|
America at War:
The Fate of Kandahar
With Timothy Hoyt, Ph.D
Research Fellow,
Center for Peace and Security Studies,
Georgetown University
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001; 3 p.m. EST
Afghan opposition leaders today said that talks about the surrender of Kandahar were moving forward amid reports that Mullah Mohammed Omar could relinquish control as early as tomorrow.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt, research fellow at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, will be online Thursday, Dec. 6, at 3 p.m. EST, to discuss the repercussions.
"The eminent surrender of Kandahar at least appears to cap a highly successful campaign against the Taliban; however, neither the war against terrorism nor the conflict in Afghanistan is necessarily over," said Hoyt in an interview with the washingtpost.com.
A transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Good afternoon. The reported surrender of Kandahar by the Taliban marks a very serious success. It is not clear what the terms of the agreement are, or what the longer-term ramifications will be for the new Afghan government and the Taliban. Regardless, it is unlikely that this marks the end of the Afghan campaign - operations will continue to pursue the remaining leadership and forces of Al Qaeda.
I welcome your questions, and will answer them as quickly as I can type. Once again, it's a pleasure to be on the Post Live on-Line.
Tim Hoyt
Cumberland, Md.:
Could the prospect that Mullah Omar may get some sort of amnesty, lead to a chill in our relations with Hamid Karzai and the Pashtun tribes of the South?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has already announced that the US opposes any amnesty. It is not clear exactly what kind of a deal the new Karzai government has made, but at a minimum it appears that they insist Omar admit his responsibility for terrorism. We will not be happy if this admission is all that is necessary for Omar to gain amnesty.
Phila, Pa:
Does Omar think he is going to walk away from all this based on his change of mind to surrender? He should stand up against charges at a military hearing.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: It's hard to tell what Omar thinks. He is a reclusive figure even in more peaceful times, and all the reports that are currently hitting the media are fairly confusing.
I'm not sure if a military tribunal is the appropriate venue, though. While I'm not a lawyer, it seems as though there might be other means to deal with him - a war crimes trial, for instance, or some other means.
Cumberland, Md.:
Could we still arrest Mullah Omar based on a U.S. warrant charging him with war crimes regardless of the amnesty?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm afraid I'm not a lwayer, so I don't really know. I wouldn't count on the amnesty yet, and there are indications that if the charge is crimes against humanity or war crimes, that the issue can be raised much later through other institutions if necessary - the current trials of Serbian suspected war criminals at the Hague and the efforts to extradite Gen. Pinochet of Chile suggest how difficult it can be for someone to get away with these kinds of violations.
Bromley, U.K.:
Dr. Hoyt,
If and when the surrender takes place, what will happen to remaining al Qaeda jehadis? One reads daily about hundreds of Taliban are coming into Pakistan to hide from U.S. bombing. Neither U.S. nor Pakistan has any database of those Taliban entering Pak as they basically smuggle into the country.
How can we be sure that remaining al Qaeda men, even Osama, already or in near future, will not hide in Pakistan with or without Paki dictator's approval.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, historically, quite porous. The reports currently coming from the region state that Karzai has insisted that foriegn Taliban personnel (which includes Al Qaeda) will not be allowed to stay in the country, and will be treated as criminals. At least officially, then, this suggests that they'll be asked to surrender and face some form of justice - it's not clear who will administre that yet.
Pakistan has increased forces on the border, and has been publicly working much harder to supervise the border since the Taliban collapsed at Mazar-i-Sharif. There are probably very real limits to how effectively the border can be policed.
We cannot be sure that members of al Qaeda haven't already crossed into Pakistan. But General Musharraf has staked his regime on the support of the US in this conflict, at considerable risk. Both he and Pakistan appear to be emerging from the Afghan crisis in better shape than when it started - unrest in Pakistan is down, for instance.
So I cannot imagine any real reason that Pakistan would aid Al Qaeda deliberately. It would truly endanger Pakistan's reputation and standing in the international community, and cut off the flood of foreign aid.
I also suspect that Pakistani intelligence will work hard to cooperate with the US on locating any Al Qaeda personnel who might have come into Pakistan, for the same reason.
That's not surety - but this is a pretty rugged part of the world. I think the odds are pretty good that it will be difficult for Bin Laden, in particular (he is 6' 4", or almost 2 meters, tall) to make that crossing without being noticed. He also has a $25 million price on his head.
College Park, Md.:
Tim --
Reports are coming out of Afghanistan that a proposed condition of the surrender of Kandahar is that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar will remain in the city under some type of "protection."
