FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

First Strike

 

Sunday’s first round of attacks against Afghanistan was followed by the obligatory wave of backslapping and press spin. Officials from the U.S. and U.K. proclaimed major blows to the Taliban’s offensive and defensive capabilities and insisted the air raids had caused few if any civilian casualties. They emphasized that humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicine was being air-dropped even as the bombs fell; at a Sunday press conference defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld skirted questions concerning the scope and impact of these deliveries at a time when the Taliban still controlled the areas in which aid supplies were most needed. Meanwhile the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance (aka the United Front), a minority force based in the Panjshir Valley that controls roughly 5 percent of the northern territories, launched strikes of its own. Desertion and defection were said to be the rule of the day among Taliban forces. All in all it was made to sound as though the Taliban would collapse in a matter of days.

We shall see. The Taliban’s command and control apparatus is too diffuse and low-tech for the U.S. to deal decisive blows from the air; the real crux is what happens on the ground, and at present the U.S. still seems to want the Northern Alliance to fight its battles there. Toward that end, as Patrick Cockburn reported on Sunday, U.S.-paid crews are laboring mightily to construct an airstrip in the Panjshir Valley town of Golbahar to lift supplies to Alliance forces. This is a strategically critical move in view of the fact that winter weather will soon preclude using ground supply lines to reinforce the rebels.

The Northern Alliance has considerable tactical advantages in the steady stream of military supplies comings its way (not only from the Americans but Russia and Iran) and its control of a key north-south ground route through Afghanistan, but the fact remains that they are a force of 10,000 arrayed against Taliban troops numbered at 40,000 or so. Any hopes of a quick toppling of the Taliban government depend less on the actions of the Northern Alliance than on the loyalty and staying power of Taliban fighters. If they are in as much disarray as U.S. propaganda suggests, the current government may indeed collapse before long. But that may not spell the end of U.S. military engagement, because the fall of the Pushtun-dominated Taliban would create a political vacuum there is no easy way to resolve. The Northern Alliance consists mainly of minority Shia Muslim tribes; they cannot hope to head a new government. And there is no assurance that efforts at forging a Pushtun coalition government led by the 86-year-old former king would proceed smoothly. Laying the Taliban low might only be the precursor to a long and bloody civil war.

Or suppose the U.S. succeeds in vanquishing the Taliban fairly quickly and installing, at least for the near term, an Afghan government more to its liking. In either case, the American decision to go after the Taliban as a first resort rather than bin Laden specifically is a telling one. It suggests a tilt toward the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz position that favors more hot war rather than less, and sooner rather than later. Consider: If the U.S. prevails at little immediate cost versus the Taliban, it will bolster calls for carrying the war to other states that “harbor terrorists.” Conversely, if the Taliban proves capable of staying and fighting for a long period, the ensuing conflict will mean more civilian casualties in Afghanistan and inflame public sentiments in other countries of the region, which likewise will augur for further U.S. military engagements on other fronts.

Either scenario would be very much to the liking of Osama bin Laden, whose wish all along has been to involve the United States in as broad a war as possible. On Sunday bin Laden proved himself as masterful at politics as he is reputed to be in matters of coordinating terror. In a videotaped statement broadcast throughout the Muslim world and on U.S. television, he drew an express connection between his cause and the Palestinian question. “America will never taste security and safety,” he pronounced, “unless we feel security and safety in our lands and in Palestine.” Thus he struck at the U.S. where its vaunted international coalition is weakest: with respect to its abiding support of Israel, whose impulse since September 11 has been to press its advantage against the Palestinians wherever possible.

Back to Bosnia?

As the administration weighs its options for military action outside Afghanistan, Iraq remains the presumptive favorite among secondary targets in Pentagon planning circles. But there’s a fresh entrant shooting up the charts. Sunday’s Los Angeles Times carried a long analysis feature asserting that Bosnia may be the “common cradle” of future terrorist actions against Europe and America. The story points to Bosnia as the source of a foiled terror attack on the Los Angeles International Airport during last year’s millennium celebrations, as well as a more recent plot to bomb the U.S. embassy in Paris. The Times reporters further claim that al-Qaida operatives have been fleeing Afghanistan for Bosnia en masse since the September 11 attacks, and that numerous among them carry Bosnian passports to deflect the suspicion of international intelligence agencies.

The prospect of hitting Bosnia is bound to appeal to those elements of the Bush administration most obsessed with seeming tough and pro-active. A strike there carries two potential advantages: It would likely cause little tumult in U.S. public opinion, which is already conditioned to U.S./U.N. military actions there, and it figures to engender fewer immediate complications among precariously pro-U.S. Arab regimes in the Middle East.

More Anthrax in Florida: Inquiring Minds Want to Know

One news item lost in the hubbub of Monday’s Afghan strike coverage was the CDC’s confirmation of a second case of anthrax in Florida. Like the first victim, the second man diagnosed is an employee of the Sun tabloid newspaper in Boca Raton. The Sun is based in a building that likewise serves as home to American Media Inc.’s other tabloids, the Globe and the National Enquirer; American Media reported that it voluntarily evacuated the building on Sunday evening.

The anthrax strain in question is a rare airborne variant that is not communicable person-to-person and has not been seen in the United States since the mid-1970s. After the first confirmed case late last week, some cable TV reports speculated that the victim, a 63-year-old man named Bob Stevens who worked as photo editor at the Sun, might have ingested the anthrax bacterium by inhaling fumes from animal bone meal he was using as fertilizer in his home garden. No word yet on official speculation as to the cause of this second case. CP

Steve Perry writes frequently for CounterPunch and is a contributor to the excellent cursor.org website, which offers incisive coverage of the current crisis. He lives in Minneapolis, MN.

More articles by:

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail