Key U.S. target is terror, not Taliban

Anatoly Usikov, Doctor of History, Valery Yaremenko, Candidate of Science (History), Russian Information Agency Novosti, Moscow

Afghanistan has been one of the world's wonders for nearly two centuries now. That country is developing in its own way and living by inimitable laws. All attempts at forceful establishment of a different state regime failed there, as proved by the results of three Anglo-Afghan wars (1838-1842, 1878-1880 and 1919) and the Soviet opportunistic operation in 1979-1989.

When the U.S. and its closest allies launched Operation Enduring Freedom on Oct. 7, they actually undertook yet another attempt to change the socio-political status of Afghanistan. The Americans knew that Afghanistan is not Iraq, let alone Yugoslavia.

It only has mountains, deep caves and impenetrable deserts. But the Americans did not want to and could not create an operational group of hundreds of thousands of troops. The situation there is completely different from 10 years ago, when Saudi Arabia put its territory at the disposal of multinational forces.

Today such powerful land group cannot be deployed at the borders of Afghanistan owing to the specific features of the operation and the reaction of the Muslim world to it. And Washington had to admit that it would not succeed without Moscow.

And so it started a highly complex game of patience. Its essence is that the main strike on land will be delivered by the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which Russia has long been supplying with weapons, as Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov recently admitted.

Acting in line with a confidential agreement with the U.S., the Kremlin "asked" the legitimate president, Rabbani, to order the 20,000-strong group of forces to advance to Kabul. U.S. aviation promised air support in case of need. The probability of success will be enhanced by the massive Russian deliveries of weapons and hardware from the depots of the 201st Russian Motorized Division deployed in Tajikistan (the deal is worth US$45 million).

Russia also agreed to the use of airfields in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan by the Americans and their allies. International terrorism does not recognize national borders.

The main thing in the struggle against it is not to rout the Taliban or liquidate bin Laden. These will be nothing more than consolation prizes. The real struggle and the real victory should be scored in a completely different sphere.

International terrorism is not so much a military, as an ideological, social and moral force. Terror is not the means but the goal of the daily operation of terrorist organizations. It is a way of life and death and the meaning of life.

Consequently, the war against it should be adequate, that is, psychological, ideological and economic. The main goal of such war should be the liquidation of conditions that engender terrorism. And these conditions are inherent in the current global socio-political system. But if we assume that terrorism is the natural historical offspring of modern civilization, we will have to admit that it cannot be defeated.

The ultimate goal of the anti-Taliban operation will be the liquidation of the means and forces of terrorists and the creation of conditions under which the UN would help to consolidate the divided Afghan communities and ethnic groups, in the joint effort to restore all requisite state institutions and an acceptable social atmosphere.

The U.S. and its allies are pondering the possibility of deploying an international peacekeeping force made up of troops from only Muslim countries in Kabul. Its main tasks would be to preclude the seizing of power by any extremist movement and to create conditions for a provisional coalition government.

The world has indeed suffered from elements of political terrorism (Britain, Spain, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Iraq, Indonesia and Israel), but it was not so expressly anti-state and international, or so ruthless and sanguine as now.