Focus 580; More on the Implications of 9/11: Afghanistan and Pakistan

This is focused 580 our telephone talk program. My name is David Inge. Thanks very much for being with us the producers for the show Jack bright and Harry Williams and Travis Stansell Brian Wagner at the controls this morning. In this part of focus 580 you want to continue to try to talk about. The implications of the events that took place last week. And based on where we are and a lot of the kinds of questions that we've gotten from folks we thought that it would be a good idea to spend some time talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we have two guests with us one joining us from Washington and one here in studio both of them have followed events in this part of the world for a long time. And in fact I think probably both of them have talked with us about events in this part of the world many times. Here in the studio with me is Moby I'm sure Rush he is an associate professor of education policy studies at University of Illinois and was born in Afghanistan and has certainly has been following events in Afghanistan very closely. Really going back to the Russian invasion if not

before and he's been back to the region many times. Joining us here from Washington D.C. is Steven Cohen. He is a senior fellow in foreign policy studies program at the Brookings Institution and was for a number of years a professor of political science here at the University of Illinois one of the founders of the program and arms control disarmament and international security and someone who has been following and studying the politics of this region India Pakistan Afghanistan for a long time. And he's written a lot on the subject and we're pleased that he also could be with us this morning as we talk. Of course as always questions are welcome. All we ask callers is that people just try to be brief so that we can accommodate as many different people and keep things moving along but of course anybody be welcome to participate in the conversation here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also we have a toll free line good anywhere you can hear us 800

to 2 to 9 4 5 5. Those are the numbers. Professor Cohen or I guess I still think of you as Professor Cohen thanks for talking with us. That was still once a professor always a professor. DAVID Absolutely. And Professor Sherry thank you for talking with us to. Thank you. Hi Steve. Oh you're welcome. Good to talk to you. You know it's a duty I mean how can you talk like you Steve from the university when we're going to be busy you know for stuff you know. Well maybe we could start out to talk a little bit about where where we are right at the moment and then we can also talk about about some of the background to it as much as we can to get to where we are. And I guess I'm interested in both of your reaction to now that the United States went to the governor Pakistan and said Will you go to the Taliban and say the United States wants Osama bin Laden and that if you don't hand him over then

we'll take some other sort of action and we want exactly say what that is. The the count of the clerical council of the Taliban this is meeting apparently the maybe the meeting has been postponed and that's going to happen tomorrow. I guess my basic question is whether either of you and I'll start with fresh or Sherine will go to Steven Cohen whether either of you think that in fact the only one would be prepared to hand over Osama bin Laden to the United States. I think it would be quite quite difficult I think. Three reasons. One the whole idea of the hospitality is anchored in the under pressure to a code of conduct called Christian relief which is M. misyar which means hospitality that somebody if somebody comes in you do you know refuse sex if you

would you do not turn him to I don't think there is only thing in this law that if somebody is guilty or did something here when you have a notice that you will not turn it into law. So this is a code of conduct that predates Islam. So Buster but in Islam if you do something you have to come to the court. And have a trial and the judge in among other there decided so was the second one is I think the that the Tali bone as a group who I studied in 1983 in Folkestone when they were little boys. Well as a group I think has fallen under this period of of my own beloved and many many others who joined summer after the fall of medieval law

with their good badin matured who was presenting at that time watching Pakistan's interest and then after that the Taliban during the thought of going to a great many of these. Courts lots of new foreigners were disaffected young men from all over the world all who were in fact all over the world not only the Middle East. If come there. And if you to Thirdly reason is of course that brings in a lot of money. Two funny bone and you know I've been doing it so we want to know if you would like to add something to that. See I'm coming. Well balancing that out also are complicated complicating the factor there. The Taliban's calculations are the pressures that Pakistan might put upon them. And it's not quite clear whether Pakistan can or will impose enough pressures. I think there's a larger issue though David that you know you've asked us the question.

