October 1, 2002

ONE YEAR LATER



In contrast to politicians and a great many journalists, physicians are trained to perform follow-up studies on their patients in order to learn whether or not a treatment regimen has been effective. Thus it is appropriate not only to remember the dead of September 11, the number of whom has now shrunk from 5000 to about 3000, but also what the American response to this tragedy has accomplished.

The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has collapsed under the weight of bombs as well as the troops of the Northern Alliance and victory is being proclaimed by our politicians, who feel free now to march on to Baghdad. We have been shown pictures of happy people dancing to Western music in Kabul and the faces of women who no longer need to be draped from top to toe. But let us pause for a moment and look closer at what was really accomplished in Afghanistan. We have installed a client regime in Kabul but its authority does not extend much beyond the capital, or Kandahar, and possibly some other cities. The countryside is far from pacified, roving bands impede disaster relief efforts so that people are starving again and another winter is in the offing. President Karzai is seen as a stooge of the West and has to rely on American Special Forces for his personal safety. The locals are still trying to murder him. The King, of whom we have heard nothing lately, was supposed to unify the country but when it came to elections we didn't want him on the ticket. What he is doing now is anybody's guess and he may well look wistfully back to his stay in Italy where he was at least safe.

In the fields the poppies are blooming again, the growth of which had been banned by the Taliban, and a bumper crop of opium and heroin is assured. A British source has stated that Afghanistan produces 75 per cent of the world's heroin and 90 per cent of Britain's supply. That the British authorities are not thrilled over the renewed influx is understandable. The Kabul government as well as ours doesn't want this state of affairs and we are trying to bribe the farmers to destroy the crops, but since selling the stuff brings a great deal more than what we are offering the result is a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, although the Taliban government has disappeared, this does not mean that their fighters have seen the errors of their ways and become good democratic citizens. As expected they have melted into the mountains and villages from which they continue to harass their enemies, be they Afghans or foreigners. Inasmuch as the people are dirt poor there has also developed a brisk trade in Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. We offer the Afghans some money to hand them over to us but there are others who pay even more to get them smuggled out of the country to Pakistan or elsewhere. Thus a primitive capitalism is flourishing and the highest bidder gets the prize. What we do with our captives, apart from interrogating them is also a good question. As far as I know no one has recently wondered about what is happening to the detainees in Guantanamo. Since they are not designated as prisoners of war, although we are fighting a war against terrorism, they seem to have no civil rights whatsoever. There exists another nasty little fact we are not supposed to remember. The most important Al Quaeda leaders which are in our custody were not captured by our special forces in Afghanistan but through the dedicated cooperative efforts of intelligence services around the globe. "Bin Laden dead or alive," which was the President's motto when we started the bombing campaign, has also been quietly forgotten.

Our efforts to root out Al Qaeda and Taliban militia, which our special forces are still intermittently engaged in, are seriously handicapped, because we have to rely on local informers as to where their hiding places might be. It is assumed that these citizens love us more than their own countrymen whom they are supposed to inform on which is, however, not always the case. Sometimes they engage in efforts which are clearly counterproductive from our point of view. For instance by calling in air-strikes on villages which are populated by rival clans but are quite neutral in their opinions about the U.S. In so doing we may bomb wedding parties or a convoy heading for elections. These sorts of "friendly fire" mistakes do not endear us to the populace. Nor can one blame the Canadians for being upset when we bomb them.

On occasion we have also conducted house to house searches. This seems innocuous enough to us but was regarded as deeply offensive by the locals. In the home the women are not veiled and foreigners have no right to gaze on their faces. Now we are supposedly first sending Afghans into the house to be searched, to ensure proper attire by the ladies. In the countryside the Burqa is still the appropriate dress code and men rule the roost regardless what our feminists or their local equivalents desire. The promised aid to Afghanistan which was to feed the people, reestablish the destroyed infrastructure, and promote democratic reforms has been slashed and is slow in coming. We try to pawn the aid efforts off to our allies because the impending second Gulf war obviously requires our money and there is just so much that can be extracted from the ever patient American taxpayer. In addition there is also bound to be a limit somewhere for the steadily increasing billions of deficit spending.

