As the country mournfully marked the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we must also reflect on the current state of the "war on terror." In the current presidential campaign, there is a fundamental difference between the two candidiates over the central focus: Senator John McCain continues to call Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror, while Senator Obama has declared that the "real war on terror" is in Afghanistan, and he has even indicated he will attack bin Laden or his associates, without the permission of Pakistan if necessary.

Yet, both of these approaches fall completely short. The war against the terrorists, which should replace the term "war on terror," is a multi-faceted conflict with many fronts: ideological, financial, legal, and yes, military, and each front needs to be given equal attention. So far, the United States has focused the fight almost entirely on the military front, and as the RAND corporation has said in its recent report, "the US strategy of [military force as the primary instrument] was not successful in undermining al Qa'ida's capabilities." In fact, according to RAND, only 7 percent of terrorist groups have ended by military force.

In fact, it is quite clear from the past 6 years that a sole military approach to counterterrorism is an abysmal failure. The war in Iraq - the alleged "central front of the war on terror" - has not made the country safer. In fact, according to an American intelligence official who was quoted by the New York Times in 2006, the Iraq war "has made the overall terrorism problem worse." That official was relaying the findings of the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate.

Indeed, the Iraq war was a disastrous diversion from the war against the people who actually attacked us on September 11, 2001: the terrorists of Al Qa'ida. While the United States was bogged down in the subsequent Iraqi insurgency that started after President Bush declared "mission accomplished," Al Qa'ida regrouped and entrenched itself in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, they have linked up with the resurgent Taliban and have created havoc in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is imperative that our focus returns to Afghanistan, where it should have been all along.

Yet, what should be done about the fighters that are entrenched in the NWFP and South Waziristan? History has shown that no one - neither Alexander the Great, nor the British, nor the Soviets - has been able to conquer the "lawless" region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistani military has not had any success, either, suffering enormous losses in recent fighting with the militants. So, does this mean abandoning the military option altogether? No.

We should not be looking to occupy the NWFP and Waziristan militarily; our goal should be to flush out the terrorists from that area and deny them a safe haven there. This will not only protect the United States, but will also bring increased stability to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, which have bore the brunt of the attacks from the Taliban and Al Qa'ida. Yet, how?

Targeted military strikes seem to be an enticing option. No costly invasion of foreign lands is necessary, and we can take out militants as actionable intelligence on their whereabouts surfaces. In fact, according to recent news reports, President George W. Bush has authorized such military raids, even if it is inside Pakistani territory, and one such raid has already been conducted on September 4. Yet, as recent events have borne out, this strategy can be frought with danger.

The Pakistani government has fiercely condemned the September 4 raid and all such military activities on Pakistani soil. Pakistani Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani told Reuters, "In our bilateral discussions, no such idea has been mooted and will certainly not be accepted by Pakistan." The Pakistani government, already widely considered to be weak, is concerned about the internal repercussions of allowing foreign troops fighting on their soil, even if it is against terrorists who have shown no hesitancy to kill Pakistani civilians. In fact, the Pakistani Army has recently said that their troops have orders to open fire if foreign forces enter Pakistan, which reportedly has already happened.

Now, on one level, we should really not be concerned with the internal politics of Pakistani society when it comes to defending our country against terrorists who, if given the opportunity, would massacre as many innocent Americans they can. At the same time, however, such military strikes can prove to be counterproductive. Case in point: the American airstrike on August 22 in Afghanistan. The US military has claimed that 30-35 militants were killed, and only 5-7 civilian casualties resulted. New evidence has emerged, however, disputing that claim, and it may be that more than 90 civilians - the majority women and children - were killed by the Special Operations mission backed by American air support.

Every time innocent civilians are killed by US military operations, it can strengthen, not weaken, the Taliban and Al Qa'ida, who can use such incidents are recruitment propaganda. The district chief of Shindand, Lal Muhammad Umarzai said about the incident, "This is not fair to kill 90 people for one Mullah Sadiq [the apparent target of the raid]. If they continue like this, they will lose the people's confidence in the government and the coalition forces." And substituting Afghan or Pakistani forces for American ones, as the RAND corportation has suggested, is likely not the answer either, because they will likely be seen as "tools" of the Americans.

Herein is the major dilemma. If it seems that the military option, so far, is not achieving the objective of defeating Al Qa'ida, what are we to do against the small number of "die hard" militants who will never be convinced that their version of "jihad" is satanic in nature? They cannot be negotiated with, and it seems that military confrontation must be the only option to defeat them. That military action has to be coupled with proper and precise intelligence. Indeed, precise intelligence work should be the backbone of the effort to defeat the "fight-to the-death" militants.