Will Will we get you know bring me the head of Osama bin Laden. Will we get Osama either dead or alive. I think that the from a policy perspective from an American perspective it's really more far more complicated issue than that. And there are two other things that we want from from the Taliban or from Pakistan or from both and two of the things we simply want. One of them and perhaps the most important is that Afghanistan will not be used as a base for these kinds of groups in the future. There's no question that this is locking the barn door after the terrorists have fled. But clearly you don't want to have a country fairly large country not a modern country affected devastate a country that serves as a as a as a safe haven for organizations that recruit and train and and then produce these kinds of individuals who carried out these kinds of acts. So I think that's the larger American goal and that might that should be something that in principle the Taliban can deliver and they can they can argue that they can. I think they can say in the future that we will not allow these activities to take place on our borders. And the Pakistanis should be able to add their weight to the

argument. The second thing is the groups the people in the individuals beyond Osama bin Laden. And I think here that our politicians and some of our commentators have really raised false expectations. And I certainly would defer to Mobin because he knows the country much better than I do and he's kept in contact with people there far more than I've been able to do. But I. Think that Osama bin Laden has scattered to his group is scattered. They could have gone to the cities of Afghanistan. More likely they are going to karate in Pakistan perhaps other Pakistani cities or maybe even they flown to the Middle East because he does have a small fleet of airplanes and so he and he certainly been preparing for this kind of assault on his base for some time so I think that is the politics our politicians may have raised the hopes of getting an individual a real policy interest isn't stopping a country from from becoming a haven for these kinds of groups. You know I agree with you. I also want to remind you were

no idea gets the disc into you has been. In the hostage for the past on with seven years why did it only get foreigners and in the end it'll evolve so that doctor and affluent people out of the 20 million are speaking 32 different languages in many of the religion. You know one issue and these people have been kept totally powerless and devastated what many are still for. Some other people coming in ordering order and some of the off ones needed relief from one of the ideas all these years. Nobody helped him. You know run away so they become totally distant you powerless and your spirit has been crushed. Boyd is extremely dry CUNY and regime. Off to Livonia whom you know whom I think are totally ignorant of Islam in the spirit of slaughter and we know that because

of the brutal incredibly merciless rule one of cornerstone that you are being able to govern it. We have a caller to bring into the conversation when we do that. And Urbana on our line number one right here. Hello. Yes I'd like to have. Oh yes. Need to speak to this one issue. When you hear people on the news media on television saying what's behind this and why do people hate it so much and they get testy. You know the first answers they talk about some disaffection in Islamic society with corrupting Western civilization and and that is Islamic in Arabic countries that have been more or less left out of you know of the Enlightenment and progress in and advancing

the progress of Western civilizations. And I would appreciate it very much if both guests would speak to that point. All right well to my knowledge I never heard or never heard or witnessed. Only an American activities in Afghanistan. In fact for many many years in that part of the world do only people that are backed or liked by the Afghans were the American because the Russian clearly destroyed Afghanistan for after 10 years of carpet bombing these innocent farmers and shepherds. So and the only country that helped Afghans were the United States before the war for many years beginning in 1948. You know of course after the war and during the war were they helping or materially to defeat the

Soviet Union. So that one is not something that you can find in Afghanistan that is the hatred of the Americans. I would have perhaps a slightly different interpretation of that or I don't disagree with Mobin at all on that and his answer but I would also add that there's a larger phenomenon and I won't say it's anti-Americanism but anti just anti US. There's a it doesn't apply just to Islam it applies to all cultures and many societies and many religions. When a people own a lot of people in general come to believe that they are an oppressed minority then their sense of grievance and injustice becomes acute and it's one time or another everybody has this sense everybody has this feeling that they're being put upon but they're being encircled that others are out to get them. It's essentially a paranoid view of the world. However you know sometimes paranoids have enemies. So this this this paranoid view of the world has you know maybe there may be basis in reality. So I think that you

get this attitude in China. You get this attitude in India to some degree you get it within societies with one group with regard to another group to get it in America where you know the only thing people can think about are their grievances and their anger. And when a society is afflicted with this kind of kind of overall general perception that a small percentage of the members of that society but usually a very tiny percentage will sort of act on their on their worst fantasies. And I think that's what we've seen in parts of the Islamic world most of the Islamic world is very pro-American a very you know very orderly Hasn't it is not afflicted with a sense of deep grievance. If you go to Bangladesh which is the poorest country one of the poorest of all the Muslim countries you don't find this kind of hatred of the outside world prevalent there you go to Indonesia also big Muslim country or Malaysia Muslim countries there it's not there I think it's primarily right now in the Arab world in other parts in other cultures and other societies. They see themselves as being threatened and opposed in and surrounded. And when you feel that way any minute any method you use is legitimate in

