LONDON: Bombs drop, civilians die, frontlines stagnate and Osama bin Laden remains at large.
If this scenario drags on for weeks and months, the United States and its allies risk seeing an erosion of public support for their military assault on Taliban.
Western analysts say the military drive is progressing much as anticipated: the error lies with anyone who expected conventional warfare to produce quick results against terrorism.
“The military campaign is important but it’s a relatively small part of the overall campaign to reduce the risk of terrorism to citizens,” said Sir Timothy Garden, a military expert at London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs.
President George W. Bush has said he wants Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”. Ousting the Taliban became a goal after they refused to surrender the man accused of organizing the September 11 plane attacks on New York and Washington.
US and British leaders have stressed that the struggle against terrorism will be long, but the lack of swift and visible gains against Osama and his Taliban protectors may still disconcert hearts and minds at home and abroad.
“The Americans could lose the propaganda war,” said William Hopkinson, a British writer on international security.
“The worst thing would be a dribble of civilian casualties and no progress through the winter, only a week or two away.”
MORE SOBER TONE: The bombing began nearly three weeks ago. Early on, the Pentagon boasted it had achieved air superiority over low-tech Taliban forces, knocking out airfields and radar and destroying what was described as their “command and control system”.
The tone has become less triumphal.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested this week that Osama may never be caught and the US deputy director of operations, Rear Admiral John Stufflebeam, acknowledged that the Taliban were proving tougher than expected.
To cap a wobbly week for the allies, the Taliban said on Friday they had killed Abdul Haq, an exiled opposition military chief who had crossed back into Afghanistan to try to convince pro-Taliban Pashtun tribes to switch sides.
So have the Americans lost the plot? Only if you have a misplaced belief in what military power can do, analysts argue.
Garden said military action to destroy Osama’s training camps in Afghanistan seemed to be “proceeding on the rails”, though the benefits in terms of disrupting the flow of recruits to his cause might be tangible only in the long term.
Eliminating Al Qaeda leaders required “police” action, intelligence and “feet on the ground” to search them out.
POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS: The task of removing the Taliban, which the allies say is vital to stopping Afghanistan from being a haven for terrorists, is complicated by uncertainty over who might replace them.
Hopkinson agreed that the prospect of possibly vengeful minority Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras sweeping into Kabul risked destabilizing Pakistan.
Hopkinson questioned the wisdom of talking of a “war” on terrorism, except in a metaphorical sense. “The military is not the main instrument here. Waging war on terrorism means police, intelligence, judicial extraction,” he said.
Garden suggested that the asymmetrical contest between US firepower and ill-equipped Taliban fighters might at least deter other states from harbouring the likes of Osama.
“This is a demonstration to other places where Osama might go that they will get same treatment,” he declared. —Reuters
