| |
COMMENTARY
But we were focused on
fighting terrorism ...
By Ehsan
Ahrari
America's decisiveness and resolve to
fight the global "war on terrorism" was lost after the
dismantlement of the Taliban regime in early 2002. No
one in the current government in Washington will admit
that. But the resurgence of al-Qaeda in the form of
terrorist attacks on Tuesday in Riyadh
provides persuasive evidence of that sad reality.
After ousting the Taliban from power, the next
logical step related to war on terrorism was to rebuild
Afghanistan, while continuing the mop-up operations
against the remnants of Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.
Instead, the US became preoccupied with ousting Saddam
Hussein. In the meantime, the issue of nation building
in Afghanistan was left in limbo. It was an example of
America's benign neglect, and was precisely what the
terrorist groups of Afghanistan would have preferred - a
breathing spell to regroup and prepare themselves for
the next rounds of battle against the "super-Infidel",
while anti-Americanism in that country continued to
rise.
Perhaps the reason for not remaining
focused on Afghanistan is based on the thinking of the
Pentagon that emphasizes a strategy of "win-hold-win".
While the reasoning of this strategy is not very clear,
it emphasizes not a decisive victory in one conflict in
the first phase, but moving on and winning decisively
the second conflict, and then returning to the first one
with a view to win decisively.
Applying that
strategy to Afghanistan, the US ousted the Taliban but
did not completely finish the mop-up operations (the
win-hold phase). Then came Iraq, where there was the
need to win quickly and decisively, given the fact that
the Bush administration used up all the hyperbole of
comparing the Iraqi dictator to Adolf Hitler and Joseph
Stalin, who should be ousted. And ousted he was (the win
phase). Then we were told that the US would refocus on
Afghanistan, in order to complete the "win decisively"
phase of its strategy.
However, transnational
terrorists have a strange way of spoiling the logical
sequence of a superpowers's global military strategy.
And they did that by carrying out attacks in Riyadh.
Then there was another explosion in Yemen the same day,
proving the regional capability of al-Qaeda to carry out
simultaneous attacks. The question now is whether Osama
bin Laden and his cohorts are still in the lead or the
next generation of transnational terrorists is carrying
out these operations. If the latter is the case, one has
to worry about taking counter-measures against an
adversary whose technical and logistical sophistication
seem to be growing by leaps and bounds. Now Washington
will be forced to reconsider its reconfiguration of
forces in the Persian Gulf, the place of Saudi Arabia in
America's strategic thinking, the issue of keeping Iraq
in America's alliance system in West Asia. There are
also rumors of a secret dialogue with Iran - member of
the so-called "axis of evil".
By opening the
Iraqi front, the Bush administration definitely became
distracted by the need to tackle urgent issues stemming
from regime change. The foremost issue was quelling the
enormous chaos that followed the collapse of Saddam's
regime. The lone superpower makes a lousy occupier. That
reality also became clear almost immediately after the
end of the major military campaign. It appeared that the
occupier did not know where to start. Alternatively, it
is also possible that the occupying forces were largely
concerned with safeguarding the oilfields from sabotage
from the retreating Iraqi forces and did not move fast
enough to bring about law and order.
Another
problem was the simultaneous occurrence of numerous
crises, which overwhelmed the military leaders. The
civilian governors were cooling their heels in Kuwait
and waiting for law and order to prevail for their entry
into Iraq. That issue was not even settled before there
emerged demands from the Shi'ites of Iraq for an Islamic
government and for the US to get out. The
not-so-well-thought-out plans of handing power to
America's puppet, Ahmad Chalabi, seemed to have blown up
in the faces of the American rulers of Iraq.
All
these conditions were exactly what al-Qaeda desired.
They wanted nothing more than for the Americans to get
increasingly entangled in the quagmire of Iraq so that
they could cash in on the growing anti-American
sentiment there, in Saudi Arabia and other countries in
the region.
In the enormous chatter related to
Afghanistan and Iraq, the latest terrorist attacks in
Riyadh turned out to be a wakeup call. Those who were
gloating over the military victory in Iraq suddenly
found themselves facing a failed policy regarding global
war on terrorism, as if it became a sudden reality.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times was quite trenchant
in observing, "Buried in the rubble of Riyadh are some
of the Bush administration's basic assumptions: that
al-Qaeda was finished, that invading Iraq would bring
about regional stability and that a show of American
superpower against Saddam would cow terrorists." But
other pundits still didn't get it.
Where do we
go from here? Victory in the war on terrorism must start
in Afghanistan and Iraq, countries in which the US has
created chaos by not focusing on nation building and on
systematically creating a legitimate authority that is
in harmony with the Islamic values. Creating chaos in
one country, and then moving on to the next in the name
of bumper-sticker slogans like "regime change" will only
worsen the security situation in those countries and in
the region.
Winning against bin Laden and his
successors requires a lot more than clever slogans. It
requires patience and understanding, knowing what a
Muslim country is all about, and above all, creating a
government that reflects the aspirations and cultural
and religious values of Islamic societies. Attempting to
instantly implant secular democracy, and finding a
diffident sycophant to preside over it is very much akin
to only postponing even worse disasters to another day.
That is what appears to be happening in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
(?003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