We keep hearing the phrase from Defense Department and other administration officials that Omar and other senior Taliban leaders will be "brought to justice, or justice will be brought to them ..."
What repercussions, if any, will there be if the U.S. military targets/kills] Omar after he is under the proposed protection of Afghan tribal leaders?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: If Omar is in Northern Alliance hands, and we know it, I can't imagine a situation in the near future where we would get frustrated enough that we'd actually try to kill him.
If he's in NA hands, I'm sure we can come up with something - some kind of offer - that will be persuasive.
The NA may well have offered some kind of amnesty (we don't know for sure yet, remember) in order to save the city of Kandahar from the terror of a full-fledged assault (not to mention the losses that the NA would take).
But I'm fairly confident that with all the wealth and resources of the US and its allies, we could find some tempting offer that might make them give him up for justice. It might take a while, but that isn't a terrible thing either - he is still in the hands of our friends and people who have, until recently, been his devout enemies. I doubt he'll be going anywhere (although I may regret that statement if he escapes).
So I don't think we'll be trying to kill him.
Cumberland, Md.:
It is reputed that the surrender of Kandahar includes allowing the “foreign” Taliban to safely leave Afghanistan. Obviously this is what we do not wish. What can we do about it?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: It doesn't appear, from the reports currently coming out of the region, that the foreigners will be allowed to leave freely. They will be treated as criminals of some kind, according to Karzai.
I'm fairly sure that we have enough influence with the NA to make a very tough case against just releasing the foreign troops of the Taliban. And let's not forget that the Afghan people despise these foreigners for the most part - this isn't a case where they're cooperating with friends.
NYC:
Tim,
What makes you an expert on Afghanistan? Have you ever been there?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm not an expert on Afghanistan, and I've never been there.
I'm here to talk about the war, and the ramifications of the reported surrender of the Taliban - which does reside in Afghanistan, so I can't really avoid saying SOMETHING about that country.
grin :)
New York, N.Y.:
Hasn't it been a political blunder for Pakistan, even post Sept. 11, to identify so strongly with moderate Taliban or, for that matter, the Pashtun tribe. The first time I heard about "ethnic" considerations was from President Musharraf -- this is bad politics. A geography, province based approach is much healthier rather than an ethnic based approach. Your views?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Pakistan supported the Taliban very strongly before Sept. 11th. Since that time, General Musharraf has gradually distanced himself from them, but only slowly and in response to other pressures. Because Pakistan aided the Taliban in defeating the Northern Alliance in 1995-2001, Pakistan also believes that their interests will suffer if the NOrthern Alliance comes back into power, and therefore has strongly supported a more diversified government out of national interest.
To be fair, it's also worth noting that the Northern Alliance was guilty of very poor governance and lots of violations of various kinds of rights when it was in power.
Ethnicity has been part of the equation since before Sept. 11, because the NA was largely Uzbek and Tajik, and the Taliban largely Pashtun. So ethnicity remains an issue in future governance. It's not some scheme by the Pakistanis, but rather a part of AFghan politics.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Since the anti-Taliban forces helped our cause and incured the human loses, that we would otherwise have incurred, would it not be fair to pay these proxy soldiers a pension.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm not sure we'll pay them a pension. I think we should (and hope we will) commit ourselves to assist Afghanistan in rebuilding. The Afghans fought very bravely against the Soviet Union, and assisted in its demise - and we abandoned them. NOw we have an opportunity to make that right. The worst thing we could do is try to withdraw from the region, or to revert to our 1990s tradition of refusing to fund foreign aid programs. We owe these people a great debt, and are a rich enough country to pay that debt.
Washington, D.C:
Do you think John Walker and other U.S. citizens fighting on the side of the Talaban should be charged with treason?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I do not. I'm sure others do. I would prefer to wait for more information. I think treason is a very serious crime, and it may be that these volunteers, like some of the Pakistanis, weren't there so much to fight America as to fight for their own extreme version of Islam against Afghanis. That's still hard to understand, and hard to sympathize with, but is very different from deliberately joining a foreign government to fight against the US.
On the other hand, if different information emerges, there may be a legitimate treason charge. I'm still not sure I'd support that, but that is simply a personal view.
Cumberland, Md.:
Do you think that the U.S. and U.N. will interfere either overtly or covertly in the operations of the new interim government in Afghanistan?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Probably not. We will provide a lot of aid, and will have some overt influence as a result. But why intervene covertly to manipulate a friendly government?
