Taliban melt away, leaving questions behind


	November 15, 2001	atimes.com

Central Asia/Russia

Taliban melt away, leaving questions behind
By Grey E Burkhart
Globalvision News Network

WASHINGTON - After five weeks of America's "war on terrorism", Taliban forces, as yet the only apparent target of this war, are withdrawing from key Afghan cities.

While the Western "coalition" (ie, the United States and United Kingdom) has been winning one war from the air and the Taliban winning another on the airwaves, the Northern Alliance has managed to overrun much of the country. Depending upon what you read, the anti-Taliban alliance controls 50 or 90 percent of Afghanistan, either way up markedly from the 10 percent that was not under Taliban control only a few days ago.

The Taliban's speedy departure from several cities and provinces certainly seems to be due in part to the US bombing. But several defections from the Taliban have been key: at least three top commanders are reported to have been "purchased" with their troops and arms, by the Northern Alliance. Shopping for allies does get easier when it looks like your side actually has a chance of winning. Still, these rapid developments on the ground raise some key questions for the US.

Whither the Taliban?

The Taliban retreat has been as precipitous as it was unexpected.

Defeated in the west and north, the bulk of Mullah Omar's forces are believed to be regrouping in Kandahar province, there to defend the Taliban headquarters in the city of the same name. Although there are reports that the Northern Alliance has already captured Kandahar, there is no evidence that anti-Taliban forces are near the city.

At least some Taliban forces appear to have moved east to Jalalabad, perhaps seeking comfort in its proximity to once-friendly Pakistan. There are also suggestions that the Taliban will regroup south of Kabul, there to await a fight with the Northern Alliance "on equal terms", presumably (although the reason is unclear) without the interference of American bombers.

Whither the 'Arabs'?

Despite Taliban withdrawals, it appears that the "Arabs" - non-Afghan fighters, mostly from the Middle East and North Africa - may not be going anywhere quickly. Unlike the Taliban, who have a stronghold, a real place - however humble - in Afghan society, and a real chance of being part of any new government, the Arabs lose all if they retreat. Their only alternative is to melt into the countryside and live to fight another day somewhere else. A proposition as difficult as it is unseemly.

Abdullah, the Northern Alliance's foreign minister, told The Washington Post that the foreigners were "more dedicated and more likely to stay and fight", which could lead to street fighting in Kabul. However, early reports indicate that only a few Arabs have been discovered-and summarily dispatched - in the wake of the Taliban's departure. But there are no reports of their withdrawal, either. Again, withdrawal to where? To protect Mullah Omar in Kandahar? To their training bases or schools in Pakistan? Back to the Sudan, perhaps, to await another call to arms?

Who's in charge?

So the new question is, "Where is the government?" Of Afghanistan, that is. Remember why the Taliban were able to come to power: the country had been through six brutal years of civil war between at least seven main factions. This, after 10 years of battling the Soviet occupation. Today's situation is a bit odd: it appears as if the various warlords are running around rending their shirts, calling for someone, anyone to save them from themselves.

Biblical reference: In olden days (where the Taliban still live), one indicated grief or remorse by sprinkling ashes on one's forehead and ripping one's shirt open. Men only, of course. All this zealous behavior, to get the international community to impose a government of which they approve, or they'll have to start murdering one another again. It's said to be in their blood.

This dilemma is similar to the one the US faced in Iraq. There, the Western allies were so afraid of Iraq disintegrating after Saddam's departure, that they left him standing. And still he stands.

Neither he nor Iraq seems in danger of near-term disintegration. And if Afghanistan were to disintegrate? Who would know, much less care? Make 10 new countries. The people in the region will still be the poorest in the world, together or divided. Whether there even is a central government, much less its nature, makes little difference in the life of the average Afghan.

What's next?

We can expect more Taliban withdrawals in the near future. Retrenching of the Taliban around Kandahar and the southeast in general. More rapes, murders and looting, but this time by America's allies instead of its enemies. Remember what kind of people comprise the Northern Alliance. They aren't choir boys. They are just on the American side.

Look for some "Arab" retrenchment around Kabul and maybe other strategic points. Either foreign special forces will have to root them out, one trench at a time, or the US will just have to stop watching, the latter course being more likely.

The "six plus two" group will continue attempts to form a broad-based government. "Six plus two" is the term used for Afghanistan's six neighbors plus the US and Russia. How warm and cuddly. Russia still gets a seat at the table even though it is no longer the "only other superpower". Afghanistan's neighbors are Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China (only a few kilometers of border way up in the northeast) and Pakistan.

The Western coalition will declare victory and sail off over the horizon. War over. But wasn't the US supposed to be fighting terrorism? Maybe Afghanistan was a useful - and less intractable - substitute. America can hardly be expected to bomb Dublin or Jerusalem.

(Copyright Globalvision News Network, 2001. All rights reserved. )