Perspectives on Fighting Terror with Terror:

What We Learned from the Afghan War

Now that the US-declared war on Afghanistan has virtually come to end, one wonders what objectives, if any, the international community has achieved from this much-publicized war on terror.

It all began with one of most tragic events of human history that shattered most of us. There are no two thoughts about terrorism. It must be wiped from the face of earth with all means available--and human wisdom is the most supreme of all the possible means. Fighting terror with terror is not the answer.

But alas, wisdom has been supplanted by power. Power has got no morality, and it justifies all means to achieve its end. And its end, as is now happening in Afghanistan, is that one rogue will be replaced with another rogue. Yet the so-called international community is calling this conflict a war of the “civilized” world on “uncivilized scoundrels”--the Taliban.

If this war was concerned with emancipating the Afghan nation from one of the most dogmatist, obscurantist and brutal regimes on earth that had been practicing medieval rules and implementing them as the wishes and commands of God, then what about attacking other such regimes that still practice these same rules? And what can one say about the US--who spearheaded that noble anti-Taliban endeavor--which is the friend of comparable regimes that the Taliban were merely imitating?

Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, and the center of the Islam world with two sacred holy places, is no better than the Taliban in subjecting its population to extreme, medieval laws. Saudi nationals are denied the right of assembly and the right of free speech. They are forbidden to form socio- and political organizations, and they cannot choose their representatives because they cannot vote. Anyone who dares to insist on such rights is put behind bars, charged with treason and sedition, and subject to the death penalty. Women are not permitted to work in public places and they have even fewer rights than the men. If caught driving a car, a woman is charged with a criminal penalty. Human limbs are amputated for minor offenses. Those whose transgressions are relatively minor are whipped in public places. Political dissenters are beheaded on the charge of challenging the holy status of the so-called “guardian of the holy places” (a title given to the king of Saudi Arabia): the “Home of God” in Mecca and the shrine of the prophet Muhammad in Medina.

The Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia has clearly served as a role model for the Taliban. Thus it is amazing that the US government, which did the noble job of dismantling the Taliban, is a trusted friend of the Saudi regime. Is this not an irony of geo-politics?

But above all, Saudi Arabia is not the exceptional case. There are numerous such regimes around the world that are no better than the Taliban, but despite their poor human rights record these regimes are friends and allies of the US. The whole Middle East might well be characterized as a vast prison of human subjects who are denied basic democratic rights by their regimes--regimes that are trusted allies of the US.

At the onset of the Afghan war it was being claimed with much fanfare that this was a war of the civilized world on uncivilized people. What we saw at the end of day is much different from this claim. We can rightly call it a war on terror, fought with terror, by means of terror.

I had questioned the intentions and means of the US-led coalitions in my article that appeared in the October issue of The Baltimore Chronicle with the heading of “The Great Oil Game.” I observed then that the US war machine fighting the Taliban militia was somewhat like hunting a sparrow with missiles and tanks. But again, as happened in Saddam case in Gulf War, the Taliban’s military capabilities were exaggerated. The international press published mind-boggling interviews of Pakistan’s pro-Taliban ex-generals, who talked about the invincibility of the Afghan Taliban, mythologizing the Taliban regime and boasting of US forces being trapped and meeting the same fate in Afghanistan as the Soviet Union, which was engaged and ultimately defeated by Afghans. Interestingly, US generals in their press briefings threw their weight behind such false claims, calling the Taliban regime defiant, bold and very much intact until the last days of its collapse.

At the end of day, all of this fizzled out like bubble. In the words of one observer, “All that mythology has disappeared faster than it takes to shave a beard in downtown Kabul.”

A question arises: What purpose, if any, did these phony claims serve? The answer is very simple: They gave the US war machine every excuse to indiscriminately bomb Taliban-held areas and positions. Carpet bombing inflicted collateral damage on Afghan civilians, with thousands wiped out for no crime.