Mexico City, Mexico:
You said that it it's unlikely that the military
operation will end after Kandahar´s
surrender. Do you really think it is fair,
not just to the wall empowered Afghan
people, but to the whole world to keep on
spending billions and billions of dollars
in destruction when more than half of the
world population is starving to death?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Yes, I do.
Sadly, we're at war. I would love to spend billions to help feed those who are hungry, and hope that we (and other nations) will do more on that front. But there are people in Afghanistan who launched a vicious attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians, and who show no evidence or regret or of stopping their efforts. I don't really think that's fair either, and I don't really think any other country or institution is capable of opposing those forces.
Washington, D.C.:
Right now there seems to be a great deal of nationalism and unity in Afghanistan against the Taliban government. After all is over, and the United States has withdrawn, do you think a coalition government will last in Afghanistan, or do you think it will dissolve yet again into factionalism and strife?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: That's a really good question. I think it is possible that Afghanistan could revert into chaos, but that is much more likely if the US and UN withdraw and do not help the reconstruction of the Afghan state and people.
The more engaged outsiders are economically, the more influence we will have in keeping the various factions from reverting into a struggle for individual power. The King could also act as a symbol of unity, and with hard work the new government can manage the transition from civil war to some form of unified government.
But it is far from a "sure thing."
New York, N.Y.:
Do you think there will ever be a serious
analysis on the U.S. participation, through
the CIA, for instance, on illegal and-or
terrorist acts throughout the world
(financing of al Qaeda itself, Haiti, Central
America and many more etceteras)
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Sorry - my computer just crashed.
I'd look at the reports of the Church Committee in the 1970s.
There's a precedent for closer oversight of CIA cooperation with various organizations, and it could happen again.
On the other hand, I think there are a lot of wildly irresponsible conspiracy theories flying about regarding 9-11, the CIA, and lots of other things.
Arcadia, Calif.:
What do you think should happen to the foreign Talaban fighters? I don't think you can just let them go.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I agree. We'll have to see what happens. Unfortunately, the rebellion at the prison (a combination of terrible NA sloppiness in dealing with hostile POWs and some serious fanaticism on the part of the prisoners) doesn't make foreign volunteers feel secure about surrendering. But these are the people most likely to be members (present or future) of Al Qaeda, and we should not let them just disappear.
Silver Spring, Md.:
In the present climate, is it not important that the United States be perceived as being fair and even handed in the treatment of all combatants in the military theatre. And to what extent should the Islamic countries be called to extradite and try their own citizens? Finally, does the apprehension of American citizens in this campaign compel the United States to be an example of justice in a climate subject when the evidentiary requirements of law can be easily jettisoned at the alter of political expediency. The dangers of selective enforcement and the political abuse of the criminal process is something to watch out for.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I agree that, with increasing concern about our own civil rights in the current crisis, legal procedures should be carefully examined. However, I'd suggest that we really want access to the foreign volunteers, and that allowing Islamic countries to extradite them might put them back into some kind of "terrorist pool." So I'd be very careful about how I'd treat them.
King George, Va.:
We did not ask the Northern Alliance for "permission" to engage in this war on terrorism. Why do we even care what this group has agreed to with Mullah Omar? Shouldn't we just take him, or neutralize him regardless of what agreements were made?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we should be nice about it. Why stomp on your friends? If they have made a deal with Omar, let's talk them out of it, rather than knock them down and just take him. It will probably help our relations with the rest of the world to show some restraint in this matter - not in letting him go, but in being respectful in how we convince the NA to hand him over, should that be necessary.
Atlantic City, N.J.:
As a Pakistani-Pushtoon-American, I am worried what will be the Pushtoon role on both sides of the border after the Karazi's government take over charge in Kabul and how the Pushtoon will survive their centuries long cultural ties between the two countries?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm afraid this is a question that is out of my expertise. Pakistan and Afghanistan will have to forge a new relationship now that this war is winding down. However, Iran and Pakistan seem to have at least temporarily bridged their differences. It may be harder in Afghanistan, where feelings are very strong (in some places) against Pakistan, but it can be made to work.
N.Y, N.Y:
It seems that that everything is falling into place -- perhaps a bit too easy. What are the possibilities of the Taliban regrouping and doing some kind of guerilla action?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think you will see some guerrilla activity by Taliban and Alqaeda who don't want to surrender. But as Jim HOagland (I think) mentioned a couple of weeks ago in the Post, what you're seeing here is a "strategic melt" - the end of a civil war, where it is easier to allow hostile forces to just rejoin society than actually destroy them. If these Afghan Taliban supporters lose their leadership, how likely is it that they will revert to violence in the near future?
