<nettime> Losing the new war at home

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

The $43 million dollars this Spring bought Taliban fatwah against  
opium growers (they declared the opium growing against the will of  
God, and you know what happens to those who oppose the will of  
God under Taliban) - but by destroying the ONLY remaining source 
of  Afghan economy, the US played right into Osama's hands, by  
giving him more soldiers (and more money to train them).

Taliban strike me as a particularly restrictive, rigid, ascetic sect, 
'arid', as the country in which they are set, that's only 
orientationally based in Islam, vague in almost anything else 
except for its hate of others and associated pleasure - the only 
allowed pleasure - in the calling for destruction of their otherness. 
Christianity was riven by sects and movements like that throughout 
the medieval period.

That's precisely why we shouldn't be surprised with their blowing up 
Buddha statues: 
http://www.globeandmail.com/travel/stories/globe/buddha.html 

The UK Times, Sep 21, article saying that - "Winter will close 
access to much of the country; whether there are stocks of food or 
not will be irrelevant as the tracks become impassable to the 
vehicles that could deliver the supplies that might save their lives." - 
suggests that Afghanistan is, indeed, in its medieval period - 
somewhere around European 13th-14th century.

It was brought there and it was kept there for about hundred years 
by the "Great Game" of three great empires - British, Soviet and  
American - and all three, I think, are now responsible to work  
together and pick Afghanis out of the mess in which their "game"  
threw them. 

There is nothing there except huge mountains and a  lot of dust. 
But the place had an unfortunately pleasant strategic location from 
the perspective of soft-spoken diplomats from the posh European 
salons of the past two centuries. First the British tried to contain 
the Russians, and Russians tried to contain the British - both never 
contemplating curbing their own expansionist tendencies.

Then the Russians became Soviets, and containing them became 
even more important, an imperative for the ruling class of the 
moeyed world! And when British military became obsolete and 
useless with its disastrous losses in the WW II, the torch of 
containing Soviets was passed on to Americans. But - both sea-
going empires - neither were particularly succesful in opposing 
Russians so close to the Russian motherland. They were only 
succesful in gradually grinding and tearing up the poor country, that 
was unfortunate enough to find itself in the friction zone between 
their spheres of interest. 

Finally, Soviets lost patience in the Great Game and invaded 
Afghanistan. The US responded by doing to Soviets the same what 
Soviets did to the US in Vietnam - arm and train the guerillas. It 
worked in Vietnam. It worked in Afghanistan. Soviets lost. However, 
unlike the US after Vietnam, Soviet Union not only lost the war, it 
lost the empire. They crumbled and the cold war was over.

With the end of the cold war, the 'Great Game' was, also, over, 
and, suddenly, Afghanistan lost importance for anybody, and they 
all abandoned it, after messing it up so royally, that the country 
still holds two ominous world records: in the number of refugees 
and in the number of landmines.  

With several well armed groups and neither government, nor 
economy, the country promptly descended into a bloody civil war 
from which the worst possible totalitarian regime emerged 
promising to restore law and order. What a perfect place for a rich, 
intelligent and sophisticated - he, allegedly, even made money on 
oil and gold futures, as an insider who knew what is going to 
happen to world markets on September 11 - succesful global 
terrorist like Osama Bin Laden! The perfect proverbial swamp.
 
Now, again, everybody is interested in Afghanistan (proving that  
terrorism IS indeed a useful media tool). Russians, busily arming 
Northern Alliance (Massoud's heir, allegedly, is pro-Russian, unlike 
the French student, Massoud was), are particularly keen on 
drawing the US into a war there -  because they have nothing to 
lose - either the US would win, and eliminate their Islam 
fundamentalist problem on their Southern borders, or the US would 
lose and become weaker - Russians win in both cases. That 
should raise a few flags in the US intelligence community. 

But then, hmmm, is there such a community in this country? I've 
heard that CIA does not have the agent proficient in the language 
that Taliban speak, so the British agents are in the field, reportedly. 
Well, that always reminds me that there is a reason that Austin 
Powers wears the underwear with the British and not with the 
American flag on it. 

A classic military action, would not only be morally wrong (given 
that the Afghanistan's current situation is the fault of superpowers), 
but utterly ineffective from the military point of view. Russians tried 
absolutely everything except nuclear weapons and still lost the 
war. This war obviously cannot be won by conventional warfare. 
This war can be won only from the inside by the Afghanis 
themselves - and that would require a lot of patience among the 
global public. One thing is interesting: there should be a reason 
why it was easier for Al Qaeda to blow up WTC than for Taliban to 
conquer Northern Afghanistan - Hindu-Kush range is obviously 
more serious an obstacle than two oceans. Maybe it would change 
name to Taliban-Kush once.

Here, Nancy Soderberg delivers a U.S. 'fatwah' against Osama Bin 
Laden to the U.N. Security Council in 1998 calling for a Holy War 
against terrorism in a wake of the two embassies bombings:
http://www.usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98120801.htm

As the Taliban came to power on the premise of restoring law and 
order - the terrorist actions committed on American soil, by people 
sponsored by an organization hiding in their country, raised forces 
that are trying to "Talibanize" U.S. on the same premise - law and 
order was always used as a rationale for increasing authoritarian, 
totalitarian aspects of any state. The recent news of banning 1200 
songs in the U.S. on certain radio stations serve as a potent, sad 
reminder of that rationalization. 

This is also true for the proposal, now facing Congressional vote, 
that would let authorities detain indefinitely legal non-citizen crime 
suspects in the U.S. If we let American freedoms be taken away 
by the Congress one by one, because we suddenly feel that we 
need more security, then we shall have nothing to fight for any 
more, because we would have surrendered our way of life without a 
fight. 

This is a primer on homeland security plans - offered by obviously 
well informed (and "well connected", perhaps) private think-tank:
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/primer.htm

While we are all now mostly concerne with air travel, Al Qaeda is 
probably developing something entirely unrelated. Still, I don't know 
anubody who is glad to sit in an airplane, lately. Guns on the plane 
may depressurize cabin if they make a hole in the fuselage. Why 
pilots or agents or stewards are not given some of those non-lethal 
gizmos so much touted just a few months ago? I thought of 
bringing an umbrella with me - that's not prohibited and may serve 
as a good protection against a short box-cutter knife. Or, maybe, 
thick boxing gloves. Any other ideas?

Ivo Skoric, a non-citizen legal resident of the U.S.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net