will be very difficult for anyone in the future to pry loose. As pressure on Pakistan mounts daily, we can be certain that a great deal of local instability and unrest will follow in the wake of the events of 11 September.
Intellectual responsibility, however, requires a still more critical sense of the actuality.
There has been terror, of course, and nearly every struggling modern movement at some stage has relied on terror. This was as true of Mandela's ANC as it was of all the others, Zionism included. And yet, bombing defenceless civilians with F-16s and helicopter gunships has the same structure and effect as more conventional nationalist terror. What is especially bad about all terror is when it is attached to religious and political abstractions and reductive myths that keep veering away from history and sense. This is where the secular consciousness has to step forward and try to make itself felt, whether in the US or in the Middle East. No cause, no God, no abstract idea can justify the mass slaughter of innocents, most particularly when only a small group of people are in charge of such actions and feel themselves to represent the cause without having been elected or having a real mandate to do so.
Besides, much as it has been quarrelled over by Muslims, there isn't a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations, even though some of their adherents have futilely tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly.
Yet history is far more complex and contradictory than to be represented by demagogues who are much less representative than either their followers or opponents claim. The trouble with religious or moral fundamentalists is that today, their primitive ideas of revolution and resistance, including a willingness to kill and be killed, seem all too easily attached to technological sophistication and what appear to be gratifying acts of horrifying symbolic savagery. (With astonishing prescience in 1907, Joseph Conrad drew the portrait of the archetypal terrorist, whom he calls laconically "the Professor" in his novel The Secret Agent; this is a man whose sole concern is to perfect a detonator that will work under any circumstances and whose handiwork results in a bomb exploded by a poor boy sent, unknowingly, to destroy the Greenwich Observatory as a strike against "pure science.") The New York and Washington suicide bombers seem to have been middle-class, educated men, not poor refugees.
Instead of getting a wise leadership that stresses education, mass mobilisation and patient organisation in the service of a cause, the poor and the desperate are often conned into the magical thinking and quick bloody solutions that such appalling models provide, wrapped in lying religious claptrap. This remains true in the Middle East generally, Palestine in particular, but also in the United States, surely the most religious of all countries. It is also a major failure of the class of secular intellectuals not to have redoubled their efforts to provide analysis and models to offset the undoubted sufferings of the large mass of their people, immiserated and impoverished by globalism and an unyielding militarism with scarcely anything to turn to except blind violence and vague promises of future salvation.
On the other hand, immense military and economic power such as the US possesses is no guarantee of wisdom or moral vision, particularly when obduracy is thought of as a virtue and exceptionalism believed to be the national destiny. Sceptical and humane voices have been largely unheard in the present crisis, as "America" girds itself for a long war to be fought somewhere out there, along with allies who have been pressed into service on very uncertain grounds and for imprecise ends. We need to step back from the imaginary thresholds that supposedly separate people from each other into supposedly clashing civilisations and re-examine the labels, reconsider the limited resources available, decide somehow to share our fates with each other as in fact cultures mostly have done, despite the bellicose cries and creeds.
"Islam" and "the West" are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly. Some will run behind them, of course, but for future generations to condemn themselves to prolonged war and suffering without so much as a critical pause, without looking at interdependent histories of injustice and oppression, without trying for common emancipation and mutual enlightenment seems far more willful than necessary.
Demonisation of the Other is not a sufficient basis for any kind of decent politics -- certainly not now, when the roots of terror in injustice and misery can be addressed and the terrorists themselves easily isolated, deterred or otherwise put out of business.
It takes patience and education, but is more worth the investment than still greater levels of large-scale violence and suffering. The immediate prospects are for destruction and suffering on a very large scale, with US policymakers milking the apprehensions and anxieties of their constituencies with cynical assurance that few will attempt a counter- campaign against the inflamed patriotism and belligerent war-mongering that has for a time postponed reflection, understanding, even common sense. Nevertheless, those of us with a possibility for reaching people who are willing to listen -- and there are many such people, in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, at least -- must try to do so as rationally and as patiently as possible.