It is, therefore, obvious that democracy is not going to blossom in Afghanistan any time soon. If one looks objectively at that country today one gains the impression that we are apparently in the same situation as the Soviets were in early 1980. They had installed a friendly government, proclaimed freedom from an intrusive religion, replaced it with their own secular values and expected peace and quiet on their border. As we know it didn't work out that way. The locals liked their own religion better than Soviet values and America was most willing to oblige with money and material so that the mujahadeens could give the Russians a hard time. In the process we created Osama but the ingrate turned against us when we established military bases in his home country after the Gulf war instead of just packing up and leaving. For infidels, including women and Jews, to establish a permanent military presence in the land of the Prophet was too much to stomach.

This reminds me of an event in the 1980's when I had been invited to Saudi Arabia for a lecture tour. On the visa application one had to enter one's religion and there was a comment, "Judaism and Atheism not acceptable." So there! On the plane from Jeddah to Riyadh I had my usual window seat and a Burqad lady sat down next to me. The stewardess arrived immediately thereafter and ordered me out of my seat. I am by nature not very obliging to peremptory commands especially when no reason is given, so I pulled out my boarding pass pointed to 14 A looked up at the row number and there was 14 A. In righteous determination I had no intention of vacating that seat. A somewhat animated argument ensued, the stewardess was demanding my leaving and I was equally determined on staying. Then a lady, with only a modest and attractive head scarf covering her hair, seated in the row ahead turned around to me and said quietly: "You are not allowed to sit next to a lady." Well that explained the situation and I happily yielded to local custom because Europeans are taught early on "When in Rome do as the Romans." This piece of wisdom some Americans have yet to learn. But since we are now engaged in world wide "peace keeping," it would seem to be imperative that our military forces are being taught not only how to handle their weapons but also to show proper respect to local customs.

As far as the goal of the Afghan war is concerned we have been told that it was to destroy the infrastructure of terrorism and to liberate the Afghan people from an intolerable religious regime. An ulterior motive as for instance a pipeline construction from Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea was, of course, denied publicly but devoutly wished for by certain circles in the oil business. Well, the pipeline has remained a pipe dream for the time being because nobody in his right mind is going to invest money in a country where public safety cannot be guaranteed. This adds considerable allure to Saddam's oil reserves. Once he is gone a friendly regime can be installed in Baghdad and the oil will flow to the Persian Gulf without having to bother with expensive pipeline constructions. That is the assumption, what reality will bring no one knows.

It is likely that I will now be accused of massive cynicism and of disregarding the noble motives for which we ostensibly are going to topple the Saddam regime. President Bush assured us just a few days ago that Saddam is a menace to Western civilization not only for our generation but that of our children and grandchildren. Mr. President please pardon my skepticism about rendering the world safe for our grandchildren. The only universally true law of life is change and unforeseen consequences! There is no way anybody can make our children, let alone grandchildren, safe by engaging in wars and "regime change." It has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

Let me remind our "hawks" of just one such past effort. "We believe that our own desire for a new international order under which reason and justice and the common interests of mankind shall prevail is the desire of enlightened men everywhere. Without that new order the world will be without peace and human life will lack tolerable conditions of existence and development. Having set our hand to the task of achieving it, we shall not turn back." Thus said President Wilson on February 11, 1918 in his speech to the Congress. The new order brought Versailles; Versailles brought Hitler, who in turn brought the Soviet Union into the heart of Europe. Only by waging a cold rather than hot war against her did that regime collapse under its own weight without a drop of American blood having been shed. Surely this might be a better precedent than continued military campaigns.

