Is the west creating the new Osama?
October 4, 2001 2:20 AM Subscribe
Is the west creating the new Osama? An excellent (as always) article by Robert Fisk in the Independent. Is the "Northern Alliance" just another bunch of fanatical thugs? If so is the West wise in supporting them?
He states:
What Afghanistan needs is an international force – not a bunch of ethnic gangs steeped in blood – to re-establish some kind of order. It doesn't have to be a UN force, but it could have Western troops and should be supported by surrounding Muslim nations – though, please God, not the Saudis – and able to restore roads, food supplies and telecommunications. There are still well-educated academics and civil servants inAfghanistan who could help to re-establish the infrastructure of government. In this context, the old king might just be a temporary symbol of unity before a genuinely inter-ethnic government could be created.
The problem with using just anyone, is that "anyone" could, after all's finished, become the next vile terrorist out to get the West (among others). Don't you think that rape and murder against their own people are good credentials for future world terrorists?
posted by talos at 4:01 AM on October 4, 2001
What Afghanistan needs is an international force – not a bunch of ethnic gangs steeped in blood – to re-establish some kind of order. It doesn't have to be a UN force, but it could have Western troops and should be supported by surrounding Muslim nations – though, please God, not the Saudis – and able to restore roads, food supplies and telecommunications. There are still well-educated academics and civil servants inAfghanistan who could help to re-establish the infrastructure of government. In this context, the old king might just be a temporary symbol of unity before a genuinely inter-ethnic government could be created.
The problem with using just anyone, is that "anyone" could, after all's finished, become the next vile terrorist out to get the West (among others). Don't you think that rape and murder against their own people are good credentials for future world terrorists?
posted by talos at 4:01 AM on October 4, 2001
The problem with using just anyone, is that "anyone" could, after all's finished, become the next vile terrorist out to get the West (among others).
True, but there are precedents for what Fisk is prescribing, most notably the coalition of west African nations, which, with the support of the British Army, has brought some measure of stability to Sierra Leone. At the very least, it's no longer the region's Somalia; at best, it proves that there's the potential for co-operation within the region.
Yes, this is going to be like dealing with a forest fire, where the winds bring up new flames from the scrub. But there's no point in trying to spin this as anything else.
posted by holgate at 4:15 AM on October 4, 2001
True, but there are precedents for what Fisk is prescribing, most notably the coalition of west African nations, which, with the support of the British Army, has brought some measure of stability to Sierra Leone. At the very least, it's no longer the region's Somalia; at best, it proves that there's the potential for co-operation within the region.
Yes, this is going to be like dealing with a forest fire, where the winds bring up new flames from the scrub. But there's no point in trying to spin this as anything else.
posted by holgate at 4:15 AM on October 4, 2001
I say we use the Northern Alliance for what their worth in our goal of getting at the terrorists and then, when the dust has settled, let the Afghans sort things out for themselves.
That is exactly the way not to do things. You will only get one enemy out of your way, and instead have 100 new. The american way!
posted by Eirixon at 4:39 AM on October 4, 2001
That is exactly the way not to do things. You will only get one enemy out of your way, and instead have 100 new. The american way!
posted by Eirixon at 4:39 AM on October 4, 2001
It seems to me that this type of policy (funding the Northern Alliance) has been the way the US Governement works, and it continually gets us into trouble down the road. For example, we supported Saddam Hussein agains Iraq in the 80's (even as we secretly sold weapons to Iran). Manuel Noriega worked for the CIA before he became public enemy number one. We supported Ferdinand Marcos. Shit, we supported Osama Bin Laden in the 80's (RE: The Onion... It was weird. You just kind of had to be there.. GB senior to Junior). This is part of the reason the whole freakin' world hates us. For us to enter into another one of these situations seems ludicrous at best.
posted by bob bisquick at 6:06 AM on October 4, 2001
posted by bob bisquick at 6:06 AM on October 4, 2001
Were we wise in supporting Stalin against Hitler, even though it lead to a 50 year period of uneasiness and suspicion. Hell yeah.
posted by brucec at 6:07 AM on October 4, 2001
posted by brucec at 6:07 AM on October 4, 2001
It can't really be said that the US 'supported' Stalin any more than Stalin supported the US.
posted by D at 6:57 AM on October 4, 2001
posted by D at 6:57 AM on October 4, 2001
I agree with Eirixon. If you are going to support them, then don't push them aside once you're done with them. If you're going to help the Alliance gain control of Afghanistan, the least you can do is stay around for a while helping them with supplies/food/rebuilding/politics.
Once Berlin was captured, it wasn't left for the "Germans to sort it out." Shouldn't be any difference in Kabul, unless you want to alienate a new generation of freedom fighters...again.
BTW, I saw a good documentary on Massoud and the Alliance a couple of days ago. I have a new found respect for him, and it's a shame he got killed - he would have made a good leader for the country he was trying to free.
posted by mkn at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2001
Once Berlin was captured, it wasn't left for the "Germans to sort it out." Shouldn't be any difference in Kabul, unless you want to alienate a new generation of freedom fighters...again.
BTW, I saw a good documentary on Massoud and the Alliance a couple of days ago. I have a new found respect for him, and it's a shame he got killed - he would have made a good leader for the country he was trying to free.
posted by mkn at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2001
It seems to me a typically naive American thing (I'm American too though) to think that a group like the Northern Alliance would be any less warlike than the Taliban. (I say "warlike" because they're at war and I'm not sure how to judge them on moral level.) Of course they're nasty, brutish and wicked sometimes, if not most of the time. That's what life is like for them -- and very short.
That said, no one is pretending we're really after the Taliban for humanitarian reasons (though we are trying, separately, to help the Afghan people). We want to minimize a security risk. If the Northern Alliance gains strength in Afghanistan, and especially if they cast off the Taliban, there will be in place an organization we can work with more easily to fight terrorism. Yes, that organization will be evil (whatever that means) -- it doesn't look like there's an alternative available. Is that an excuse to just say, shit, what can we do, we'll just have to hope the terrorists don't get biological weapons?
I really don't know why anyone would expect that the Northern Alliance is somehow more morally upright than anyone else, just because they're less of a threat to us.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:28 AM on October 4, 2001
That said, no one is pretending we're really after the Taliban for humanitarian reasons (though we are trying, separately, to help the Afghan people). We want to minimize a security risk. If the Northern Alliance gains strength in Afghanistan, and especially if they cast off the Taliban, there will be in place an organization we can work with more easily to fight terrorism. Yes, that organization will be evil (whatever that means) -- it doesn't look like there's an alternative available. Is that an excuse to just say, shit, what can we do, we'll just have to hope the terrorists don't get biological weapons?
I really don't know why anyone would expect that the Northern Alliance is somehow more morally upright than anyone else, just because they're less of a threat to us.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:28 AM on October 4, 2001
The solution to all of this is clear. We should not teach anyone anything. Especially how to read.
posted by RoyalJack at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2001
posted by RoyalJack at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2001
And what about Pakistan's military regime... Dancing with the Devil, I say...
posted by fooljay at 9:50 PM on October 5, 2001
posted by fooljay at 9:50 PM on October 5, 2001
« Older A real cancer cure, finally? | Taliban gets rich from drug trade. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That being said, whom in the world would Fisk have us work with in the pursuit of getting at Osama and his lieutenants in Taliban-controlled territory when the Taliban has expressed opposition to cooperate in finding him and turning him over? I say we use the Northern Alliance for what their worth in our goal of getting at the terrorists and then, when the dust has settled, let the Afghans sort things out for themselves.
posted by MAYORBOB at 3:38 AM on October 4, 2001