striking back at the enemy. And when you have kids who are raised is raised from a young age as in the case of the Taliban and I think in the case of some of the people carried out these airplane bombings you know then then they can act upon their fantasies without any without any hesitation. It's a very frightening phenomena but it's not peculiar to the Islamic world at all. Well yes. Then what then. It sets a case why is this. It isn't arrogance. Well yeah. Well why didn't why would state. You know America America represents all the forces arranged against their particular society. Until recently in India for example which is which is achieved a rapprochement with America America was thought to be the ringleader behind an alliance of China Pakistan and the rest of the world against India. The Chinese see America many Chinese see America as trying to undercut him in and weaken China and this this leads to in a certain percentage of the population to a degree of hatred in America is

seen is the most visible country in a few in many cases there may be legitimate concern about American policy. TREAT IT people of people in some of these societies who are traditionally looking fear American culture or Western culture really but it's brand names usually American. So I think that there are many generalized reasons for this but I'm trying to argue that the the common element in the worst cases is a sense of being surrounded threatened and which produces a minority complex. Now when people are so afflicted with a minority complex or threatened minority complex then you know there are ways of achieving sort of liberation from this attitude. If that's a democracy you have mechanisms by which you can discuss. You can you can negotiate you can talk you can bargain. And most democracies are not afflicted with this perception because they have other ways of achieving. Stating their position seen there you know defending themselves both psychologically and militarily and politically and so it's a it's a phenomena that inflicts undemocratic societies more than democratic societies

and we're all paranoid but some of us are paranoid for in some cultures paranoia or deep hatred of the other. Whatever you want to call it is more deeply rooted than them than most democracies. I just wanted to add to it. Steve was sitting beneath you. You know ultimately when you when you look frustrations. And it is rooted in terror alert it is rooted in poverty you know oppression and anyone does not have to really look to far to find. A lot of these all over the world and plenty of them in underwear I think up on the stone and if it was only bin Laden and his group it is likely it is you know if one is thrown in there that is in a way a side show for the watch what's happening and developing in the Middle East. So but duff ones in general. In fact right now what they're suffering is from the totally woman who are we know

appointed by the Pakistanis in government and the Pakistani intelligence service. STEVE Yeah I think when we find out the identity of these of these other people perpetrated this they're not going to be any Afghans among them or very few Afghans among them. Afghanistan was not a society that was afflicted with a sense of grievance and hatred of the outside world and IMO but it's absolutely correct that what's happened is that the Taliban which were a group of young kids who raised in Pakistan went to school in Pakistan. In a very narrow maybe seventh or eighth century Islamic ideology they were taken under the wing of both Pakistanis and Saudis are friends the Saudis were involved with us and in a sense imposed on the rest of Afghanistan. However I should point out maybe Mo being comparable feeling more and more details on this. When this did take place around 93 94 it was welcomed by many people including the United States because the Taliban were seen and I'd really like to hear mo beans judgment on this.

Taliban were seen then as a relief from the kind of warlordism that had afflicted Afghanistan from the days that the war against the Soviets had ended. And and and it was only later a few years later that the Taliban for a primitive kind of Islam became clear and also they began to allow their country to be used by by others are far more sophisticated and certainly not enough guns. Yes I agree with you. However as you know nineteen. Ninety two you know discriminate between gittin into food. You know why is that. Grand assembly of a constituent assembly in Kabul we are only participated. We try to bring some sort of calm to the government after the devastation of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the infrastructure of awfulness and we wanted to put this country back together. But there was of course a lot of a lot of

chaos in anarchy in Afghanistan again in 1994 the grandest filmic somebody of Iraq to which also participated in richer also puts waited. There also we try to create some instability on both cases you know Pakistan to do it. Meeting by not permitting the presenter of our phones we were in Pakistan to fly in and come in and participate in their work came into slower meeting afterward and that one was of course it was cricket to begin with because the noise should be for another softening to her own Dolly book of the Muslims that they will agree with all these things and of course were interested in the industry I did I would ask Steve later on. We never in here's a chance to deploy what is the interest of Folkestone enough to understand that that's exactly the question that was in my mind it was the next thing that I was going to ask but we have what it what's what's in it for

