The real challenge in Afghanistan

The ‘war on terror’ will go down in history as the mother of all controversies.

Some call it a ‘clash of civilisations’; others describe it as an effort to shape the conflict within the Islamic world — a battle between the moderates and the extremists that will not only determine the future of the Muslims but will impact western values in general and American security in particular.

The proponents of the war claim the United States needs to partner with the right forces in the Muslim world: it is not enough to overthrow the Taliban, unseat Saddam or even capture Bin Laden — the greater challenge is to alter the mindset of those in the Islamic world who think in terms of an Armageddon between the Islamic and non-Muslim world.

At least this is the broader theoretical construct, though limitations are already evident on the ground.

The Bush administration’s first challenge came in Afghanistan. Conventional war was a foregone conclusion and US forces ousted the Taliban easily. But the victory also ushered the US and its allies into the difficult phase of the war: building a modern state on the ruins of a medieval, warring society.

The task is three-fold: make Afghanistan secure; reconstruct it; and win the people. When I went to Afghanistan recently, it was to find answers to these questions.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is trying to connect the dots in Afghanistan by taking an integrated approach towards the reconstruction process. Education, it knows, is important. But equally vital is the need to create jobs. For only in this way can the Afghans earn their own livelihood and the reconstruction effort be deemed truly sustainable.

So while the agency is building quake-resistant schools for girls, it is also trying to secure their long-term future by opening up new avenues for them.

The Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) in Kabul, for instance, has trained several female journalists to file and edit news reports. And according to the project’s overseer, one graduate has now secured a position with the Voice of America.

Admittedly, it is this ‘softer’ side of the war on terror that has enabled previously inconceivable opportunities to take root. But the question remains: Can America change Afghan thinking?

The answer here is mixed and it depends on how one looks at the glass: half-full or half-empty. It also depends on whether one uses the material calculus (statistics) to determine success or some abstract principle like pride and honour. For instance, how does one solve the problem of restoring peoples’ pride not because nothing has been done but because quite a lot may have been achieved though at a cost to their pride?

Make no mistake: the ordinary Afghan does seek international assistance for political stability; he shows no hostility towards the coalition forces; but, caught in the vortex of conflict in that country, he continues to live under threat.

The slightest miscarriage of justice can result in his losing everything.

According to a Human Rights Watch report, “Enduring Freedom”: Abuses by US Forces in Afghanistan, the Americans ‘take into custody all men of military age found within the vicinity of an operation’. The report accuses US soldiers of using ‘excessive’ and ‘culturally insensitive’ force ‘during what are essentially law-enforcement operations’.

HRW claims the Americans take most of their prisoners to Bagram where ‘they are stripped and photographed. Samples of hair and skin flakes are taken, presumably to collect for a DNA database. Detainees are then instructed, through interpreters, about the rules of Bagram, which include restrictions on talking with other detainees. They are then shackled and taken to cells, where they are held during the periods they are not being interrogated. They are given bottles of water and fed in the cells. Except during interrogations, the detainees are shackled, even while sleeping’.

Add to this the ‘humiliating taunts from women soldiers’ and the dungeons (where captives ‘have no opportunity to challenge the basis for their detention’) become reminiscent of the horrific images coming out of Abu Ghraib.

This is the downside and it threatens to undo the good that is being done. I couldn’t stop thinking about these detention centres during my three-day stay with the US forces at Bagram. But it was difficult for me to reconcile these reports of gross human rights violations with the warmth shown to me by my American hosts.

I recalled that HRW had sent written requests to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid, seeking access to these detention facilities. Although it received no official response, ‘officials in the public affairs offices of the Pentagon and CENTCOM told Human Rights Watch such requests would not be granted’.

Newsweek recently claimed that ‘US officials hate to talk about it openly, but a primary function of places like Bagram and Abu Ghraib is interrogation’. It added: “The lives of American soldiers can depend on secrets spilled there.” Even more recent reports in the New Yorker and the Washington Post have sought to spill the beans on the US interrogation centres around the world. Reports on Abu Ghraib have also revealed that interrogation methods that have caused outraged were approved at the highest level, which take responsibility right up to Mr Rumsfeld.

This may explain the equivocating response I received from Lt Col Michele DeWerth when I asked why the US kept so many troops at Bagram and what was the exact nature of their brief. She immediately threw the ball into Maj Stacy Bathrick’s court. Again I was given no answer. Instead, I was told that a press kit would answer all my queries. I knew it was a cul de sac.

The main conflict thus is the balance between securing American troops and reconstructing Afghanistan. The first results in abuses and excesses in a conflict environment; the second in the warmer, more humane side of the US and coalition forces. Unfortunately, it seems the first is likely also to determine the success or failure of the reconstruction project. Therefore, the US would need to do more than just rebuild. It would need to help the ordinary Afghan regain his crushed spirit. That’s the real challenge.

The writer is Assistant Editor at Daily Times
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-5-2004_pg3_5