Presumably, it can be argued that we are using intelligence in our fight against the terrorists. But, as the run up to the Iraq war has shown, intelligence can be manipulated, misused, or even fabricated, as Ron Suskind's new book suggests. In addition, intelligence assets upon which we rely can be terribly inaccurate. In fact, referring to the Aug 22 air strike in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has vowed to arrest the Afghan whom he claims misled US forces who conducted the raid. No, these fighter groups must be infiltrated from within and destroyed, and this means using real, living, breathing human beings who can do so.

Yet, it will not be easy to find and recruit intelligence assets who would be willing to infiltrate terrorist cells and destroy them from within. Taking on such a role involves an enormous amount of personal risk, because it is likely that - if revealed that they are indeed spies - they will be tortured and killed as collaborators. Furthermore, these intelligence assets, if successful in their mission, will likely not be safe returning to the communities from which they came. Thus, they must given support and perhaps even placed in a sort of "witness protection program." They must never be betrayed by being later prosecuted for providing "material support for terrorism" if they were doing so at our bidding.

Of course, this has to be in concert with other efforts, such as economic development, honest governance, and a full blown "spiritual offensive" against the terrorists, such as the recent Deoband Declaration. That way, the pool of potential recruits, as well as possible tacit support of the local population, can continue to dwindle to nothing. Yet, this will not stop the "die-hards," and so their cancer must be infiltrated from within and killed. A tough fight, but one that must be waged.

>> Every time innocent civilians are killed by US military operations, it can strengthen, not weaken, the Taliban and Al Qa'ida, who can use such incidents are recruitment propaganda.

This is absurd. The amount of contortion necessary in this article is frightening. The American military/policy are the criminals! It may be easy to just label Taliban fighters as terrorists, but whether they are entitled to fight or not is a completely different question. You wouldn't mind going in and killing every taleban fighter if innocents aren't harmed? But by the tone of this article, if every American soldier was given the same treatment, it would be reprehensible?

Its your countrymen that are finding their death in Afghanistan and not vice versa. It is Americans that are killing foreigners and not foreigners killing Americans. Its Americans attacking others on home soil and not vice versa. September 11 was the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.

Grow up! You government will never ever spend as much money on hospitals, governance structures and schools, as it does on military expenditure. Established American policy is the root of terrorism and not the solution. The whole world, the entire UN, is trying to tell America that it is the problem. Your "spiritual offensive" should be against America moreso than it is against the Taleban, because Americans are your countrymen. The people who need education are your countrymen. What type of people voluntarily enlist in the current dispensation? There are 120,000 voluntary troops you know.

Why is fighting the Taliban with military force wrong, Ghulam? Are the Taliban worth defending? Or is your concern with avoiding the loss of innocent lives.

I'd say, if we let them hide behing civilians, many more will suffer over the long term. Perhaps, the fault lies with Taliban fighters who hide behind civilians in a very unmanly, ghayr-namus action typical of non-Muslim guerillas who love the dunya...

>I'd say, if we let them hide behing civilians, many more will suffer over the long term. Perhaps, the fault lies with Taliban fighters who hide behind civilians in a very unmanly<

Now where have I heard that old pathetic line before? They don't care who they kill as long its as "hajis" they kill. We've read plenty and seen enough footage of the Army (blackwater scum included) murdering civilians for fun. They know they have immunity to do whatever they want, a few of the lower ranked scum might be punished to show the media how "just" discipline is while the brass goes free.
I wonder what terrorist was hiding behind 14 year Abeer Hamza when 4 American terrorists went into her home, slaughtered her family, then proceeded to gang rape her, blew her brains out and then went back to base for some beer. Those "convicted" will be eligible for payroll in 10 years. Lindsey England was out after only 15 months Thats engaging in torture of Iraqis with graphics pictures.
Once a mercenary terrorist, always a mercenary terrorist.

We are not going to get that magic man that can bring America to her senses Ghulam-
the best we can do is make sure Obama gets in office-


"As a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary--an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and we have fanned the anti- American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan. It is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act."