Pakistan to have the Taliban running Afghanistan. Well what's in it for Pakistan is that is that Pakistan has or had. A fairly stable pro Pakistani dependent regime in power in Kabul in Afghanistan. And this was a dream that the Pakistani military had had for a long time. They wanted to extend Pakistani influence into Central Asia. They wanted they they thought they could become a player in the former Soviet Union or even in the Soviet Union when before it had felt fallen apart. I remember being briefed by senior Pakistani intelligence officers about this dream and most Americans were appalled at this we thought that this was not only risky but it was impossible and would only only have backlash on Pakistan itself. Pakistan needed to rebuild itself and reconstruct a democracy not engaging in minor imperial adventures. This they went ahead. We parted company with Pakistan primarily because we were opposed to Pakistan's nuclear program. And from 91

onwards I would point out that we were beginning we were sanctioning Pakistan to layer upon layer of sanctions primarily because of their nuclear program and we lost all influence in Pakistan. We stopped training Pakistani officers here. We cut out any educational programs in Pakistan. We just sort of let Pakistan wander off on its own. And I think while the Pakistanis bear the major share of responsibility from their point of view this was a stable Afghanistan depended on Islamabad and Pakistan was was a good thing and they could use this as a back up base in their conflict with India. My own view is that American policy was grossly negligent from ninety nine thousand ninety two onward I've been writing and speaking about that for a long time. And I think we should have been more engaged in with the Pakistanis and with the Indians. But the view here in the Clinton administration was that these are other people's problems. Let's not get involved let's not get engaged. You know let them sort it out. It's not our problem. And I think so. You know we were innocent we were in a period of liberal isolationism for a long period of time where people did not want to see America

engaged in these far off distant and funny sounding countries and I think we're paying the price for it you know I think we're paying the price for a generalized American withdrawal from the world and lack of engagement in the world and I think a very unrealistic approach towards much of the rest of the world. We have several callers I want to get on to someone else and also I guess since we're already at the midpoint I should introduce again our guests joining us from Washington is Stephen Cohen senior fellow for Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution here with me in the studio. He is a former professor of education policy studies at University of Illinois who has followed events in this part of the world very very closely now for a number of years. Questions welcome. We do have several people here in line will take him in the order they came in starting next with Urbana line number two. Hello. Oh hello. Yes. I wonder I would very much like to have perhaps Professor Shorrosh sort of go through the history of Afghanistan and say from 1970

up until the Soviet invasion and the various governments that were and you know Afghanistan and through that oh you know it's kind of rough. Period and also the possible rise of the moon which are a deep charge being before the Soviet invasion and possible American involvement in that sort of pre-Soviet invasion period. But I'd be possible to take apart five or ten minutes to go through that. I try to do it. In a few minutes. Well 73 deal was coulda Todd Wallace Dimona of Kenya or should in the Republic. In 1978 and if he was a Soviet bank could it go way down. Republican killed a president and a great many others mother wife and

children were then on sabbatical at the time so that brought in the ungenerous 17 December 17 of the Soviet Army attack of cornerstone in the war began in the Soviet to finally got defeated in the lift. You know Afghanistan in 1989 in nineteen ninety and the destruction of Soviet Union implosion of Soviet Union in 1990 between 1989 and 1990 too you have a communist puppet of the Soviet Union empowered by the name of medieval law and his group in 1992. Finally the people who've been fighting the Soviet Union were able to come in and establish a government and that was what's called The Fighter. Against the Soviet Union against a regime that did the day thought and it was ungodly

atheistic in no good at all. And they saw the handiwork of the Soviet Union like the Russians in this case the total complete destruction of Afghanistan and says you know the infrastructure were destroyed the country was this destabilized continuously in Folkestone government used one good photo which I didn't in this case they're good iniquity on district forty two bum board and destabilize this group in a rigid they never were able to coalesce so later on of course you have the collarbone which are bearing the greatest catastrophe to these people. After the Soviet invasion the United States provided support to Afghans and others fighting the Soviet troops was THEIR it was their involvement of the United States and any sort of way.

