Last semester, following the Sept. 11 attacks, faculty at Tufts and many other universities spoke out against war preparations. As US attacks upon Afghanistan began on Oct. 7, we spoke out against the bombing. A Daily editorial ("A time to educate", 10/11) disparaged our statements, dismissing them as '60s rhetoric "not used since the Vietnam War."
Meanwhile, a national right-wing think tank inveighed against academics as the "weak link" in the "war on terrorism," while some mainstream pundits found antiwar intellectuals less threatening than "irrelevant." In the view of the latter, the marvelous success of the bombing in bringing down the Taliban and routing al Qaeda, and the continuation of relative stability in Pakistan, proved the propriety of the president's course and rendered the standpoint of the anti-war left merely ludicrous.
In fact, our dissent has been wholly justified by the events since. What has the bombing brought to Afghanistan and the world? Two positive developments: the overthrow of the Taliban regime, and the perhaps fatal weakening of al Qaeda. Not that one should overstate these successes. Many members of the Taliban, including some former leaders like the notorious Justice Minister Nooruddin Turabi, have been released or were never under detention; while the Taliban's fundamentalist Islamic ideology retains a social base and dangerous influence in the country. Many believe that tribesmen hired by the US to search the caves of Tora Bora actually allowed hundreds of al Qaeda forces to escape into Pakistan. But the thugs that pulverized the Buddhas of Bamiyan have been toppled, and while al Qaeda may survive, its command center has probably been shut down. Well and good!
But what about these other results?
First, the bombing has produced a power vacuum, in which violence and drug-trafficking flourish. There are widespread reports of shootings, looting, murder and kidnapping, in Mazar-e Sharif, Balkh, Kabul, Kandahar and elsewhere. In Kabul, a man interviewed by a reporter from the Observer said, "We were expecting peace, but we were much happier before. We don't want to see anyone with a gun walking in the streets." An MSNBC reporter wrote Jan. 25, "In spite of the widespread popular perception that the war is over, the bourgeoning reports of threats against foreign targets in Kabul suggest the conflict cannot be considered over even within the capital itself."
Bandits infest main roads. There is no functioning national military or police force, and the warlords who are really in charge routinely violate human rights. In November, US ally General Abdul Raschid Dostum's forces summarily executed over 400 captured Taliban in Mazar-e Sharif. Militias control the streets of major cities, abusing women, demanding money from foreigners, and squabbling with other militias over turf. Opium production, successfully curbed by the Taliban, is back big-time.
Second, the bombing has re-empowered the Northern Alliance. The human rights record of the main Northern Alliance leaders (mostly Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) is abysmal. The State Department is well aware of it; most of the warlords had cordial ties with the CIA in the 1980s. They are particularly feared and hated by the population of Kabul, who suffered under their rule from 1992 to 1996. The Pakistani military, which plays a significant role in the "coalition against terrorism," hates them because of their abuses of Pashtuns, and was therefore disturbed when Alliance forces moved into Kabul Nov. 12, reinstalling former president Burhanuddin Rabbani, before a coalition government could be formed insuring Pashtun representation.
The interim government created in Bonn three weeks later was supposed to be such a coalition government, but over half its 30 seats went to Northern Alliance representatives. Interim head of state Hamid Karzai was once deputy minister of foreign affairs in a Rabbani cabinet (and then served briefly under the Taliban). Interior, Foreign Affairs, and Defense ministries all went to Tajik Northern Alliance figures. Alliance warlords like Ismail Khan and Dostum, who command private armies and head ethnically based Islamic political organizations, control most of the country. Dostum demanded and received the post of deputy minister of defense on the day of Karzai's inauguration.
Consider the history of these warlords. In Jan. and Feb. 1994, Dostum and former CIA favorite Gulbuddin Hekmatyar jointly attacked Rabbani's forces; killing 4,000, injuring 21,000, and forcing 200,000 to flee Kabul. Various Northern Alliance militias killed about 50,000 around Kabul before the Taliban came to power. Indeed, it was the general climate of lawlessness that made the Taliban, with its emphasis on restoration of law and order, based strictly on Islam, appeal to many.
Already, factions of the Northern Alliance have again skirmished in northern Afghanistan. Forces loyal to Defense Minister Fahim have exchanged fire with forces loyal to the Deputy Defense Minister Dostum! (Not encouraging.) Of course, the infighting extends beyond the Northern Alliance. Two Pashtun factions have clashed in Khost, and Kandahar warlord Gul Agha Sherzai has threatened to lead 20,000 troops to attack Ismail Khan's fief around Herat. Many fear a return to the Rabbani-era violence. A few thousand international peacekeepers around Kabul will do little to comfort them. (Small wonder that the UN is now talking about maybe sending 30,000 peacekeepers to Afghanistan - not that that would liberate its people.)Some argue that at least women's status is somehow improving through all of this. In fact, the prospect that once rid of the Taliban, women would be able to come out from behind the veil hasn't materialized. It was Rabbani who issued a rule in 1994 making the burqa obligatory for women in Kabul. Between 1978 and 1992, many women had adopted western or modified traditional dress; the post-Soviet leadership (back in power now) deplored that. The Taliban did not invent the burqa nor were they the first attempt to impose it on all women; key figures in the current power structure seem as committed as the Taliban to restricting Afghan women's progress in the struggle for sexual equality.
Third, the bombing has killed thousands of civilians. It looks likely that the Afghan civilian toll now far exceeds the loss of life in New York and Washington DC on Sept. 11. A study by University of New Hampshire Professor of International Relations Marc W. Herold, published in December, cited credible journalistic reports indicating that over 3,700 Afghani civilians had been killed by US bombing to that point. These included about 100 killed in Karam in November (reported by Time); at least 128 civilians when bombs destroyed the village of Shahagha Nov. 10 (CNN); and 150 in Kama Ado Dec. 1 (Boston Globe, NBC). Since then, some of the more destructive attacks killed 60 in a civilian convoy in the village of Asmani Kilai Dec. 21 (Guardian), and up to 107 were at Qalaye Niazi, on Dec. 28 (Reuters). Herold now puts the reasonably documented minimal civilian death count at over 4,000.
The imprecision of the bombing - manifest from the outset, when four UN landmine-sweeping specialists were killed - was never better illustrated than on Dec. 2, when three US Special Forces, and five Afghan allies, were killed by "friendly fire" north of Kandahar. Hamid Karzai himself was wounded by shrapnel. Meanwhile, unexploded bomblets, like those that killed seven children in a village near Mazar-e Sharif this month, will pose a threat for a long time.
In late December, Defense Minister Fahim stated that now that al Qaeda was defeated, the US should stop bombing Afghanistan. A Defense Ministry spokesman added that the "remaining [al Qaeda] forces are few in number and may be annihilated in a maximum of three days, and once this is done there is no need for the continuation of the [US] bombing. We demand America stop its bombing of Afghanistan after this goal is achieved." Gen. Tommy Franks' response (from President Bush's Texas ranch): "We will not be pressed into doing something that does not represent our national objectives, and we will take as long as it takes." The new Afghan "government" has no veto power over US bombing of its own territory, which continues. On Jan. 24 another 16 civilians were killed by a US attack north of Kandahar.
These are only results of the bombing that pertain to Afghanistan itself. The consequences for the world are equally devastating.
<I>Gary Leupp is a history professor at Tufts University. Part II of his viewpoint "Why the war was, and is, utterly wrong" will be printed in tomorrow's Daily.