All politicans use rhetoric-
Obama really was against the Iraq war- and has been painted as a terrorist non-stop for saying he would dare to actually talk to Iran-

We all would wish for what should be- but we have to be realistic and see what will be if we stay silent-

More on topic of the article-
We are down to the last month now- and the undecided voters may just decide this election.
They are the put it off til the last minute folks-
they are also the low information voters- who make snap decisions at the last moment-

These last 2 debates are for them- and Obama realizes that most Americans cannot point out Paksitan on a map, nor Iran , Nor Iraq- after 5 years-
To expect joe six-pack to register where and what a Wazirisatan is- is to expect too much from a citizen who will be angry that the bars are closed when the polls are open.
(This is really true- sometimes they wander into the polls out of boredom- I work the voting polls every year, and will this year too.)

It is the liberalism of Obama that allows him to look past the '911 we will never forget' vendetta crowd that is running after the conservative McPain. Pain is all he will bring to the Muslims of the world- And it is his liberalism that lets him see the good and evil in micro and macrocosms. We've had enough of reactionaries.

Obama may not be the perfect answer for the world- but he is a great deal more than the lesser of two evils in this election.
He is the only one I have ever heard suggest we build schools and hospitals.

Dr. Hassaballa stated-

"...while Senator Obama has declared that the "real war on terror" is in Afghanistan, and he has even indicated he will attack bin Laden or his associates, without the permission of Pakistan if necessary."

I know this has alarmed Pakistan-
What he actually said is this-

"As a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary--an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and WE HAVE FANNED the anti- American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan. It is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act."

I've watched Obama for 4 years- I also watched him when he said the Palestinian people have suffered more than anyone else- and such an uproar from AIPAC erupted that he had to backtrack and rephrase it to make Israel happy-
I was disappointed that he did- but this tear in the fabric of the stranglehold of Israel on american politics and was enough for me-

Right now- you cannot get elected in America as dogcatcher (it's an expression that means the lowest political position one could aspire to) without the blessing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC)

Our spiritual offensive cannot be against America -
Liberals, and Muslims (btw- Liberals are the only ones who stand up for Muslims in America) are too sidelined right now.
That moral permission also gives us the courage and heart to defend the 'other'.
Not hating Muslims is unpatriotic and unamerican right now.

We have hearts and minds to win in America before we can use soft power elsewhere-
This economic crisis- as horrible is it is and will get- has actually been a political godsend for Obama- (that is also an unamerican statement)
I'm a Mulsim that doesn't touch a credit card- try THAT in the USA_ that is also unamerican and anti-capitialism and suspicious behavior.
I don't really think it i sapporpriate to distrub ALLAH with my politcal wishes, and have not actually prayed for Obama to win- but I pray he wins. (Metaphorically).

Peace all-

>> Why is fighting the Taliban with military force wrong, Ghulam? Are the Taliban worth defending?

They were ousted illegitemately and with very little recourse to diplomacy. If the US government spent all of its war on terror resources in Iraq building roads and hospitals, the Taliban themselves would have ousted Saddams regime and instituted a democracy. Just like they were willing to fight as US proxies against Russia.

The Taliban are no better being defended than the American military. But international law, reason and human rights definitely are. Is anyone so deluded to still think that machinery of the American government/policy can stand for any long term positive goals? Nelson Mandela, a nobel peace prize laurreate and one of the most humble and important statesman of the past hundred years was only removed from the US terror watchlist this year. I read Americans still talking about the moral pre-rogative of wars in Vietnam, Korea and proxy wars in El-salvador etc.

>> "As a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary--an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and WE HAVE FANNED the anti- American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan. It is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act."

Are you saying that a non-Muslim is being misquoted by a Muslim. Oh no! How can that be?! This must be rectified immediately. We would never do it on purpose and we will always seek to rectify our errors lol.

>>They were ousted illegitemately and with very little recourse to diplomacy.

The Taliban: they came into power illegitemately and with no recourse to diplomacy (other than "submit to the elders or we kill you and your tribe").

>>But international law, reason and human rights definitely are.

And this goes back to my point: how much obligation does the world community have to an unelected, unpopular regime which violates all the norms of international law, reason and human rights AND who came to power by force? That may be consistent with Afghan power politics, but not international (read: European) moral norms.

Thus, if they shelter terrorists, then those who live by the sword may as well perish by the sword as well. We all saw how effective diplomacy is with undemocratic and violent regimes such as the Republika Srpska: thier ability to kill is undiminished while Europeans pat themselves on the back for being above the fray and oh so civilized and international-ish.

>> And this goes back to my point: how much obligation does the world community have to an unelected, unpopular regime which violates all the norms of international law, reason and human rights AND who came to power by force? That may be consistent with Afghan power politics, but not international (read: European) moral norms. <<

This is very poor from OmarG. When it suits your purpose you become a lakeer ka fakeer (by the book) to identify the Taliban as illegitimate and when it suits your purpose, you don't mind sending prisoners off to "terrorism-sponsors" like Syria to do your dirty work and torture them on your behalf.

