Locals in Panjwai district of southern Kandahar province, gathered outside houses of those killed by a US soldier, in the area
When in October 1879 General Fredrick Roberts, commander of the occupying British army, delivered a condescending imperialist speech and ordered the public summary executions of Afghan rebels in front of the Bala Hissar Fortress in Kabul, he was employing a time-tested colonial tactic that had proved successful in neighboring India. But those public hangings, which were meant to quash the Afghan rebellion, only served to embolden the resistance, and as such, triggered the outbreak of the second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880), arguably the 19th century’s bloodiest showdown between British imperialist forces and armed Afghan tribesmen. The war concluded with a swift withdrawal of all British troops and the closure of Her Majesty’s embassy in Afghanistan.
Foreign powers, time and again, have erred in equating the character of the Afghans with those of other nations. With entrenched codes of honor, conduct and justice that have governed their lives for millennia, the Afghan nation has proven to be a force to be reckoned with by the world’s most powerful armies throughout history. It is, more often than not, mundane events, which stand for countless past incidents built up over a period of time, that galvanize Afghanistan’s tribesmen to rise up against an oppressor in a matter of weeks, sometimes days.
The case of the as yet unnamed US soldier who went on a shooting rampage in Panjwai district of Kandahar on 12 March 2012, may become just such an incident if Washington and Kabul do not take swift, collective and decisive action in the coming days to quell the flare of popular emotion. Hot on the heels of the Quran burning episode, this latest incident, which resulted in the senseless massacre of 16 innocent Afghans, including nine children and two women, has struck a chord deep within the Afghan psyche. Many are angry, while others are disappointed. A careful reading of the public mood across the country may be summarized in these terms: “They have usurped our sovereignty, denigrated our religion, and now, our women and children are slaughtered in their beds by a foreign gunman.”
Contextualizing the fury
To appreciate the gravity and explosive potential of this incident, it is important to contextualize the fury of the Afghans as news of the incident spread. The Quran burning episode, less than a week before the shooting, was never explained to the Afghans. Numerous civilian killings have been dismissed by NATO and the US forces as “collateral damage.” Video footage of US soldiers urinating on Afghan corpses was quickly placed in abeyance and the results of US “investigations” into such occurrences were never shared with the Afghan public.
Today, few Afghans have faith in the American justice system. Suspicions run rampant that this soldier, like they have witnessed many others before him, will become an object of sympathy in US courts, be depicted as a brave young man who lost his mind fighting for his “homeland” overseas, and finally, let off with a slap on the wrist. Or worst yet, the soldier will walk free after pleading “temporary insanity”, as has happened in many cases before.
Was it not only three years ago when a US soldier who shot dead an unarmed Afghan man, mutilated his body and sliced off his ears, was acquitted by jurors at Fort Bragg? Or more recently, last August, when a British soldier who killed a Taliban fighter, mutilated the corpse, and cut off his fingers as a souvenir to take back to his barracks, was handed a measly three year prison sentence? Was an Afghan life that cheap, just a pittance, and why was anyone astonished by the reaction of angry Afghans?
Moreover, there is the issue of US troop withdrawal in 2014 and America’s sudden shift in policy from fighting the Taliban to making peace with them. The cruel irony of America’s about-face is not lost on the average Afghan. For over a decade, the people of Afghanistan were asked to endure war and uncertainty for the sake of eradicating the scourge of the Taliban, with the promise of a stable, prosperous and democratic future. Ironically, and incomprehensibly for most, they are now asked to refrain from asking too many questions as the United States tries to broker a quick deal with the very “scourge” it failed to defeat, and if possible, to lead it back into power.
The people of Afghanistan no longer have faith in any American goodwill. Indeed, Washington’s cavalier attitude to numerous egregious incidents of civilian deaths have fueled the popular Afghan perception of Americans as imperialists no different from Britain’s General Roberts not so long ago.
In fact, the systematic alienation of the Afghan people, most notably those in the volatile south, would inevitably result in the empowerment of the Taliban. Armed with greater leverage in the Qatar negotiations, the Taliban, now a legitimate bargaining partner, will have no trouble in discrediting the feeble Afghan government and the entire post-Taliban system. Consequently, few ought to be surprised when the nation is provoked to rise up against the US and the international community, and chaos may well ensue with dire consequences for average Afghans. It would not be unreasonable to foresee a Vietnam-style scenario, with soldiers hanging on the sides of helicopters as US troops and personnel flee Afghanistan, leaving the country once again to become a safe haven for militant international terrorist groups. In essence, such a possibility would mark the start of a denouement that would bring Afghanistan back to square one.
Damage control
Given such dangers, a heartfelt apology from US President Barack Obama is hardly enough when the patience of the Afghan nation is saturated and the United States is increasingly viewed as an enemy rather than an ally. In certain quarters, Afghans have been invoking Islamic justice, i.e “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Others have called for the US soldier to be tried on Afghan soil, in Afghan courts, in the hope of obtaining a death penalty.
If the fallout from this latest incident is to be limited, the US and Afghan governments must act swiftly and decisively. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government must work cohesively to dispel popular Afghan illusions that the trial of the soldier can be held on Afghan soil, as this contravenes US military law. Karzai has, on numerous occasions in the past, delivered anger-provoking rhetoric as his personal relations with Washington have taken a turn for the worse, but it is not the time now to adopt this approach.
Both the US and Afghan governments must wage a multi-pronged campaign to appease the public and quell rising anti-American sentiments. The US government, for its part, must waste no time in holding a very public and transparent judicial process, if, as Washington professes, it genuinely seeks to control the potential fallout from this act of brutality.
Time is of the essence, for unlike past instances, justice must no longer be a dragged out affair, with results announced months or years later. What’s more, a public trial ending with the maximum punitive sentence within US law for such a crime must be upheld to assure Afghans that Washington values Afghan lives just as much as any other.
A day after the shooting, there were already protests sweeping across southern and eastern Afghanistan, the most volatile regions of the country. Rogue elements abound throughout this war-ravaged country and neighboring states are waiting to grasp the opportunity to foment further unrest and expedite NATO’s withdrawal.
As the American President and the British Prime Minister meet in Washington for talks, it might be useful to look back on the legacy of General Frederick Roberts in Afghanistan and the perils of repeating mistakes of the past.
