October 24, 2001	Wednesday	Shaba'an 6, 1422

GENEVA: American and British airstrikes on alleged Taliban targets will hardly eliminate terrorism on Afghan soil. If anything, they may be proving counterproductive. Not only are the attacks inflicting rising civilian casualties, but they are also inciting a potential new onslaught of anti-Western militants - many angered by what they see as an attack against Islam - in other parts of the Muslim world. As a journalist who has covered Afghanistan since before the 1979 Soviet invasion, I still wonder what the US hopes to achieve with its attacks, and how it sees the possible consequences.

It is doubtful, however, whether the bombing or the just-launched special-forces operations on the ground will significantly affect the ability of the Taliban or Al Qaeda to stay in business. The destruction of power plants will only make life more difficult for ordinary Afghans. The Taliban will use fuel-driven generators, and even these are not really necessary to people who have endured war and deprivation for years.

What is certain is that the US-led attacks are causing growing civilian casualties. Further, the US is dropping cluster bombs; though they are not intended for civilians, it is likely that ordinary people, including children, will be hurt and killed by them - which does little for Washington’s moral standing.

What Afghanistan needs most is a regional peace settlement, facilitated by the United Nations or a respected neutral country, coupled with a massive reconstructive Marshall Plan that will end once and for all the country’s enduring conflict. There also needs to be pressure on the regional players - such as Pakistan, Iran, India, and the former Soviet Central Asian states - to support the creation of an interim coalition government without meddling in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. The European Union or the United States could fulfil this regional role. Unlike the bombing, this is the only sort of international action that will make a difference.

Washington decisionmakers from the 1980s should remember that the US bears heavy responsibility for Afghanistan’s continuing war and the rise of Muslim radicals. During the Soviet occupation, Washington provided about $3 billion worth of aid to the Afghan resistance. Much of this was creamed off by extremist groups dominated by Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s ethnic majority.

While many war-exhausted Afghans are willing to tolerate US involvement in the region, they need to know that peace and reconstruction will be part of the long-term plan. Dropping bombs and humanitarian relief packages at the same time - little more than a naive propaganda ploy, say some aid agencies - is hardly the way to disperse intelligent aid. Six million Afghans, are desperate for massive humanitarian assistance to survive this winter. Afghanistan urgently needs to be opened up to large-scale humanitarian relief, both in Taliban- and non-Taliban-controlled areas.

There are already strong indications that rising anti-Taliban sentiment in the cities may oblige the Taliban to open up, but aid officials do not believe it will happen during the bombing. As it is, they warn, tens of thousands of Afghans may already be condemned to death in the more isolated parts of central and western Afghanistan.

Bringing peace to the region is not a matter of dealing with black and white, good and bad. Nor does it mean imposing the Northern Alliance as a replacement regime. Even though the alliance has become more diverse, drawing rising numbers of Pashtun commanders, many of them recent defections from the Taliban, it still does not represent an across-the-board coalition of ethnic and tribal groups.

Clearly, the UN and the international aid community would have to help run the administration. Over the years, thousands of Afghan doctors, teachers, engineers, and agronomists have fled the country. Few are likely to return. And there are almost no journalists left capable of operating Radio Television Kabul or setting up a new free press.

The US and its allies must commit now to a workable peace settlement that includes rebuilding the country in the interests of Afghans. Even if this takes the form of “buying” the peace - through massive humanitarian and development aid - it will certainly prove cheaper than an ineffective war. If not, Americans will have to pay later, just as they are now paying for a disastrous policy of neglecting Afghanistan after 1989. —Dawn/LATS Service (c) Christian Science Monitor.