Tough Afghan terrain can be won only through aid Islamabad, Farhan Bokhari

Opinion, June 2003, Al-Jazeerah.info

Tough Afghan terrain can be won only through aid Islamabad

Farhan Bokhari

Gulf News, 26-06-2003

This week's first known bomb attack at a U.S. military base in northern Afghanistan should come as no surprise as a challenge to Washington's quest for achieving full control of the war ravaged country. Although there were no casualties in the blast outside the U.S. military base at Kunduz, a strategically vital northern Afghan city, it is nevertheless an important symbol of the widening conflict engulfing Afghanistan.

More than a year after the United States consolidated its military position after removing Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, the country remains the focus of recurring conflict between U.S. troops supported by fighters from the otherwise shaky Afghan government and loyalists belonging to Al Qaida or other anti-U.S. factions.

Afghanistan's recurring and in some ways widening conflict could be seen from two perspectives. On the one hand, such sporadic exchange of fire indeed illustrates the tenuous security environment, just waiting to be shattered by frequent conflict.

On the other hand though, a conflict without high casualties such as the example of the latest attack should be no scope for concern. Indeed so, recurring conflict at a low intensity with few, if any, corpses lying around afterwards, should be no reason for anxiety.

Yet, in the aftermath of the latest bomb attack, there should be mounting questions over the future of a country which falls in the category of newly acquired U.S. colony, alongwith Iraq as Washington's latest conquest. The attack in Afghanistan is also an example of the fallacy surrounding the view that invading forces such as the United States are indeed capable of building enduring alliances with at least a portion of the local populations, only to carry them along in consolidating their invasions.

The truth however is that in the case of Afghanistan, the United States built a partnership with its so-called Northern Alliance representing elements opposed to the former Taliban regime.

Lasting guarantees

The architects of that partnership probably hoped that their Afghan allies, representing groups concentrated mainly in the Northern parts of the country, would give long lasting guarantees of security, at least in the areas of their origin. The logic may well have been that once the U.S. moves across Afghanistan with the backing of its northern factions, a time may come when Washington's full military might would consolidate its control.

But the lesson for now appears to be an obvious one, driven home by a number of not too dissimilar historical experiences. Afghanistan remains a country whose population has defied a succession of invading troops, as fiercely independent tribal leaders have jealously guarded their independence.

The consequence of that independence has indeed been that even a superpower as mighty as the former Soviet Union, eventually had to bow out of its occupation of Afghanistan. To make matters further difficult for the United States, the fall-out across the Islamic world from its occupation of Iraq leaves many questions unanswered over Washington's future relations with key Islamic countries.

Communities of Muslims across the world, especially in predominantly Islamic countries, now have ample reason to suspect the United States which is widely seen as a belligerent country. Across Afghanistan, the continued aggravation surrounding daily lives has only reinforced the view that the American commitment to rebuilding the war torn country remains more a matter of lip service rather than becoming the basis for substantive change.

Many Afghans still go through their lives day after day braving the effects of a breakdown in basic needs such as education, healthcare and employment creation.

Ultimately, a widespread popular distrust of the United States must only work to the advantage of those committed to resisting Washington's occupation.

Ironically, the popular sentiment against the U.S. which continues to emerge in parts of Afghanistan would hardly begin retreating on the back of either Washington's belligerence or successes in rounding up members of Al Qaida. The unfortunate truth based on lessons from Afghanistan must be that the trend lines will only begin showing significant signs of sustainable change if they are indeed backed by a visible change of context in three vital areas:

First, the large amounts of international economic assistance promised for Afghanistan continue to be described by Afghan officials and leaders as inadequate for ultimately taking care of most of the maladies afflicting the central Asian state. An additional handicap for the aid effort is that its planned to be disbursed over a period spanning the next few years.

In sharp contrast, there's much to be said about the need for delivering a larger measure of assistance in a shorter time frame in order to sharply improve the visibility of global efforts for rejuvenating Afghanistan.

If Afghans have the confidence that the U.S. led western camp representing the industrialised world is actively involved in efforts to rebuild their country, a new wave of goodwill is set to emerge.

One consequence of that new wave has to be the eventual recognition that groups committed to stepping up militancy in Afghanistan are certain to become peripheral players and perhaps unable to swell the ranks of their followers by recruiting young, disenchanted men.

The essential guiding principle in this strategy has to be the view that fighting the onslaught by militant groups has to be done not just on the battlefield of choice by terrorists, but essentially on the front where socio-economic and developmental tools help to make a difference.

Perceived expansionist

Second, the reaction to the U.S. presence from inside Afghanistan must be seen as part of a reaction across the Islamic world, to Washington's perceived expansionist policies. Many Muslims across different countries have ample reason to suspect the United States as a country which appears determined to escalate pressure on Islamic countries.

The sympathy for the U.S. in the wake of the terrorist attacks in America has, unfortunately, been diluted as Washington's belligerence raises widespread concerns. Pacifying the unfavourable popular mood in any one country, including Afghanistan, must be based on a review of Washington's unpopular policies across the world, which have only strained its relations with the Islamic world.

Finally, the so called war on terror meant to root out the causes of terror against the U.S.-led western world would remain open-ended unless backed by a concerted effort to find a just solution to the Palestinian tragedy. The U.S. troops at Kunduz, Northern Afghanistan, who came under the latest attack, are certain not to have considered the plight of the Palestinians eventually connected to the motives of their own bombers. Yet, it is undoubtedly true that a large part of the bitterness and frustration across the Islamic world is indeed unleashed by the anger shared over the plight of the Palestinians.

For far too long, young Muslim men have grown up hating the United States as they consider it the very country whose carte blanche to Israel against the Palestinian people, has caused Palestinian casualties. There are indeed no easy solutions to the tragic Palestinian dispute.

Yet, the conduct of the United States as it deals with Israel and the Palestinians cannot be seen in isolation from the causes of violence primarily in the Middle East and subsequently spread across parts of the Islamic world.

The U.S. actions in Afghanistan or, for that matter, in Iraq surely would not have let anyone among the top policymakers in Washington conclude just yet that their campaigns are likely to create a complex web of political challenges.

But as Washington's tough military action with efforts to take closer charge continues, so must be the growing complexity surrounding the ability of the United States to harness a tide of history which comes with the danger of working against its very own interests.

Farhan Bokhari is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political and economic matters. The writer can be contacted at fbokhari@gulfnews.com

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).