After Defeat, Journey to Uncertain Fate By DEXTER FILKINS KHULM, Afghanistan, Nov. 27 — Like some lost caravan, the trucks rumbled across the steppe bearing their wretched cargo, 800 Taliban prisoners bound for an uncertain fate. The prisoners, crawling and writhing on one another like turtles in a pet shop, were the sorry byproduct of the Northern Alliance's most recent victory. Until Monday, the Taliban soldiers had been hunkered down in the northern city of Kunduz, and when the Northern Alliance laid siege to the place for the last two weeks, the Taliban troops faced the choice of surrendering or fighting to the death. First they retreated, then they gave up. It was a defeated army this, all rags and filth and lowered heads. Flies swarmed around men with matted hair, and fights broke out in the tangle of bodies for the tiny corners of space. The air around the trucks reeked so powerfully that the guards wrapped their faces with their scarves before they approached. Some of the prisoners, the still unbroken ones, were bound, and some were bound to each other, lest they jump from the trucks. The rest were suspended in their misery by the threat of Kalashnikovs. "Terrorists and invaders, come to ruin our country," huffed Agha Muhammad, the chief alliance guard, walking down the line of trucks with a walkie-talkie and a long stick. "I wonder what they are thinking now." The prisoners had come to this spot, a way station in the parched vastness of northern Afghanistan, to wait for some word on their final destination. They had run out of Kunduz toward the west as the Northern Alliance rolled in from the east, and it was their misfortune that another anti-Taliban warlord, Abdul Rashid Dostum, was waiting for them as they came out. Because these Taliban were foreigners, mostly illiterate young men from Pakistan, they were not being allowed to return to their homes — unlike the Taliban from Afghanistan. The future of the foreign prisoners is murky, with Northern Alliance commanders bickering over whether they should be tried and executed or turned over to the United Nations. General Dostum captured and disarmed this group on Monday, and sent them toward his base at Mazar- i-Sharif. But as he did so, another group of Taliban prisoners was mounting a violent uprising in the fort, at Qala Jangi, where he had intended to send them. Suddenly, Qala Jangi was out of the question, and so the 14 truckfuls of prisoners had come here to wait. Recent Afghan history is not encouraging when it comes to the fate of such large numbers of prisoners. For example, the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif has been the scene of two massacres over the last five years as it has changed hands between the Taliban and their rivals. In the weeks leading up to the Taliban's collapse, Northern Alliance troops often spoke of the hordes of foreign soldiers who they maintained were arrayed against them. The phrase "Arabs, Chechens and Pakistanis" was uttered so often that it seemed to have been drilled into the mind of every alliance soldier. Yet few independent observers had ever seen many foreign soldiers outside of Northern Alliance jails. Here, in the desert, was a large group of foreign fighters the likes of which the Northern Alliance had talked about for so long. The guards described the prisoners as "Arab, Chechen and Pakistani" but in fact the group appeared to be almost entirely from Pakistan. With Kunduz now under its control, the Northern Alliance appeared to be giving these prisoners all the consideration it might afford a pile of spent bullets. The trucks sat motionless in a row next to the road, with the prisoners remaining inside them. The guards, bored by the inactivity, threw large stones at any prisoner who allowed an arm or foot to drape over the side. Some of the feet were bare. "Water!" cried the men, who talked in Urdu, Punjabi and Pashto, the languages of Pakistan. They gestured to the guards, their hands motioning up and down toward their mouths, as if dipping into a well. "Water!"` The guards lazily tossed up a few jugs where hundreds were needed, those that went up setting off more squabbles and lurches of the human scrum. When the guards walked away, the men in the trucks quietly sent word that they had not eaten or drunk since they had surrendered. They had not been allowed to leave the truck to relieve themselves since they left Chardara, the village outside of Kunduz where they had surrendered several hours before. After some haggling, the guards agreed to allow one prisoner to speak. His name was Muhammad Tadamia, age 30, and he stood before a Western reporter a filthy and confused man. The ride from Kunduz had caked his hair and skin in dust. He had lost a shoe somewhere inside the truck, and he cracked his knuckles over and over as he spoke. Mr. Tadamia said he was living in Karachi, the Pakistani port city about 800 miles