January 10, 2002	Thursday	Shawwal 25, 1422

WASHINGTON, Jan 9: For the first time, critics are openly questioning US strategy in Afghanistan, as officials weigh where the war on terrorism will lead next.

In particular, the reliance on Afghan forces to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda troops on the ground — a centerpiece of US strategy — has been the target of increasing criticism among experts and in the US press.

The local forces are suspected of having let Osama bin Laden, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and hundreds of their followers escape from the Tora Bora region in eastern Afghanistan and from around the city of Kandahar in the south.

“Relying on proxies to capture Tora Bora rather than using our own troops may have enabled (Osama) bin Laden and most of his chief lieutenants to escape,” said James Lindsay of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Pentagon officials are facing more frequent questions on whether the Afghan forces can be trusted.

“You know, we know, over the last several weeks and months, some people have changed sides probably more than once,” acknowledged Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke.

On Tuesday, Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he wanted Afghan’s interim government to hand over top Taliban officials, including three former ministers, who have been released in Kandahar under an amnesty agreement.

The fruitless hunt for Osama has also sparked criticism, though some observers contend that Osama’s capture in itself is not that important.

“My sense is that we are making a big mistake in overpersonalizing this issue,” former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told CNN.

“The issue is much bigger than he. He, in some way, is a symbol ... He’s either dead or in hiding. His operation in Afghanistan has been massively disrupted. And yet, the phenomenon of terrorism goes on.”

Myers has expressed a similar opinion, admitting that al-Qaeda “is still a viable organization capable of terrorist acts probably worldwide.”

Acknowledging the magnitude of the threat, President George W. Bush has said he will attack it on three fronts: military, legal and financial.

Notes Lindsay, “US battlefield successes also mask how much more needs to be done in the war on terrorism.”

During the next phase of the war on terrorism the United States will prioritize actions in countries that have agreed to collaborate in the effort, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has said.

That could mean operations in countries such as the Philippines or Indonesia, and rule out activity in states considered far more dangerous, like Iraq.

But experts and diplomats say the US approach lacks the necessary vision to tackle the true complexity of terrorism.

“Washington remains tone-deaf to the growing gap between the wealthy west and the rest of the world,” Lindsay said.

For Shafeeq Ghabra, of the Kuwait Information Office in Washington, the fight against terrorism must include political and economic progress in countries where violence and hatred take root in poverty and injustice.

“We must have a regional economic development strategy that will raise standards of living for all people. For that, we need education reforms and we need fully-functioning democracies,” he said.

“For every violent extremist in the Middle East, there’s at least one entrepreneur who’s seeking a better future for his family, community, and region. These are the people who will build a prosperous future. Not those committed to terror and extremism.”

Valium: The US military may use Valium to sedate prisoners of the Al-Qaeda network and Afghanistan’s former Taliban regime when it transports them to a US naval base in Cuba, CNN reported on Wednesday.

US forces are now holding about 360 detainees in Afghanistan and on a Navy ship in the Indian Ocean. Many of them are due to be transferred shortly to the US base at Guantanamo Bay in eastern Cuba.

The prisoners are considered dangerous by their captors.—AFP/dpa