Before the Soviet invasion would United States was involved primarily for humanitarian. Mission 19 and 48 to the Ex-Im Bank. You started the Helmand Valley project and later on the US was involved primarily in economic development and he went to Turkey and by 19 and 78 when I was 77 in fact when in the survey research labia try to do a census work in Afghanistan why didn't you notice it. Embassy people told me that you cannot compete with the Russian and you're going to pack up and go. And so the 1978 a 77. And there was no interest in Afghanistan. Afterward of course when the war began the United States need to be convinced that the war in Afghanistan the victory of the Afghans would Soviet Union

was in the interest of the United States in a lot of Afghans had to work quite hard to lobby for that. To me. You know to convince us to tell him it didn't happen right away. It happened for yourself and that's it. That's not me. STEVEN COHEN That's a very you know it's a very fine instant history and it's and I'm going to I've copied it down I'm going to use it. I was asked the same question by many journalists and I've been doing a lot of press work. And to me the lesson is you know how ignorant Americans are about the history of the rest of the world we don't teach geography we don't teach history. Our academic disciplines have you know have turns towards methodology as opposed to substance. You know I think that the lack of America is a very multicultural country with a lot of people here from a lot of other countries but in fact our school system in our unit right through the universities are really very parochial. And one of the things that shocks us is is how little shocks me at least is how little we know about the rest of the world. It's not that we all have to be specialists on each country but the basic the basic lack of knowledge

about much of the rest of the world especially among the media and so forth is is quite impressive. Let little leave alone are deans and university presidents. Well I appreciate the comment of the caller the question the caller I hope he would not mind if I move on to someone else we'll go next to champagne and this will be line number three. Hello hello. Yes I've heard it said that the first thing the U.S. did in regard to Pakistan was to demand that they terminate the supplies that had been going into half. Aniston from Pakistan that is desperate poverty of Afghanistan would seem to support some part of that population was the food aid particularly it was coming from Pakistan Pakistan the U.S. has demanded that it stopped. Is this true. No it's not true. The food aid was coming from America. Most even though we don't recognize the Taliban and we didn't bargain the Taliban in terms of in terms of airlines travel and so forth. We are providing I think what is a Mobin 20 million dollars a year with the food aid. Yes it was it was that is the bulk of food aid was coming from the United States. It went through it went through Pakistan but it did come from

the United States. What we have among other things that we've asked the Pakistanis to do is possibly and I don't know the list has not been revealed yet but possibly to shut off the fuel supplies to the to the Taliban because the Taliban military machine not much of a machine but they do have trucks they do have are you know some armored cars. They certainly have a teeny teeny tiny air force that's utterly dependent on Pakistan and that's one of the major leaders that the Pakistanis have is to is to stop the supply of military equipment and then also also fuel in petrol to the Taliban. But it but we haven't seen the exact list but I'm sure that you know humanitarian aid which is keeping many Afghans alive because there is a famine going on in Afghanistan simultaneous to all these other problems. And you know I don't think any administration would would would stop the flow of. Economic However the Taliban the Taliban themselves have made it difficult to deliver the stuff and because of this crisis I think a lot of the aid workers are pulling out and of course they arrested a bunch of Americans and Germans and others on the grounds of trying

to proselytize and these people are held hostage someplace in Kabul. Yes not only are is care and the other NGO that are delivering this aid they are being driven out of course by the imminent American attack. So the actual food aid that was coming from the U.S. through Pakistan that stopped to know what this is of course is the answer to bin Laden's prayers isn't it I mean the U.S. is moving in such a way to construct that very pan-Islamic opposition to the U.S. That meant a lot that a lot of this trying to do. I mean only the fever dreams have been allowed in and Samal Huntington are being fulfilled here by American policy this is madness. Yeah I think you're absolutely right Carol I think I assume you're conscious. And that is that it's essential that the United States make a clear distinction in two ways. First of all that this is not an American revenge operation that this is not simply Americans but that hundreds of non-Americans were killed in New York and else and elsewhere and that this is a U.N. and international operation to root out some of these characters and that's that's an important that's important for the Pakistanis because they are afraid of being