away, when he was inspired by a call from an Islamic leader, a man he recalled as "Mullah Brother," to go north to fight in the jihad against nonbelievers. So Mr. Tadamia, who said he could not read or write, went north to Kunduz, marching out of his home country three months ago with several hundred of his Pakistani brethren. Describing this, Mr. Tadamaia marched in place in front of the trucks, and dozens of his comrades laughed and guffawed. "I am just a Talib," Mr. Tadamia said, marching in place. "I am just a Talib." Mr. Tadamia said he was not sure why his army had surrendered, only that he had been ordered to do so by the senior Taliban leaders in Kunduz, Mullah Fazel and Mullah Dadullah. The American bombing had been terrifying, he said, and he figured that that had something to do with it. Mr. Tadamia said the Northern Alliance troops had treated him well so far, but as he spoke his eyes wandered to Mr. Muhammad, the guard standing within earshot. When the interview was finished and the guards prepared to lead Mr. Tadamia back into the truck, he was asked if he intended to fight again. Mr. Tadamia shook his head and did not wait to answer. "I will never fight in the name of jihad again," he said. As he walked back to the giant truck that held his comrades, Mr. Muhammad, the guard, picked up a large stone and hurled it into Mr. Tadamia's back. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/international/asia/28CARA.html I'm not one to relish in another's misfortune, but... You reap what you sow. Does anyone still think I was making all this "the Taliban are foreign invaders" stuff up? There is only one way to deal with these people - the jehadis and terrorists - and it ain't pretty.
War is inherently evil, horrific, unfair, and nearly everything negative, but it is a deed which is certainly necessary wholeheartedly during times like these...with the right leadership, we will win the War on terrorism...
That's illogical. You cannot have a war without the deeds that come with it. If the deeds are horrific, logic would dictate that war must be also. Maybe you could argue that some wars are "justified" while horrific, but virtuous and horrific probably don't belong in the same paragraph.
First we have the fighting done by proxies (with a billion a month winfall for defense stocks) then we have the human rights violations done by proxies. These guys tried to surrender to the UN. "Sorry we don't have the personnel." They tried to surrender to the US. "Sorry we don't have the personnel." Besides Bush has already decided they aren't entitled to the Geneva Convention portections as they aren't prisoners of war. Just summary executions after summary "tribunals". Rumsfield and US politicians openly say that they hope they are all killed. I guess the fig leaf of doing it by proxies is enough for most Americans. Hear no evil, see no evil. You know, Jeff, I'm about to join you in total pacifism or at the minimum decide I was wrong to support this war in a limited fashion. Under the just war theory the response must be commensurate with the provocation. Every day the response becomes more grotesque as we standby Sharon like while our proxies commit crimes against humanity.
Saying the quote the other way makes more sense: War is horrific, but the deeds of war are, at times, virtuous. The virtuous deeds would involve the various liberations that are done as well as the risks taken to help your brothers in combat.
why would you do that? I believe War IS inherently evil, but I certainly embrace the idea for War to exist when warranted...if ever there was a time to embrace War it would be now lest terrorism has the upper hand! I hope we will wipe out terrorism anywhere it bodes...I don't care if it's in all middle-eastern countries, nor how whoever feels about it. This is a War of Good vs. Evil and Evil will not and cannot triumph.
They didn't try to surrender to the U.S. they said they would die fighting glynch. That's why they said "jihad". And they didn't try to surrender to the U.N. they tried to negotiate AROUND the U.S. to the U.N. while they were trying to get Osama bin Laden. If they had surrendered this would have never have happened. You think the U.S. wanted to put their soldiers lives in danger to fight a war if the Taliban was ready to surrender!? But once again you only post when you can try and dig up something negative about the U.S. to defend the "poor old Taliban". Poor, poor Taliban. Why don't you rip the Taliban for killing innocent people and torturing people? They put themselves in this situation by harboring a man who callously murdered thousands of Americans and people from other countries including Great Britain. You complained that the U.S. was starving people with the bombings obviously that didn't happen. <b>"I will never fight in the name of jihad again," he said. </b> At least this guy is thinking logically again.
