Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is an Islamabad-based

freelance columnist

farrukh15@hotmail.com

Lipstick, nail polish, television, kite-flying, playing-cards, chessboards, musical instruments, cassettes and cinema are all in. Burqa and beard are both out. The mountains around Kabul that haven't sung for five long years are now dancing to the tune of the Northern Alliance.

Those, unfortunately, are the only differences between America's new-found allies the Northern Alliance and Reagan's old pals the forebears of the Taliban (in 1985, Reagan had introduced a group of visiting bearded Afghan mujahideen to the White House staff as the "moral equivalent of America's founding fathers"). In most other respects, the leaders of the Northern Alliance are not much different from the Taliban leadership. First and foremost, they are all warlords, tested and failed in all tests of governance.

Afghanistan's neighbours have actually played a major role in making a mess of things in Afghanistan. Pakistan supported extremists from within Afghanistan's Pushtoon population. Iran has been and continues to back radical within Hazaras while Saudi Arabia provided all the help it could to Afghani fanatics of the Wahabi sect. India aids the Northern Alliance merely because they are anti-Taliban. As a consequence, almost all the leaders now on the Afghan horizon are extremists.

Pakistan produced leaders like Burhanuddin Rabbani (Tajik) and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Pushtoon). Saudi money created Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf (extreme Wahabi fundamentalist) and his Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan. Iran imposed Karim Khalili as a leader over Afghan Shias. General Rashid Dostum (Uzbek), with Turkish help, heads Jombesh-e-Islami (National Islamic Movement). Rabbani leads the Jamiat-e-Islami, Khalili the Hezb-e-Wahadat and Hekmatyar is the head of Hezb-e-Islami.

To be certain, all-Afghan radicals are anti-West, driven by tribal ethics of revenge and none of them truly represent the Afghan mainstream. Three years ago, when the Taliban took over Mazar-e-Sharif they slaughtered some four thousand mostly Shia Muslims. This time around, Alliance commanders avenged those deaths by taking Sunni lives. At Sultan Raziya close to a thousand Pakistanis were massacred. At Konduz, several thousand Pakistanis may now be killed.

Fanatics who keep changing sides in the Afghan quagmire are once again in control of Kabul. General Dostum commands the Juzjani Militia. He was first with Najibullah and then turned against him. He has been with and against the Taliban as well. Dostum also fought with Ustad Atta (Tajik) but then joined hands with him to capture Mazar-e-Sharif. General Abdul Malik Pahlawan was once the second-in-command to Dostum but then turned against him by striking a deal with the Taliban. Hekmatyar had once joined Dostum but is now against the Northern Alliance. In 1994, Hekmatyar bombed Kabul so fiercely that 24,000 civilians are said to have been killed. Yunus Khalili was aligned with the Taliban but has since turned against them.

Tehran does not like kings so it does not want Zahir Shah to come back and form a moderate Afghan central government. Islamabad sees in Zahir Shah a government not-too-friendly and is, therefore, trying to forge a Pushtoon-dominated 'Southern Alliance' to counter the Tajik-Hazara-Uzbek run 'Northern Alliance'. Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf is publicly against the calling of the Loya Jirga.

While the new fanatic leadership tightens its grip over Kabul, President George W's men are snatching powers away from both the judiciary and the legislature. Check and balance in tandem with separation of power has long been the cornerstones of American constitutional democracy. Bush has now by-passed the judiciary by installing military courts. Bush has also ordered reorganizing Immigration and Naturalization Service without Congressional input. According to Tim Lynch, Director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the libertarian Cato Institute, "The power President Bush is wielding today is truly breathtaking" adding that "A single individual is going to decide whether the war is expanded to Iraq. A single individual is going to decide how much privacy American citizens are going to retain."

Back to Afghanistan, and the Americans seem to be taking the country towards some sort of North-South division. A non-Pushtoon Northern Afghanistan and a Pushtoon Southern Afghanistan. In the medium to long term, the two Afghanistans, both led by extremist elements, cannot live in peace with each other. The Taliban threat melting away into the mountains also means that Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks will, sooner rather than later, turn their guns against each other.

On November 26, the UN will be assembling representatives of the Northern Alliance, Pushtoon tribes and supporters of Zahir Shah at the Petersberg Conference Centre just outside Bonn. The world wants the Northern Alliance to share its prize with its rivals. Why should the victors of Kabul share their victory with others?

The real problem is that, at this stage, no one knows what really are America's long-term objectives in Afghanistan. The country is ungovernable and has almost nothing to offer to anyone. Oil and gas theories abound but they appear too far-fetched to me. My hunch is that after getting Osama America's craving for war is going to taper off. This entire region is hostile territory for American troops and offers almost nothing in return. Permanent deployment of foreign troops and one can begin to talk about the Taliban and the anti-Taliban forces getting together to get rid of foreigners.

People who told us that Pakistan's debts are going to be written off are now saying that America is going to pump in billions of dollars into an Afghan reconstruction effort. Why should America shower money over Afghanistan? Truman bombed Korea. Eisenhower bombed Cuba. Johnson bombed Peru. Kennedy bombed Vietnam. Nixon bombed Cambodia. Reagan bombed Libya. Bush Sr bombed Iraq. Clinton bombed Sudan. Over the past 50 years, Americans have bombed at least 19 countries but there exists not a single case where American bombing was followed by American-led reconstruction. Why should Afghanistan be any different?

To be sure, there are a few moderates in the top Afghan leadership as well. The short list is topped by Ismail Khan, the former governor of Herat. Also known as the 'Lion of Herat' he is the one who liberated Herat from the Soviets. Closer to the Pakistani border, there is Hamid Karzai. He is educated, fluent in English and a known moderate. In Eastern Afghanistan, Abdul Qadir, the former governor of Nangarhar province, is also a middle-of-road politician. Yunus Qanooni, Northern Alliance's interior minister, is also known to be a moderate and closer to the Afghan mainstream than many other contenders for top leadership posts.

The whole world is going hoarse crying out loud that Afghanistan should have a broad-based government. That only amounts to picking extremists from various Afghan factions. Bringing out mainstream representative ought to be the main issue. Until that happens, fanatics shall remain firmly in control of Kabul.