Down with short-termism
Stefan Kornelius Deutsche Presse-Agentur Washington
The murder of Abdul Haq, the Afghan opposition and Pashtun leader, was a painful reminder to the world that eliminating the Taliban regime will not be done quickly.
Haq was a great hope, arguably the key figure in the anti- Taliban opposition. Essentially, his mission was to persuade tribal leaders to set up an internal Afghan coalition to disempower the Taliban.
His death in Afghanistan shows how quickly the balance of power can be shifted in the conflict. Gen. Massoud's death has been followed by that of Abdul Haq. The Taliban are striking with cold precision to avert their fate.
That was precisely what U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meant when he said, with foresight, how difficult it would be to find Osama bin Laden. But as a defence secretary should be talking about successes, not difficulties, he later relativised what he had said, adding that it was not just bin Laden but the Taliban and their entire terrorist environment.
That is all now commonplace, having been repeated a thousand times since Sept. 11. No, there will be no swift success. It may take years. Bin Laden may never be caught. But Afghanistan still needs a new system.
Even so, Western public opinion is showing growing impatience with the United States. Every report of a setback is seen as evidence that the entire U.S. strategy is ineffective.
Critics are quick to say how the war should not be waged. They say none but military targets must be hit and the fighting must end when Ramadhan begins in mid-November (although that did not stop Egypt and Syria from fighting the Yom Kippur War during the Muslim month of fasting).
They say that war can breed yet more terror and that the West's economic system and alliance policy in the Arab world is to blame for injustice.
On some points they are right, but they nonetheless fail to come up with a convincing answer to the question how to deal with the immediate, pressing problem of a terrorist threat emanating from the Taliban's surroundings.
Their line of argument is short-termist because it appears to work on the assumption that the chaos wrought in 20 years of war might be changed overnight into a system of order.
It is also too general in that it urges swift solutions to global problems while failing to mention that progress will initially only be measurable on a small scale.
Above all, however, this criticism is dishonest because it fails to offer an alternative. In murdering Abdul Haq the Taliiban have demonstrated yet again what political and military categories guide their thinking.
Honesty in this conflict must include not keeping silent about the problems of warfare and not losing sight of the objective.