The Taliban are the best thing that happened to Afghanistan after the fall of the Russians and the ensuing civil war. They managed to occupy 90% of the country with virtually no fighting. Rid the place of drugs and brought peace to a region as only they could. Now it was up to the foreign powers and NGOs to help them feed the people and educate them. If these pathetic foreign powers really cared about the Afghan people and not their own selfish agendas that is!

A golden opportunity was lost, having a non-corrupt regime in place. Instead, what we got was excuses, "oh these people oppress women" "oh they are fundos" "oh they are not democratically elected" "oh this oh that". Instead of a carrot approach, the world chose to use a sick with the Taliban. And now what do you have to show for it??? Are the poor Afghan people any better off???

And that dumbass McCain is on the air bemoaning leaving Afghanistan alone after the fall of the Russians as a big mistake. Dumbass, that was one of the rare rare American Foreign Policy coups of the post WW2!!! To provide help with nothing asked in return and leave once the help was no longer needed. What a moron. The mistake was to destabilize the country after the Taliban had brought some stability and set it back 20 years again.

>>managed to occupy 90% of the country with virtually no fighting.

1st Battle of Mazar-e Sharif; forced out by Uzbeks; 2nd Battle of Mazar-e Sharif; Battle of Taloqan; numerous battles in the Shi'ite Hazarajat; major battles in Farah province before finally taking Herat. They only moved eaily through the 40% of Afghanistan that were Pashtun-majority. Most of that came after thier early hard-won lessons when they suffered terrible losses when they fought other Pashtun warlords. After that, they simply co-opted them by letting them keep thier militias, but grow beards and profess loyalty to the Shura. This bit them in the behind when the US fought them whereupon the Pashtun warlords, rose up and took back thier fiefdoms even including the Taliban capital of Kandahar.

The Taliban acted and continue to act as the muscle for the druglords, securing thier routes into Iran. They siphoned profits before the 2001 banning of opium (after years of UN begging) which magically coincided with a bumper crop and an oversupply which cut deeply into thier profits.

Nothing in Afghanistan is as simple as you make it out to be.

>> They managed to occupy 90% of the country with virtually no fighting.

There was alot of very fierce fighting.

>> The Taliban: they came into power illegitemately and with no recourse to diplomacy (other than "submit to the elders or we kill you and your tribe").

The rise of the Taliban is itself a popular revolution. You're portraying the student uprising crudely and ignoring that they did actually quell tribal violence and tribal backwardness. They implemented a substantial and operative government during their rule. The result of the Taliban revolution was alot of positive change.

>> how much obligation does the world community have to an unelected, unpopular regime which violates all the norms of international law, reason and human rights AND who came to power by force?

With all due respect to the very positive crititcisms, the American regime of the past 8 years has been far more destructive to all of those things than the Taliban could have ever hoped to be. So its a bit rich to talk about the "world community", when the only aims that are being satisfied are of American foreign policy.

>> The Taliban acted and continue to act as the muscle for the druglords, securing thier routes into Iran. They siphoned profits before the 2001 banning of opium..

So is the United States Military for its backers, yet little or not condemnation there. I fail to see how you can be so critical of a local force than you can be of the occupier?

"The result of the Taliban revolution was alot of positive change"

What positive change Ghulam?

I'm not attacking you, or doubting your word-
But a society is judged by how it treats its weakest memeber, and the Afghani ladies I've spoken with- have alot of complaints about their homeleand and the Taliban rule.

You're speaking with 2 americans who have embraced Islam here-
we're not automatically ideologically opposed to everything Islamic, as many are.

I am certainly very vocal about my opposition to my own governments intervention in many instances- to the point of being called unamerican by my own countrypeople.

But I don't automatically support all muslims actions everywhere either.

What is that positive change?
It should be built upon.

Ghulam, I served in Afghanistan so I can strenously challenge those assertions. A proper government must provide its citizens with security, economic development, political development and cultural development. THe Taliban only partially succeeded with security and were spectacular failures in the other 3 areas.

Spokesman for the Taliban claimed they would reopen girls schools and permit limited female participation in the work force once security improved. Apparently, they themselves did not believe security improved much between 1996 and 2001 since they not only did not open them, but today continue to bomb them and assassinate female teachers.

Politically, they tried to run a whole nation of 25 million the same way one would run a Pashtun village or a Pakistani madrasah, neither of which are feasible nor scalable models of governance.