I suspect that most of them would rather just lay low, and see what happens next.
Tysons Corner, Va.:
Since the CIA apparently aided Karzai earlier in the war effort, can we presume that we pushed for his appointment as interim leader and that he will maintain a pro-U.S. position as an Afghan leader?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we did push for his appointment. I'm not sure if he'll maintain a pro-US position or not, but I think he'll be inclined to cooperate in continuing to hunt down Al Qaeda, which is our major concern.
Orlando, Fla.:
Does the surrender of Taliban mean the war on terrorism is won? And what is winning?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: No -it isn't won. Al Qaeda has links in at least 40 different countries. They'll have to be tracked down.
In addition, to defeat terrorism, you have to do something about the conditions under which it is created - which means greater US involvement in South Asia, and a long term effort to change our relationship with the Islamic world. Much of that won't be carried out through military operations, but it's still part of a war on terrorism.
Binbridge, Ga.:
After the prison uprising among the earlier "surrendered" Taliban troops, do we really expect these guys to meekly surrender?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Probably not. But it may be the best deal they can get - and many of these volunteers may be terribly demoralized and confused (a lot of Pakistani volunteers came over the border after the 9-11 crisis, and aren't die hard Al Qaeda members. From press reports and debriefings, they're not sure quite what they're fighting for, and might be more inclined to give up).
Normal, Ill.:
What's up with thie Dostum guy -- he seems to be playing games? Dost in Uzbek means a friend -- he is not acting very friendly right now -- why?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Most of these leaders are regional political figures or warlords, and each has an individual agenda as well as a broader vision of Afghanistan (and not all of them may have that). Each wants a bigger share of the spoils, if they can get it.
It's kind of like Congress, only the playing field is very different.
grin :)
Alexandria, Va.:
Is it possible that the Northern Alliance amnestied the so-called "Afghan Arabs," most of whom are al Qaeda?
The Pakistani fighters in Afghanistan are illiterate peasants and patsies, but the Afghan Arabs are dangerous.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: It doesn't sound like it, but we're still getting mixed reports. The US is going to want to talk to "Afghan Arabs."
Alexandria, Va.:
A cabdriver yesterday told me that while the people in Kabul come from all over, the surrounding area is Dari (non-Pashtun). So perhaps the joy in Kabul at liberation is different than what occurred in the south.
Is it possible that the people in the Pashtun areas will help the al Qaeda hide?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Ethnic and regional divisions are real. But we're now getting lots of support from Pashtun forces which have rejected the Taliban. In addition, there are substantial rewards for people turning in Taliban leaders. So there are lots of incentives for Pashtuns not to help Al Qaeda.
Frederick, Md.:
How real is this $25 million bounty, and how will it be paid? Do the opposition forces who are seeking Osama actually expect to strike it rich if they indeed successfully locate Mr. Bin Laden? I have a hard time believing the credibility of this bounty.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we actually paid a substantial bounty for the gellow who opened fire outside the CIA a few years ago.
I don't know how the money will be paid, but it's an incentive for others not to help Bin Laden.
Arlington, Va.:
Do you suppose the Americans caught fighting with the Taliban were training to be al Qaeda terrorists?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I don't think we know yet. If they were, that's a serious reason to consider a treason trial (see an earlier question).
New Delhi, India:
Dr. Hoyt
Given the realities of Durand line, what are the chances of creating a new nation of Pashthunistan?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: For those who don't know, the Durand line is the demarcation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which Afghanistan has never recognized.
I don't think a Pashtunistan is really an option. Pashtun nationalist sentiments in Pakistan have declined substantially from the 1950s and 1960s. And I'm not sure AFghanistan is about to collapse either. It would take a very unusual series of events to make Pashtunistan a possibility.
Boyds, Md.:
I would think that the U.S. government would
feel a little betrayed by the Afghans if the Mullah is given some sort of amensty. Would the U.S. try to negotiate a deal where the mullah was sent to the U.S?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we'll try something like that - I just don't know what yet. We definitely won't want him living in Kandahar under house arrest.
Reston, Va.:
Why would Omar suddenly change his mind about giving up Kandahar after urging the Taliban to defend it to the death? It seemed that he knew that whatever happened, he was not going to be safe. What makes him think he'd be better off by giving up?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: It's not clear that Taliban was willing to fight for the death. Also, the Afhgan civil wars have been filled with back room deals, sudden collapses, posturing, and relatively bloodless victories. I think this is one of them - it was just a question of waiting for the right deal.