The main difference between the Soviet presence in Afghanistan and ours in regard to world politics is that the new mujahadeen, which are in the process of emerging, won't have the resources of the U.S. available to them. But what are Pakistanis, Iranians and even Chinese for? Arms deals make money and I know of no country which has in the past refrained out of lofty motives. Our new found "friend" Musharraf has a similar problem as does Karzai. He can't trust his people and has to rule by decree. While we abhor a dictatorial regime in Iraq and are inundated by the dire threats Saddam might pose if he were to get nuclear weapons our pundits are much more tolerant of Mush raff’s proven nukes and his means to drop them on people whom he doesn't like. Obviously he knows better and won't use them but why should Saddam? Thus it is again not democracy or humanitarian values which count in the circles that really make our political decisions but whether or not a given dictator is willing to do our bidding.

One tends not to read the type of information about our Afghan victory, which was mentioned above, in our major news media. It is available, however, not only on the Internet but also the Christian Science Monitor. Although I have considerable reservations about Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy's medical opinions the worldwide coverage of political events which the Monitor provides is indeed a service to democracy because the information is presented in a fair and balanced manner. This is not necessarily the case with our major news-organizations and the media pundits

What has happened at home since 9-11-2001? The stock market has crashed, the economy is in the dumps and the idea of early retirement by some of our baby boomers had to be shelved. Some of them no longer even worry about retirement but have more immediate problems with either keeping or getting a job. The airline industry especially is in shambles. Not only has flying become a distasteful chore because of the "security” measures but their very survival is at stake. A mid East war with an inevitable spike in oil prices may well be the kiss of death for some of our airlines which can't make ends meet even now. What the laid off employees, from all the companies which are busy with "downsizing," are supposed to do does not seem to concern our happy warriors in their quest for our safety. Those are the realities some Americans have to be concerned about and I am sorry to say that these worry me considerably more than Saddam's WMDs. The question for some of us grandparents is not whether or not our grandchildren will be nuked, anthraxed, or smallpoxed but will we have to bail them out financially and will we be able to do so?

Another ominous event has taken place in "the land of the free and the brave." Our Muslim citizens of Mid Eastern descent live in fear of being regarded as terrorists. Professors in academia may no longer voice their opinions freely because they can be blacklisted and lose their jobs. Our high tech industry has relied heavily on foreign students but now their visas are no longer as readily available as in the past. Some Saudi students who had green cards here and had homes and cars, were not allowed to return after a brief visit to their home country. They have been forced into limbo. Other bright Mid Easterners no longer get student visas in the first place and will have to go for a good education to Europe or states of the former British Empire, which FDR helped to dismantle. For those who doubt America's role in the demise of the British Empire I suggest A Time For War by Robert Smith Thompson and Churchill by Clive Ponting.

The war in Afghanistan is not yet over it has merely shifted to Phase II, as predicted on these pages last year. If Afghanistan is to be the model for a regime change in Iraq our administration would have a lot of explaining to do why the result will be better. But it is not in the nature of politicians to look beyond immediate goals. Instead of explanations and rational debate, fear has to be produced in the populace so that Congress can cave in and ratify whatever the administration demands. This recipe has worked in the past and is expected to do so again. But fear, anger, and hate (which President Bush has admitted to harboring against Saddam Hussein), are not the foundations upon which American policy should be conducted.

There seems hardly any doubt that war with Iraq has already been decided on by the Bush administration. The troops are being moved to their staging areas and the political maneuvers at the UN and in Congress are designed to fix the blame on Saddam. The strategy for achieving this goal has also become clear. We will make demands to the Baghdad government which are incompatible with their national sovereignty and when they are either declined or subverted we start with "regime change." This model dates at least to July 1914 when Austria used it to start a war with Serbia. Most recently it was resurrected by Madeleine Albright with the Rambouillet "agreement" which unleashed our war on Milosevic. The question seems to be no longer whether or not there will be war but when. Last month's installment was called October Surprise? but since even Democrats have caught on now it may not be feasible any more. The November elections may well turn into a referendum on the war and be decided by the susceptibility of the American people to propaganda. "The Great Game" as it used to be called at the end of the 19th century, is still being played. Empires have to be defended and commercial interests expanded which inevitably leads to conflict with those who, to use a well known colloquialism, don't want to play ball with us.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!