on our side if our side in fact includes other in other Muslim countries and other states. You know you can name them hopefully they'll be there then that's makes it politically more palatable. Secondly it must not be seen as an attack on the Afghan people. Absolutely essential that we don't attack on Afghans the Afghans are responsible for the Afghan government has allowed the the Osama and al Qaeda to operate from its territory. But it doesn't do any good simply to kill Afghan citizens that we might want to think about removing the Taliban. People here propose that unfortunately this administration was not interested in it. Maybe they will be interested in it now. But we cannot engage in a war against off the Afghan people or against Islam I think that would be that would be that would be devastating and that would lead to a fulfillment of Huntington's fantasies. But my suggestion is that the American policy as announced as it was being followed right now is producing precisely that. Fact and the rest in the eyes of the rest of the world people see it that way. Why don't you act instead but in Pakistan it seems that particularly playing out the British papers have been the full of

accounts about how about worries about rubles not only popular revolt in Pakistan against what seemed to be an anti-Islamic policy on the party United States but even vul revolt within the Pakistani army about which you know something that there is that Musharraf is in fact sitting on a rather sharp point in this regard and that he is could be beset on every side does it as it becomes clear that the US is indeed doing what bin Laden is claiming. Putting together a crusade ibe someone use the word crusade the other day didn't think against Islam. Yeah I think I think most Pakistanis were repelled by what happened and bin Laden has been sort of a full kero but not many Pakistanis I think would reject that kind of that kind of ideal hero right now. And they don't want to see their country evolve or devolve into the kind of Taliban like Islam. So I think there will be support for the United States in Afghan in Pakistan. If the if Musharraf can also argue that we're doing this as part of an international

coalition it's not directed against Islam it's directed against people of perverted Islam and also apparent that he will probably get some benefits out of this from the United States because I think there will be there will be rewards for Pakistan for good behavior as well as potential punishment for bad behavior and I think that's the message I know that's the message that we've told the Pakistanis and I'm betting that they will they will side with us for the most part they will be some things will be unhappy with. But I think that they understand that they can survive as a country without American cooperation specially in their even more financially dependent on outsiders and that are the Taliban. So I think that we do have leverage with the Pakistanis and the army could suppress or could contain any domestic popular uprising. They'll be some lunatics anyway. I've seen some of them on television packets ex Pakistani generals who say that you know we should stand up to the Americans. But I don't think the Chinese would support the Pakistanis in that. And the Chinese of course have become the biggest backers of Pakistan. So the U.S. can buy one Muslim country Pakistan. Start of another

Afghanistan. And that's exactly what the law does not suggest. No no no I don't think that any operation. Bin Laden I think is history if he's not if he's not dead he probably will be. The question is the kind of organization that he's built up. You know Afghanistan and whether they'll be purged from Afghanistan if that happens I think the Pakistanis are now telling the Taliban you get rid of him. It may be it may be contrary to your to your octoroon values but you get rid of him and there's going to be benefits for you there's going to be international aid flowing into Afghanistan. And I think there should be internationally flowing into Afghanistan. I think we can accept the Taliban government as distasteful as it is if it does serve as the vehicle for restoration of Afghanistan at least beginning. And then you work with the Tele you work with the Taliban and hope that someday it will evolve I think that's probably the best scenario we could hope for right now. I'm going to jump in here I hope again the caller forgive me I have two other people and we have about 10 minutes left I'd like to go on. I do want to ask Steve the one real quick thing. One of things that I've heard is that elements of the Bin Laden's organization have been employed

by Pakistan in Kashmir. It is that true. Absolutely true. It's hard to tell whether they've been employed by the Pakistanis or the Pakistanis simply provide transit for them to go and operate in cush Mir. And one of the implications of all of this could be a transformed India-Pakistan relations. If Musharraf bites the bullet I don't know if that's the right metaphor but if he does the right thing then some of these groups would be rolled up in Pakistan itself but also you would stop it. You wouldn't see the transit of terrorists from from Afghanistan through Pakistan into Indian administered Kashmir. And I think that could be a great benefit for American policy for Indian policy and in the long run for Pakistan. The trouble is that there are some Pakistani generals. You who believe that this is the only leverage they have over India to put this kind of pressure on the Indians and the Indians have been subjected to all kinds of not simply rebellious Kashmiris but to Arabs Pakistanis Afghans people have come over. I call