Economically: did they even have an economic policy or model at all?? Culturally: is supressing minority languages and the arts, destroying the Kabul museum and monuments all over (the non-Pashtun parts) Afghanistan count as cultural development??

Local force vs. Occupier: how local is a force whhich counted large numbers of Arabs, Pakistanis and Central Asians and had to conscript fighters from Pashtun villages? The Taliban faced numerous uprisings even around Kandahar from elders tired of sending off thier fighting age men to the Taliban's meat grinder. And, they would never have existed were it not for the Pakistani ISI. Local, indeed...

I had to giggle a little to myself when Ghulam called tha Taleban a popular uprising.
Last time I checked, the Taleban were unpopoular even IN Afghanistan. And of all the Afghanis I know, I can say without a doubt that none had a positive word to say about them.

I didn't know you were a serviceman in Afghanistan OmarG-
it explains your concise information packed posts.
I seem to remember you stating you were in the Navy?
Thanks for the inside POV.

>> I didn't know you were a serviceman in Afghanistan OmarG-
it explains your concise information packed posts.<<

Yeah, I heard the exact same information from various Rumsfield interviews over the years. 'packed' alright, or perhaps one should say 'packaged'.......h hah aha hahhaaah ah ahaaha haaaa.

I may not agree with the wars fought Hajibaba- but I have lost too many family members to laugh at a soldier.
Serving in the military is an honorable profession- I cannot imagine taking on that responsibility-
I cannot mock what I have not experienced- I volunteered a few years at Disabled American Veterans, vietnamera vets- and, as a confirmed pacifist and peacnik- I learned to have a great respect for many of the noble hearts beating out of those mangled chests.

Being a soldier, as a woman- is never a decision I had to face- and I don't know how I would react.

So I cannot laugh at people who have faced that decision.
We would not be Muslims- if our Prophet(saw) did not decide to fight.

>> I may not agree with the wars fought Hajibaba- but I have lost too many family members to laugh at a soldier.<<

Well chief. I dono what to say. Everyone should be proud of their nation's fighting men, and why not the Americans. But one wonders about the American fighting men (or shall we say women, grrr). Are they fighting for America or are they fighting for college tuition!!!!! Most of the ground level troops in the American military today are not "whitey idealists" like yourself, but poor blacks, mexicans and white trash, basically kids with no future or status in the American Society. These kids are not here for America, they are here for the vast benefits that being in the military affords them. With dead-end futures, its worth the gamble of losing one's life or limb, the financial rewards make it worth it. Similar to many of the jihadis in the Arab World who have no future, so mindless jihad seems a better option than a life of poverty at the bottom of the harsh Arab Society.

Good point Hajibaba-
That is why we have to work doubly hard to make America a place our kids can feel they have more options to an education than fighting for Uncle Sam.
Some parts of Obama's proposals address this admirably.
It is always this way in American wars- the poor do the fighting and the wealthier lucky go to college.

Well. A lot of the problems of American military abuses stem from their screwed up tax and monetary system. Firstly, they should have some sort of a draft system, whereby people are drafted from lots cast instead of "hiring mercenaries". The draftees should get some fixed pay and that is it. Being drafted should be a 'punishment from hell' to be born by the victim for the freedoms all cherish. Not some kind of economic lottery as it is now.

Secondly, all war costs should be taxed from the people's personal income. So if you want to spend $100 billion fighting some dictator in backwater Arabia, then say a 5% war tax should be levied for the year on everyone's income. People will take great interest in seeing the war dispensed with when their wallet is getting emptied. What we have instead is debt-based financing that has no effect on the average American and as a result you can see their interest in standing up against foreign wars. ZERO.

The most scandalous manifestation of which came in the re-election of Bush, it was the day that I lost all faith in America. I remember to this day how my face went blue, or was it green, I don't remember the exact color now, but when I heard the results of the 04 election is the day I lost all respect for the American people. How could people be so apathetic to such shame-faced war mongering and evil behavior.

Until these fundamental problems are fixed, whoever is in Washington, will find some pretext to wage foreign wars as a solution to impending internal financial and economic woes or re-election or personal gain.

Yes, Hajibaba, some sort of draft system.
It worked so well for the Vietnam war.

"I lost all faith in America.
the day I lost all respect for the American people."

Hajibaba- does that mean there existed a time when you had both faith in America and respect for the American people?

There is far-fetched, and further fetched.
This is the furthest fetched assertion by you so far.

I sure hope you vote this time.