Faculty at Dartmouth can give a lot of answers to questions about what the United States will do in Afghanistan, but they can't give them all.
"It's necessary for the Bush administration to look longer than five to 10 years ahead because [the situation] is complicated," said Government Professor Bill Wohlforth in comments echoing those of other faculty contacted by The Dartmouth.
The issues raised by possible U.S. strikes against the Taliban are complex --issues like the stability of the region, the Taliban position with regards to Islam and other Muslim countries and the need for long term action to reduce the threat of terrorism.
However, one of the most pressing issues is undoubtedly the action the U.S. could and is likely to take against the Taliban regime.
Wohlforth said "the two forms most likely," for U.S. action to take are, "one, aiding local Afghanis opposed to the Taliban, including the Northern Alliance," and "two, use of special forces to apprehend terrorists," adding "it's possible you could imagine very rapid insertions ... forms of U.S. action that would accomplish some military objectives," without a more massive operation.
Another factor is other countries' stance on the Taliban -- attitudes that are a complex assortment of interests, conflicts and semi-alliances.
Afghanistan has been in civil war since before the Taliban came to power. Religion Professor Kevin Reinhart's explanation of current civil war in Afghanistan, which he calls a proxy war, shows how complex the country's politics have become.
For example, Pakistan has interests in the Taliban repressing possible ethnic separatist movement in their territory while Russia supports movements that oppose the Taliban in an effort to control their own Chechen separatist movement.
Issues of ideology, ethnicity, politics and power mean that many nations in the area and beyond have an interest in one faction or another.
All faculty members contacted by The Dartmouth agreed that long term action was necessary to achieve U.S. goals in addition to short-term action.
"U.S .foreign policy only looks at the short term, never at the long term," said History Professor Gene Garthwaite. "There's tremendous pressure for action."
He continued, "in the long term it's much cheaper to invest in medical, health, education, water, and even the environment," versus the cost of an attack against the United States. Garthwaite expressed hope for long-term aid, "although Americans are notoriously anti-foreign aid."
Wohlforth believes it will be clear that the Bush administration is taking a long term approach to ending terrorism if they use a mix of "carrots and sticks" to achieve objectives, and if they continue to encourage countries to fight terrorism even after the immediate perpetrators are removed.
Also, faculty members agreed with much of what the Bush administration has done so far, or at least the tone of the administration and the objectives it seems to say it is pursuing.
"There's been an evolution of statements," said Wohlforth. The Bush administration first declared a war on terrorism, and then a war on terrorists with a global reach -- a more limited group. Now it appears to be following a two-tier strategy of first dealing with the immediate aggressors, and then pursuing a longer term strategy against terrorism."
But, adds Wohlforth, "it's important to note that we have no idea what the Bush administration is going to do."
Garthwaite, Reinhart, and others will participate in a panel discussion on this topic tonight at 7:30 in Collis Commonground.