them the tourist terrorist crowd and they go there and they've committed horrible atrocities in India and against Indian citizens. You know the murder of massacre of innocent pilgrims in large numbers. So I think that this Musharraf is facing this problem also. Let's go on to another caller. In Urbana line one. Hello. Yes. I heard the comment. That the Taliban bin Laden that is chill and I'd like to ask a question which I think is imminent and many minds and that is do you believe that the United States stop becoming an apologist for Israeli aggression and remove the sanctions from Iraq. If this would go a long way to resolving the problem. Well I believe firmly that if we have an even handed policy in the Middle East that do not blindly

anything that says to have compassion which the Palestinian duty it would indeed use quite a lot of these frustrations and you know it is of course I mean as you've seen from it. Tremendous. Why do you know interested in England you know of course my dear old and demonic ruler Saddam Hussein. So the day has to be some sort of help in mercy for these people of course Deftones. Well yeah I I certainly agree with my first point but I think in the case of Saddam Hussein he is unfortunately the closest thing to a Stalin or Hitler that we have these days around the world. And I felt right from the beginning when the Gulf War that we should have took one of our war objectives should have been to remove him as a as leader of that country and try to re install some kind of more moderate government. I think Iraq is a very serious problem. They themselves operate all kinds of terrorist groups overseas. I wouldn't be surprised if if what we see in

Afghanistan is an act one act two act three Act Four will be America trying to address or address the problem of these groups who are based or supported by the intelligence services of Iraq of possibly of Syria possibly of Iran and other countries also. We can't deal with them all one at all. And we can't turn the Middle East into a democracy it's not going to be it you know there are the conditions that are there aren't there for it. But certainly I think we can try to address ourselves against the worst the worst one of the worst leaders in the world at this time and that Saddam he's murdered more of his people than than anybody else. And he's also he was also trying to get nuclear weapons and he's and and his use germ warfare against his own people. So I think that American policy has been too soft against him. And I would have preferred a much tougher policy including support of opposition groups or trying to overthrow him. David get your question very good. We have again we have about 10 minutes left in this part of focus 580 with Stephen Cohen senior fellow in foreign policy studies program at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. well being should as she is

here with me he's a retired associate professor of education policy studies at University of Illinois both of them have been following events and developments in this region for a long long time and we're talking about politics in Afghanistan and Pakistan and questions are welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5 do just to follow up on this discussion you had just with the caller. Do you think that in fact the United States policy regarding that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to change as a result of of what happened last week. I just said to me yeah yeah yeah I think that will become more proactive I think it's important to be you know one thing the Bush administration did when he came in and said we're not going to get involved in the Arab-Israeli problem we'll let we'll let it seek its own level. We've been too meddling in the past. They were very critical of Bill Clinton's activist diplomacy and they didn't want to reap replicate

it. And it wasn't that they supported the Israelis unconditionally I think that that's a myth. But they felt that some time had to pass and you know that the Israelis and the Palestinians had to sort out the differences themselves for a while. I think that was a mistake and I think America needs to be seen and visibly seen as concerned about injustices around the world. Even if we can't do a great deal about them. But certainly the case of the Palestinians and I and certainly the case of the Israelis who are being subjected to these kinds of these kinds of terrorist attacks themselves. And I think America should get engaged. We should try to be an honest broker. This may mean supporting Israel more than more than Palestine but the Palestinians haven't stood up to their obligations either. I do want to get into the details of this but I do agree that a more activist policy is important and I think you know I've been one of those who've been arguing. Against the received wisdom in Washington and elsewhere a more active American role in Conn Kushner I don't think we should be pro Indian or Pakistani on that I think we should we should try to be an even handed broker to get a peace process going