London, U.K.:
Afghanistan may be out of the way soon, however, is not the U.S. restricting its room for maneuver in the world of diplomacy when it talks of revenge actions against countries like Somalia, let alone Iraq?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Al Qaeda has cells and training camps in a lot of different countries - at least 40.
We know where some of them are, and Somalia is a name that keeps popping up. Also, intervening in Somalia has some symbolic significance (we left there in a hurry in the mid-1990s) and some significant benefits, since there is no strong central government whose sovereignty we will be violating. Few countries would protest an intervention in Somalia.
Iraq is a whole other topic. But the PResident has specifically linked the issues of global terror and weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam has been involved in both terror and WMD. I think the diplomatic costs and challenges of attacking Iraq are very high - it remains a controversial topic even within the administration. But it could make diplomacy and maintenance of the Coalition much more difficult, in the short term.
Leonard, Wash.:
Dear Tim:
The New York Times has shown conclusive evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the hijacking of Indian Airlines Plane in 1999.
So,
can India now claim like Israel self defense and use "conventional missiles" to attack Pakistan?
What would the world wide ramifications of this act?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think they'd be terrible, if not catastrophic.
There are good reasons the Indian government hasn't escalated to conventional strikes across the border into Pakistan in the past.
This may be a time when global opposition to terrorism substantially limits Pakistani supports for foreign elements in Kashmir. If India escalates and attacks Pakistan, it would undermine its longstanding restraint on cross-border attacks. Why take that risk? Why risk very positive changes in Indo-US relations by attacking Pakistan at a time the US still needs Pakistani support?
Fort Wayne, Ind.:
What is the difference between the United Front and the Northern Alliance today? Is Omar likely to end up in the hands of majority Tajik/Uzbek NA forces or Pushtun forces?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: My understanding is that most of the troops near Kandahar are Pashtun, but I don't know that for certain.
Sterling, Va.:
Dr. Hoyt--
I respect your candor in admitting you're not an Afghan specialist.
Gen. Dostun is talking about not supporting the new Afghan interim government. One of the Pashtun leaders is expressing similar sentiments. Do you think the interim government is in serious trouble, or are these warlords just posturing for the Loya Jirga next year?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think the interim government has its work cut out for it. That's why I think international involvement needs to remain high.
Alexandria, Va.:
Dear Dr. Hoyt,
Thanks for participating in this chat today. With regard to John Walker, the American fighting with the Taliban: I know the information about this man is not well known yet, and drawing conclusions is premature, but I did read an interview with him where he said that he did indeed support the actions of 9/11. A Taliban fighter making these kinds of statements sounds more like someone who is taking up arms against the U.S., not just somebody who is there to fight for an Islamic state.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Ugh. Now I feel even more uncomfortable.
Madison, Wisc.:
What will happen to Pakistan now that a moderate regime is set up in Afghanistan.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think Pakistan emerges from the crisis stronger than it was when it entered. Now the question is how Musharraf will attempt to reform Pakistan's internal political and economic apparatus. Even with substantial aid, Pakistan's economy is in considerable danger. The other question that begs an answer is relations with India, which are intimately linked to the Kashmir question. It isn't clear that there will be substantial progress on this issue, but the US is now in a position to play a more influential role on trying to at least lower tensions.
Cleveland, Ohio:
What provisions will be put in place by the soon to be installed interim government to guarantee the protection of women's rights?
What do you envision the post-interim government to look like?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: My understanding is that two women are in the cabinet, but I may have misread the report. That's another reason for continued international involvement.
I don't really know what the future government will look like. I suspect that it might be better to have a less centralized government with more authority and autonomy in regional governments (probably linked with ethnicity, for practical reasons). But that's up to the new leadership.
Los Angeles, Calif.:
Do you think it is in the best interest of the U.S. to have Omar and bin Laden arrested and held and tried? Wouldn't they become the focus of increased terrorist attention, attacks and hostage taking? Would it not better to deliver the final blow to both of them in a way that would leave an image of impotence? In other words, not murky martyrdom in some cave but public display like Mussolini?
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm not sure we really want to hang people up on meathooks, like Mussolini was "displayed."
I do think that some kind of symbolic justice is probably in order, but haven't really given it a lot of thought. I'm not convinced that we're that close to capturing Osama - it may take a while.
Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I've got to go now. I apologize to those whose questions I didn't answer specifically, but there were lots of areas of overlap and only so much time. Thanks again for your patience and good questions, and I look forward to the nexet session.
All the best,
Tim Hoyt
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
