EDITORIAL: Terrorism's spread
It's time to cut away the root causes of brutal acts.
Terrible suicide terrorist attacks on Thursday in Turkey targeted the British consulate general and a Britain-based bank in Istanbul. The attacks, which appeared to be timed to coincide with a meeting of the leaders of the United States and Britain in London, killed about 30 people, including the British consul general, and injured many others. On Nov. 15, two Jewish synagogues were bombed in Istanbul.
Turkey is not the only victim of terrorists. Two weeks ago, a residential area for foreigners in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh was attacked. Terrorism is undoubtedly spreading from Iraq to surrounding countries.
It is difficult to anticipate attacks or contain them through military might alone. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups take advantage of this unpredictability to spread fear throughout the world and disturb the peace and order. No matter what the political and religious motives these killers may have, such indiscriminate murder is totally unacceptable.
Following the latest attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush reiterated that the United States and Britain are determined to win the battle against terrorism. He is right to say that we must win the war against terrorism-the question is how.
When the U.S.-British alliance was about to invade Iraq, we repeatedly pointed out that by beginning to fight without justifiable cause, instead of containing terrorism the war would spread it. Unfortunately, the situation is unfolding just as we had feared it would. If the United States and Britain seriously want to battle terrorists, they should start by correcting their distorted Iraq strategy.
The Bush administration, likely recognizing that it could not do much about deteriorating public safety and Iraqi reconstruction, said on Nov. 15 it would change its occupation policy. Washington now targets June 2004 as the date by which it will set up an interim Iraqi government and dissolve the occupation authority. A joint declaration with British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the allies would welcome United Nations involvement in establishing Iraqi sovereignty.
The plan follows the basic strategy of rebuilding Afghanistan, established after the Taliban regime in the country was overthrown following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and is closer to what Germany and France had been proposing all along.
However, in a news conference following their summit, the two leaders didn't review the half year's occupation of Iraq had hit an impasse, and they exhibited little enthusiasm for re-establishing a cooperative relationship with European and Arab nations.
Bush probably doesn't want to admit any strategic failures as he prepares for next year's presidential election.Nevertheless, it was the United States that misjudged the difficulties of managing postwar Iraq, and that provided an excuse for a holy war to remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and other extremists in Iraq and elsewhere.
There are signs that Taliban forces are recovering in Afghanistan and that public safety is being undermined as that long-suffering country is overshadowed by events in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Palestinian issue is deadlocked and the roots of terrorism continue to spread.
We should not be intimidated by terrorists. However, the long battle with terrorism cannot be won simply by cracking down on such people. Skillful strategies are required to cut off the root causes that feed terrorism politically, economically and socially.
--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 22(IHT/Asahi: November 24,2003) (11/24)
=========================================================
Nov. 23, 2003. 01:00 AM
Look at Afghanistan ... and fear for Iraq
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NEW YORK TIMES
Here's a foreign affairs quiz.
1. In the two years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production has:
a) Virtually been eliminated by Hamid Karzai's government and American forces.
b) Declined 30 per cent, but eradication is not expected until 2008.
c) Soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin.
2. In Paktika and Zabul, two religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school:
a) Has quintupled, with most girls finishing at least Grade 3.
b) Has risen 40 per cent, although few girls go to school.
c) Has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all schools there.
The correct answer to both questions, alas, is (c).
With the White House finally acknowledging that the challenge in Iraq runs deeper than gloomy journalism, the talk of what to do next is sounding rather like Afghanistan.
And that's alarming, because we have flubbed the peace in Afghanistan even more egregiously than in Iraq.
"There is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists," writes Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in a grim new report on Afghanistan.
I strongly supported President Bush's war in Afghanistan, and I was there in Kabul and saw firsthand the excitement and relief of ordinary Afghans, who were immensely grateful to the U.S. for freeing them (a crucial distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, to anyone who covered both wars, is that you never saw the same adulation among Iraqis).
Bush oversaw a smart war in Afghanistan, and two years ago the crisp mountain air there pullulated with hope — along with pleas for more security.
One day back then, when I was thinking of driving to the southeast, six Afghans arrived from there — minus their noses.
Taliban guerrillas had stopped their vehicle at gunpoint and chopped off the men's noses because they had trimmed their beards.
I stroked my chin, admired my own proboscis and decided not to drive on that road.
Every foreign and local official said then that Afghanistan desperately needed security on roads like that one.
But the Pentagon made the same misjudgment about Afghanistan that it did about Iraq: It fatally underestimated the importance of ensuring security. The big winner was the Taliban, which is now mounting a resurgence.
"Things are definitely deteriorating on the security front," notes Paul Barker, the Afghan country director for CARE International.
Twelve aid workers have been killed in the last year and dozens injured. A year ago, there was, on average, one attack on aid workers per month; now, such attacks average one per day.
In at least three districts in the southeast, there is no central government representation and the Taliban has de facto control. In Paktika and Zabul, most schools have closed and the conservative madrassas are regaining strength.
"We've operated in Afghanistan for about 15 years," says Nancy Lindborg of the Mercy Corps aid group, "and we've never had the insecurity that we have now."
She notes that the Taliban used to accept aid agencies (grudgingly) but has turned decisively against all foreigners.
"Separate yourself from Jews and the Christian community," a recent open letter from the Taliban warned.
It ordered Afghans to avoid music, funerals for aid workers and "un-Islamic education" — or face a "bad result."
The opium boom is one indication of the downward spiral. The Taliban banned opium production in 2000, so the 2001 crop was only 185 tonnes. The U.N. estimates that this year's crop was 3,600 tonnes, the second-largest in Afghan history.
The crop is worth twice the Afghan government's annual budget, and much of the profit will support warlords and the Taliban.
An analyst in the U.S. intelligence community says Afghanistan now accounts for 75 per cent of the poppies grown for narcotics worldwide.
"The issue is not a high priority for the Bush administration," says the analyst, who seeks to direct more attention to the way narco-trafficking is destabilizing the region.
If Afghanistan is a White House model for Iraq, heaven help us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas D. Kristof is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
