(This article the first time was published in the Turkish section of  the PSK Bulletin, after the beginning of the Afgan War) 

With the commencement of air bombardments against Afghanistan on 07.10.2001, a new phase was begun in the “US War Against Terror”. As always the “Old England” is participating along side the “New England”. Many other countries are also supporting the war - either forcibly or willingly. They were compelled to decide between the USA or the terrorists, especially following heavy threats from Bush.

Sides for and against the USA were quickly established. From the very first day on an intensive propaganda war has been waged. The legitimacy and the ethics of the war have been discussed all over the world, including in the USA. But whatever the real intentions of the parties, and whether or not the war is justified, a process began to take its irreversible effect, triggered by the attacks from September 11th.

A question being asked by some is how will the war proceed?

As in the Gulf War, the USA were content just with air attacks, using fighter jets and long-range missiles. Any use of ground troops concerned only limited operations. It appears as if the USA are alert to the dreadful experience of the English and Russians in ground wars in Afghanistan, and therefore are not considering any large-scale military operation on the ground. Following the Vietnam War, the USA have avoided high-risk ground wars and have instead tried to keep their losses as low as possible by means of their superior weapons systems.

But it is not possible to bring Afghanistan to submission just through air attacks. Afghanistan is neither Iraq nor Yugoslavia. It is a poor and devastated country which has nothing to lose. The bombs being dropped are more costly than the targets they are destroying! Neither Osama bin Laden nor Mullah Omar can be apprehended in this way. If the intention is to capture both of these and to topple the Taliban, then a ground war is inevitable.

It appears as if the USA might wage a ground war through the anti-Pashtun Afghan opposition, the “Northern Alliance”. At the same time they are trying to get Pashtun commanders and tribal heads onto their side, something which, in my opinion, they are achieving.

It is certainly true that the Afghans are good warriors. But the values which play a primary role for them are those such as religion, denomination and ethnic difference rather than national values. They can therefore be easily divided and are able to rapidly change sides. There are also clear differences between the current situation and that during the time of the war against the Soviets. They then had help, along side support from the US and European states, from many Islamic states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. That meant lots of money, good weapons and political and moral solidarity. Under such conditions anyone would be successful.

I therefore consider the legendary Afghan heroism to be exaggerated. Today everything is different. The Mullah regime is isolated. Neighbouring Iran is opposed to the Taliban and even friendly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot help the regime. The impoverished and war weary population, themselves silenced by the Taliban-regime, have neither the bread nor the ammunition for war. Any war waged on “The power of faith” can not last long. Furthermore, the Afghan people are fed up with the so-called paradise which the Taliban apparently established in the name of Islam, and would welcome the toppling of the regime.

For these reasons there will be no long-term, successful resistance in Afghanistan as there was against the Russians. It is highly probable that, under pressure from the USA and her allies, a government of national unity will be established. Even if Osama bin Laden and his fanatics flee into the mountains and attempt to wage a guerrilla war from there, this would not be successful in the long term because of their isolation.

Any change in Russian and Chinese policies could certainly lead to a shift in power relations in Afghanistan. But current international relations and the world situation do not give rise to any prospects of such changes. There is of course the possibility of a popular rising or general strike against Musharraf in Pakistan by opponents to current policies. Such a development might prolong the war but would not influence its outcome. In such a case Pakistan itself would become a target of the war and would share the same fate as Afghanistan.

What effects, reactions and disruptions would the war cause in the Islamic world, as well as in the rest of the world, if it widened in scope because of dangerous policies by Israel or through the broadening of US targets? Would it have a major effect? Of course there would be effects, but their extent and consequences can not be predicted.

Some consider the war against Afghanistan to be a crusade against the Islamic world, under the leadership of the USA. Such a theory is put forward above all by Islamists. By doing this they attempt to awaken Muslim emotions and to obtain their support. A section of the Left have a similar attitude, even if for different reasons. The truth, however, looks different.

Future and past US policies are no secret, even to us. They follow the interests of imperialism and capitalism and even have the same aims today in establishing a new world order. The USA and Europe are not so stupid as to begin a war with the entire Islamic world, a so-called war of “civilisations” or religions. Such a policy would mean isolating themselves and withdrawing from a large section of the world, therefore going against their own interests.

The USA and Europe are not currently fighting against the Islamic world but rather against fanatics and anachronistic forces - even if these are their own creations - who cannot keep pace with globalisation or the changes taking place in the world. They are not just a serious threat to the US and Europe but also to the billions of Muslims.

