Subject: British journalist on Northern Alliance

October 3, 2001

The Independent (London)

Robert Fisk: Just who are our allies in Afghanistan?

'The Alliance have not murdered 7,000 innocent civilians in the US. They

have done their massacres on their home turf'

03 October 2001

"America's New War," is what they call it on CNN. And of course, as usual,

they've got it wrong. Because in our desire to "bring to justice" - let's

remember those words in the coming days - the vicious men who planned the

crimes against humanity in New York and Washington last month, we're hiring

some well-known rapists and murderers to work for us.

Yes, it's an old war, a dreary routine that we've seen employed around the

world for the past three decades. In Vietnam, the Americans wanted to avoid

further casualties; so they re-armed and re-trained the South Vietnamese

army to be their foot-soldiers. In southern Lebanon, the Israelis used their

Lebanese militia thugs to combat the Palestinians and the Hizbollah. The

Phalange and the so-called "South Lebanon Army" were supposed to be Israel's

foot-soldiers. They failed, but that is in the nature of wars-by-proxy. In

Kosovo, we kept our well-armed Nato troops safely out of harm's way while

the KLA acted as our foot-soldiers.

And now, without a blush or a swallow of embarrassment, we're about to sign

up the so-called "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan. America's newspapers

are saying - without a hint of irony - that they, too, will be our

"foot-soldiers" in our war to hunt down/bring to justice/smoke

out/eradicate/liquidate Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. US officials - who

know full well the whole bloody, rapacious track record of the killers in

the "Alliance" - are suggesting in good faith that these are the men who

will help us bring democracy to Afghanistan and drive the Taliban and the

terrorists out of the country. In fact, we're ready to hire one gang of

terrorists - our terrorists - to rid ourselves of another gang of

terrorists. What, I wonder, would the dead of New York and Washington think

of this?

But first, let's keep the record straight. The atrocities of 11 September

were a crime against humanity. The evil men who planned this mass-murder

should (repeat: should) be brought to justice. And if that means the end of

the Taliban - with their limb-chopping and execution of women and their

repressive, obscurantist Saudi-style "justice" - fair enough. The Northern

Alliance, the confederacy of warlords, patriots, rapists and torturers who

control a northern sliver of Afghanistan, have very definitely not (repeat:

not) massacred more than 7,000 innocent civilians in the United States. No,

the murderers among them have done their massacres on home turf, in

Afghanistan. Just like the Taliban.

Even as the World Trade Centre collapsed in blood and dust, the world

mourned the assassination of Ahmed Shah Masood, the courageous and patriotic

Lion of Panjshir whose leadership of the Northern Alliance remained the one

obstacle to overall Taliban power. Perhaps he was murdered in advance of the

slaughter in America, to emasculate America's potential allies in advance of

US retaliation. Either way, his proconsulship allowed us to forget the gangs

he led.

It permitted us, for example, to ignore Abdul Rashid Dustum, one of the most

powerful Alliance gangsters, whose men looted and raped their way through

the suburbs of Kabul in the Nineties. They chose girls for forced marriages,

murdered their families, all under the eyes of Masood. Dustum had a habit of

changing sides, joining the Taliban for bribes and indulging in massacres

alongside the Wahhabi gangsters who formed the government of Afghanistan,

then returning to the Alliance weeks later.

Then there's Rasoul Sayaf, a Pashtun who originally ran the "Islamic Union

for the Freedom of Afghanistan", but whose gunmen tortured Shia families and

used their women as sex slaves in a series of human rights abuses between

1992 and 1996. Sure, he's just one of 15 leaders in the Alliance, but the

terrified people of Kabul are chilled to the bone at the thought that these

criminals are to be among America's new foot-soldiers.

Urged on by the Americans, the Alliance boys have been meeting with the

elderly and sick ex-King Mohamed Zahir Shah, whose claim to have no interest

in the monarchy is almost certainly honourable - but whose ambitious

grandson may have other plans for Afghanistan. A "loya jerga", we are told,

will bring together alll tribal groups to elect a transitional government

after the formation of a "Supreme Council for the National Unity of

Afghanistan". And the old king will be freighted in as a symbol of national

unity, a reminder of the good old days before democracy collapsed and

communism destroyed the country. And we'll have to forget that King Zahir

Shah - though personally likeable, and a saint compared to the Taliban - was

no great democrat.

What Afghanistan needs is an international force - not a bunch of ethnic

gangs steeped in blood - to re-establish some kind of order. It doesn't have

to be a UN force, but it could have Western troops and should be supported

by surrounding Muslim nations - though, please God, not the Saudis - and

able to restore roads, food supplies and telecommunications. There are still

well-educated academics and civil servants inAfghanistan who could help to

re-establish the infrastructure of government. In this context, the old king

might just be a temporary symbol of unity before a genuinely inter-ethnic

government could be created.

But that's not what we're planning. More than 7,000 innocents have been

murdered in the USA, and the two million Afghans who have been killed since

1980 don't amount to a hill of beans beside that. Whether or not we send in

humanitarian aid, we're pouring more weapons into this starving land, to arm

a bunch of gangsters in the hope they'll destroy the Taliban and let us grab

bin Laden cost-free.

I have a dark premonition about all this. The "Northern Alliance" will work

for us. They'll die for us. And, while they're doing that, we'll try to

split the Taliban and cut a deal with their less murderous cronies, offering

them a seat in a future government alongside their Alliance enemies. The

other Taliban - the guys who won't take the Queen's shilling or Mr Bush's

dollar - will snipe at our men from the mountainside and shoot at our jets

and threaten more attacks on the West, with or without bin Laden.

And at some point - always supposing we've installed a puppet government to

our liking in Kabul - the Alliance will fall apart and turn against its

ethnic enemies or, if we should still be around, against us. Because the

Alliance knows that we're not giving them money and guns because we love

Afghanistan, or because we want to bring peace to the land, or because we

are particularly interested in establishing democracy in south-west Asia.

The West is demonstrating its largesse because it wants to destroy America's

enemies.

Just remember what happened in 1980 when we backed the brave, ruthless,

cruel mujahedin against the Soviet Union. We gave them money and weapons and

promised them political support once the Russians left. There was much talk,

I recall, of "loya jergas", and even a proposal that the then less elderly

king might be trucked back to Afghanistan. And now this is exactly what we

are offering once again.

And, dare I ask, how many bin Ladens are serving now among our new and

willing foot-soldiers?

America's "new war", indeed.