A war without rules?

AMERICA'S MILITARY `CAMPAIGN' against international terror seems to have acquired the proportions of a war without rules on the rugged terrain of Afghanistan. In a political sense, the battle lines themselves are overshadowed by controversies. In a clear escalation, the U.S. has begun to deploy hundreds of ground troops on the outskirts of Kandahar - presumptively, the fall- back bastion of the suspected terror twins, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organisation. The mandate of the U.S. Marines has been variously outlined. However, the central theme pertains to their training for dexterous operations that might require high skills for non-conventional manoeuvres as also the more orthodox combat duties. The message being conveyed by Washington is that the U.S. will now try every trick in the book and beyond it to carry forward what may turn out to be the ultimate push in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his chief Taliban host, Mullah Omar. In America's apparent reckoning, the two are thought to have made the Kandahar region their final sanctuary in the war which the U.S. launched on October 7 with a massive show of cruise missile attacks and aerial bombardment against the Taliban's military and other infrastructure facilities. Despite the incremental military steps that the U.S. has taken since then, the latest battle lines evoke a poignant dilemma. There is no doubt that the U.S., on one side, and the Taliban as also Osama's Al-Qaeda, on the other side, regard each other as the sworn enemy. What complicates their standoff, though, is the obvious plight of the ordinary Afghans. It is this aspect that blurs the `moral' dividing line that certainly exists between the U.S. and Britain as the allies-in-combat, in one formation, and the Taliban- Osama axis.

From the beginning of this war, the U.S. has not been found wanting in its articulation of concerns about the well-being of innocent Afghan civilians. However, there is little encouraging evidence to show that either the United Nations or the U.S. itself has been able to ameliorate the obvious hardships of the ordinary Afghans in a meaningful manner. If this is inevitable in a war without precedent against terrorism, the sheer disorder that seems to define the amateurish conduct of the `campaign' itself raises many disconcerting questions. The motley anti- Taliban group, known as the Northern Alliance, is America's acknowledged proxy or ally (depending on one's perspective). Yet, shockingly messy is the manner in which the Northern Alliance has sought to quell a major riot by the Taliban's non-Afghan comrades after they were taken prisoner during the battles for Kunduz and Mazar-e-Sharif. This demonstrates a failure by the U.S. to ensure that the recognised norms of war are adhered to by those acting under its auspices.

On a higher plane of war aims, the U.S. has not so far produced the fine judicial-grade evidence that the larger international community would like to see regarding Osama's proven complicity in the terrorist crimes against humanity that occurred on American soil on September 11. However, this does not negate the other reality that Osama himself may have in some ways taken credit for the tragic events on that day. Discernible beyond these niceties are two disturbing aspects of the `war' on terror. First, the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, has yet to outline clearly a blueprint of political-diplomatic goals that determine his disproportionate use of force in Afghanistan at this time. Second, he seems to be in a hurry to enlarge the definition of terrorism, solely from a U.S. perspective, without leaving the task to a forum like the United Nations.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Non-enforceable duties