<B>They didn't try to surrender to the U.S. they said they would die fighting glynch. That's why they said "jihad". And they didn't try to surrender to the U.N. they tried to negotiate AROUND the U.S. to the U.N. while they were trying to get Osama bin Laden. </B> Actually, this isn't true. Several Taliban soliders HAVE tried to surrender to US forces, and they have been told to surrender to the Northern Alliance (Rumsfeld has said this in news conferences). This is primarily because we did not have personnel to accomodate POWs. They also requested a surrender overseen by the UN. The UN also refused, citing a lack of ability on their part. I think the reason for wanting to surrender to the US/UN is pretty clear -- they probably expect to be "tried" and then slaughtered by the Northern Alliance. Keep in mind, these are individual soldiers & armies we're talking about, not the Taliban regime itself. They were simply defending their country in a civil war. This is a sad situation. Even Vietnam held POWs instead of just slaughtering every enemy solider that surrendered to them. It a basic part of Geneva Convention war standards. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of a better solution than letting the NA handle it right now.
No, they were not defending their country. They were invading another country - did you even read the article? These people are foreigners. And those guys who "rioted" at Mazar-I-Sharif are Al Qaeda. They wanted to martyr themselves, well I'm glad we could oblige them...
<B>No, they were not defending their country. They were invading another country - did you even read the article? These people are foreigners. </B> Sorry for the confusion -- I wasn't referring to the article and these people in particular. I was talking about the various individuals / armies who tried to surrender to the US / UN. Many of them have been "native Afghan" or whatever.
The "native Afghans" have pretty much either surrendered successfully or switched sides and have been treated well. It's the foreigners who are being treated like dirt, and I for one don't blame the Afghans for doing it. They ruined Afghanistan.
<b>Jeff</b>: "That's illogical. You cannot have a war without the deeds that come with it. If the deeds are horrific, logic would dictate that war must be also. .. Maybe you could argue that some wars are "justified" while horrific, but virtuous and horrific probably don't belong in the same paragraph. <b>RR</b>: I got caught with my pants down.... being too brief! What I meant was that the <b>purpose</b> or war is often justified-- as is our aim in this War on Terrorism or the purpose of World War II to destroy the Fascists.
That summarizes what I meant also RichRocket...regarding instances of the purpose of War being righteous, regardless of the inherent byproducts that are not so nice.
Jeff, From a philisophical standpoint, I agree very much with you about war. I doubt that any war can be truly virtuous. But human nature points us in another direction and if war was eliminated then I feel tyranny would reign supreme. Afghanistan is a mix of cultures, tribes, and languages which each use the blanket of religion or racial soverignty to usurp power, because the country has no economic base. Treeman is correct in a sense that the Taliban is predominantly outsiders, religious fanatics and extremists that were expelled from their own country or ventured their in search of glory as the Afghanis fought the Soviets. Every nation has extremists and the Muslim ones are concentrated in Afghanistan because of the breakdown in social, governmental and political structure post-soviet rule. These people are responsible for terror all over the globe, and I feel the US has done the most tactical form of battle by helping their enemies, which will also limit post-war negativity against the US (ala Post WWI Germany, Iraq etc) But to say that these people are not privy to Geneva Convention rules about prisoners of war is showing that we have learned nothing from our "enlightened ways." If we show the same barbarism towards our enemies, why should they learn that our system is better. Let us burn down these bridges of hatred and not create new ones. I see Post WWII Japan and Germany as examples of how we helped countries and ourselves, and Iraq, Post WWI germany as examples of the latter. Many thoughts in one post...yes I know.... One thought, I was reading about Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden....each of these guys is over 6'2, Mullah Omar is blind in one eye from a Soviet attack...and they are both insane and don't care about death.... A lot of people talk about wanting to be in a room to teach these guys a lesson....but I don't know about that.... Imagine meeting these two nutcases in an ally.......
I wasn't necessarily trying to say war is wrong, just pointing out that Rich's statement didn't really make sense. He saw that too and, Rich, I know how you feel. I am often guilty of saying stuff too briefly. Just for the record, I, personally, believe that the only solution to the problems that exist in our world is peace. I do not personally agree with war under any circumstance. However, just as I have no interest in trying to force my beliefs regarding not killing animals for food on anyone, I feel the same about war. I just don't think that any one opinion, no matter how popular it may be, is right for everyone. We all have a right to believe what we want.
What a crock. You've been as supportive of this war as Jane Fonda was of our troops in Vietnam. In fact Glynch Fonda has a nice ring to it.
I guess I'm suposed to feel sorry for the people that guard the terrorists that want every American dead, but I don't. I should have compasion for...wait, wait... I think I feel something.....I...I...., no it passed.