there. So and one of the things that has distressed me the critics have said well this is due to American you know America's support for Israel or this is due to America's support for India or this is due to this or that. I think the people who have done this are well beyond these kinds of issues and the objective of this attack was not policy it was simply to hurt America. You know they have I don't like the rhetoric but they have declared war on America and I think that they have to be dealt with in those terms. On the other at the other level there are policy issues we should be engaged with and where injustices have taken place and we certainly should be more proactive in those. One of the governments that has come forward to condemn the acts of last week was the government of Iran. Although it seems pretty unlikely that they would sanction military action of the United States in Afghanistan. One wonders just what sort of support the Iranians might be willing or able to provide. Well I think that doctors can boil

it in I think it's condemning universally. To go to religion. I believe that you are going to have been like a mosquito in that you don't need an offense. For many many reasons. You don't intervene in India since you know it has been sort of ruined it by horse thought. Countries all I know one or two have offered him some well yeah I would be I'd be inclined to think that you know noone will be receptive to cooperate to to to to move for permission. Enough When people commit leave going to affect their nobody heads negatively you don't itself. If I could comment just very briefly on that I don't want to give a long answer again I sound like I'm a

professor again offering too many lectures. Iran is a country as is Pakistan that is part of the solution it is also part of the problem. Iraq I would say is a country that's simply part of the problem there's no there's no way we can work with the Iraqi government as it can't presently concert so I think we will be working with the Iranians as best we can. But they have also been active they also have a large global international network of people prepared to carry out these kinds of acts against us. They regarded as self-defense but clearly they have this capability so that you have to work we have to work with countries that we may find distasteful. They have and they are part of the problem but to some degree they're part of the solution as well. We have somebody calling from Indiana on cell phone so we'll get right to them a line for Hello. Oh yes I just like to know if I want to write. The major difference between an American flag and the mob just the religion itself. Well I don't know all that we can do that we can we can try. Do you

want Mobi should do it. Well the idea is to combine African American Muslims. One is a group that follows the minister for the whole and. Who is not quite considered void ministry in Islam. To be part of it. Neither one is there are millions of American who are Muslims in the ministry. So if that's your answer and that's it. I think that's probably a pretty good short answer that the Nation of Islam while they call themselves that and I'm not sure what if there's much of anything of of traditional orthodox mainstream Islam as part of their belief and practice but certainly as you say there are many African Americans who are Muslims.

Does nothing that I have seen that is part of the bulk of the snow is from the hoons group. Let's try and get one more at least here line one. Well. I don't yes yes I am. My observation of everything in the war talk that is evolving out of all of this. It occurs to me that the US is willing now to pursue a war attitude and to sacrifice more American lives and cities because I don't think. Muslim activists activists are not going to lay down and just take the bullets they're going to retaliate in the only way they know how. And that is to attack more American cities and possibly some in Europe Western Europe and that this administration.

Yes willing to take those casualties and deaths and destroy. Option to pursue their parking policies adopted from England. Middle East. Thank you. Well Professor confessor go on yeah yeah. When I make some response. Yeah I think I think the caller makes an interesting point I think that he has to understand that Americans have been targeted in a war basically for several years now. You can't go to Pakistan you can't go to the Middle East you can't go to a lot of countries or you can't go to any country in fact without seeing an American embassy that looks like looks like a prison. It's an armed fortress and that's because these embassies and American businesses and corporations have been the target of terrorist attacks on a regular sustained basis. Now the war is being brought home and we're more and more Americans or we're unaware of this or we're now aware of it. There's no question that this is been a war against America for some time and it's been an

undeclared war but it's a war nevertheless and without any particular objective except to hurt Americans. And I think that this administration is now willing if not eager to use some American lives in fighting back that the danger is that we will kill innocents abroad to be so-called collateral damage. You will create a new generation of people who dislike us. But I certainly think that. Again I have some trouble with the war rhetoric but I do think that this is an undeclared war by not that many people. And it I wouldn't say they're Muslims these are not these are not Muslims in the ordinary sense of the word at all but by people who are deeply alienated from their own societies their own governments except for their intelligence services are helping them and they see America as the target. And they've been they've been doing this for years overseas. Well we're going to have to stop here at the end of the time I want to say to our guests both Thanks very much Steven Cohen from Brookings Institution thank you very much for talking with us today. I'm happy to be with you again. We also want to say a big thanks to the folks at Brookings for helping us provide this high quality connection with them and here in studio with me Moby insure a retired educational policy

professor at U of I think.