It is true that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are the work of the USA, just like the “Grey Wolves” and the “Mujahadeen” who were involved in the massacres of Sivas and Maras. Even if they are against the policies of the USA, they offer nothing other than wickedness to humanity and to their own people. Our task is not to be saddened by their fate. On the contrary, it is in the interests of all Islamic people to be rid of such outmoded, reactionary diseases. This is essential in achieving reform and modernisation.

To represent the problem as a conflict between Christians and Muslims and to take sides with Osama and the Taliban is the worst attitude possible and does not help Muslims at all. That political Islamists assess the situation as such is understandable considering their way of thinking. They only reluctantly criticise the Taliban and want in reality to impose the same structure on the whole world. But this would be a hopeless venture. Radical Islam is the wrong response to the times and to the course of the world, and has no chance of succeeding.

A section of fanatics from the Christian world simplify things by having a stupid and erroneous view of the day for which they accuse of terrorism the entire Islamic world, everyone from the Middle East and even all foreigners. If the conflict continues to be portrayed in this way, it will be accompanied by errors on both sides and degenerate into a fight between Christians and Muslims. This will bring about chaos and tragedy for humanity.

What Islamic countries really need is not conflict with the Christian world and other countries, but rather reforms. In other words, bringing themselves to account.

Islamic societies have certainly changed over the course of the centuries. Not all Islamic countries are like Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia. But the changes have not been far reaching and not up-to-date. Reform and restoration, which the Christian world experienced 400-500 years ago, have not yet taken place within Islam. If the Islamic world wish to liberate themselves from their economic, cultural and academic backwardness and move into the modern day, then they need to initiate immediate reforms. This can not happen by relying just on Sharia. They must find ways of newly interpreting Islam and for the further development of the arts and sciences, as well as having a fundamental renaissance in all spheres of life.

This cannot be achieved by the Mullahs in Iran and Afghanistan who live in the dark ages, nor by dogmatic despots such as the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia. This can only be done by advanced and modern political leaders, academics and artists as well as enlightened religious leaders.

Such a development would provide the world’s billions of Muslims with bread, books and a modern and dignified life instead of self-isolation and hostility towards others.

In this age of globalisation, the Left and the socialist movement have to stand up for their own values such as being for a free, democratic and just world, and against capitalism and imperialism, and to offer their own proposals for resolving existing problems and not to hide behind radical Islam.

From the post Cold War terror attacks against the USA, especially the shocking strike of September 11th, the US and Europe, those wealthy and prosperous societies, also have to learn their lessons and make changes.

They have to understand that they can no longer rely on their “arms supremacy” and exploitation. They must realise that with their capitalist egoism, their ignorance and ruthlessness towards the problems of the world, they can no longer live in safety on their island of paradise.

Being powerful gives nobody the right to ignore the concerns of others or to treat them badly. Every mistake and every injustice has its price. They not only produce the Osamas, Talibans, Grey Wolves and other kinds of „Mujahadeens“, but also biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. They have been producing such people and weapons for decades. In such a world nobody will find the peace they long for.

There’s a saying, “One disaster is better than a thousand pieces of advice”.

Until recently the West felt powerful, invincible and secure. It was ostentatious with its wealth, which had in part been acquired at the cost of the world’s poor. The West now has to rethink, commit itself to the conflicts and problems in the world and to search for solutions. These problems are also theirs.

I am of the opinion that humanity adopted a new course following the end of the Cold War, and will keep to it even if there are some disruptions. The first signs of this new course in the international area, was that a stop was made to Saddam and a safe zone established by a UN Resolution for Kurds in southern Kurdistan. Then followed the military strikes against the tyranny of Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo. Such new wars against a growing terrorism which threatens the whole world will continue, even if other plans and intentions might also be pursued, strengthening international cooperation in collectively resolving problems.

Of course I can’t claim that everything will follow this reasoning. The USA have already increased weapons production. But it is precisely now that international conflicts should be taken in hand and efforts intensified for a just world, otherwise all the work and effort would have been for nothing and the door opened for even greater wickedness.

A requirement for permanent peace in the Middle East is not only a just solution to the Palestinian conflict, but also to the Kurdish question. A clear stance must be made against dictators and racist and repressive regimes who only want to resolve conflicts through violence.

The international community must increase their collective efforts in the worldwide campaign against hunger, sickness, ignorance and flight. Our world possesses the remedies. Just a small part of that which is spent on armaments would contribute to overcoming this predicament.

If humanity can not manage this at this stage of their development, then it means that they deserve this sorrowful life which would then degenerate into even greater chaos. This would be a shame for humanity which has achieved such a remarkable stage of scientific and technological development.