Then there is the case of the massacre of war prisoners who had surrendered before US-led forces. They did not receive the justice or rights they were supposed to be given by the civilized world under the Geneva Convention. In the last week of November, retreating and surrounded Taliban fighters surrendered before General Rasheed Dostum’s forces in northern Afghanistan. Hundreds of war prisoners were taken to a fort prison known as Qilae-e-Jangi. Within days of their surrender, the news broke that the prisoners had revolted. US war planes were called in to bomb the prison, a unique case in modern war history. After three days, when International Red cross workers and journalists were allowed to enter the Fort Prison, they witnessed hundreds of dead bodies with their hands tied behind their backs, enough to belie the claim of a prison revolt. International human rights organizations have demanded a probe into the event. This single case should be sufficient to bring US ally General Dostum before the international war crime tribunal.

Further, the US-led coalition was seen engage in buying the loyalties and influence of Afghan tribal elders--not a bad strategy in a war, unless, as in this case, it involves buying the cooperation of drug lords and notorious smugglers.

I would like to mention here two cases.

The first case: On November 28, in a surprising move, a customs court In Karachi [Pakistan] sentenced one of the top international drug barons to seven years of imprisonment. Of Pakistani origin, Haji Ayub Afridi, a Pashtun, has had significant influence in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering the last hideout of Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan’s mountains, Tora Bora. But the US wanted him out of prison. Within hours of his sentencing, a car with diplomatic license plates took him from the Karachi prison to the airport, from which he was flown to his home town in the semi-autonomous area of the so-called tribal Khyber Agency. Jail authorities later confirmed to the press that some US-origin special men had come to escort him to this area. It is widely understood that Haji Ayub Afridi was released from jail at the behest of US authorities who brokered a deal with him, gaining his release in return for his cooperation in getting bin Laden.

The second case: After a trip to the US embassy in Islamabad [Pakistan] in the early days of the war in Afghanistan, the overweight, mule-jawed Gull Agha Sherzai, then ex-governor of Kandhar, the Taliban stronghold, came back to the southern Pakistani city of Quetta and was observed throwing around cash. Merchants say he bought himself over 30 new four-wheel-drive vehicles and then set off to an Afghan refugee colony called Jungle Piralzai, known for its thieves and opium smugglers. There, he recruited men for 15,000 rupees ($250 a month), and outfitted them with weapons and at least 40 kilos of hashish (cannabis), according to an informant. It will be pertinent here to note that back in 1992 and 1994, it was Sherzai’s brutal and corrupt rule over Kandhar, against which the citizens revolted, led by a one-eyed religious teacher, Mullah Umer, who later became Taliban supreme leader. Now, Sherzai is once again Governor of Kandhar. One political observer remarked: “If America hands over power to these looters and bandits, the Taliban will be back in six months--and the Afghans will welcome them back."

A new Afghan government was sworn in on December 22, and it is not a bad symbol for the war-weary Afghan nation. International players want some peace and order in Afghanistan to stabilize it for its future role as transit state for a central Asian oil pipeline. Such an arrangement would not be too bad if the international players let the Afghans share the benefits that the international oil consortium would reap. However, there are too many cooks in the Kabul kitchen, and every one wants his salt in the future Afghan pot. All cooks, local and international, have their own interests and agendas in Kabul. We may be witnessing another bloody chapter of civil war in Afghanistan if one or two players start feeling left out. Let us hope against this eventuality.

When a political commentator asserts that now is the time to close the chapter of Muslim radicalism and end Osama bin Laden’s brand of terror once and for all, he stands for millions of Muslims who have helplessly watched the ongoing confrontation between the international community and Osama-brand Islam.

“Though he may be dead under the debris of a cave or running endlessly for his life,” says one political observer of bin Laden, “he opened a wide chasm between them and us.”

Yes, it will be in the interests of all of us to close this chapter, and better sooner than later. But the Great Power Game on the global chessboard does not follow the rules driven by morality. Therefore we may witness more turmoil in coming times. The weak are always the losers in this game.

Let us wait and see who the next villain is.