Professor calls for policies to end terror

While bombs and fighter jets cloud the skies over Afghanistan, M. Nazif Shahrani is more interested in examining the policies that allowed terrorism to take root initially. Shahrani, chairman of the IU Department of Near Eastern Languages, lived in Afghanistan until his second year of college. He spoke with Bush's top aid on Afghan affairs and advised the president of the Afghanistan Northern Alliance, the leading Taliban opposition group. \nHe's explored ways to stop terrorism in the Middle East before it hits U.S. soil and would like to see Afghanistan emerge from this war equipped to embrace a republic form of government and the ideals of democracy.\nLike many other Americans, he's watched the analysis of the Sept. 11 unfold as people search for answers. But as Shahrani sees it, most people are asking the wrong questions and many are arriving at faulty answers. \nSome question the Islam religion, searching for traces of hate. \n"In Islam you can't punish the innocent for the crimes of others," Shahrani said. "(The religion) does not condone homicide or suicide. Taking one's life is the greatest sin." \nOthers look to cultural differences for reasons behind the attack. \n"Because bin Laden hates U.S. values and ways of life? Rubbish, he wants to have them," he said. \nInstead, bin Laden hates the U.S. for creating barriers for his people to experience the prosperity of the United States, Shahrani said. Bin Laden, a Saudi native, blames the U.S. for supporting the corrupt Saudi government. \n"We have not sided with Muslim people, but corrupt regimes," Shahrani said. "He blames the U.S. for the misfortunes of his land."\nThe presence of U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War also enraged bin Laden, who was stripped of his Saudi Arabian citizenship after calling for a jihad against America upon the arrival of U.S. troops. \n"It's considered to be sacred soil where non-Muslim powers should not be," Shahrani said. Bin Laden attacked two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. \nWhile Shahrani stressed that there is no excuse for killing innocent people, he said the U.S. has failed to install structures equipped to prevent terrorism. Often the U.S. supports oppressive regimes that force their morals, language and way of life on people throughout their nation. The result is often countries divided into warring factions that breed terror. \n"We're interested in the fastest solutions and the fastest returns," Shahrani said, noting that the U.S. often props questionable governments to secure low oil prices and increased international business. "We have the option to side with the people of the world -- not corrupt regimes."\nInstead of endorsing particular leaders, the United States should install governments that grant local autonomy and centralized control, Shahrani said. \n"The best form of managing multi-ethnic societies is to use the principles of U.S. government and mix and match those with conditions in places like Afghanistan."\nShahrani said his solution is unlikely to be enacted. Bush's top advisor on Afghan affairs is Zalmay Khalilzad, who laid out steps to weaken the Taliban in a 2000 Washington Quarterly article, "Afghanistan: Consolidation of a Rogue State." \nShahrani said Bush has followed many of the article's recommendations so far -- a prospect that bodes poorly for the future of Afghanistan.\n"(Khalilzad) comes from certain circles in Afghanistan that favor an ethnic group the Taliban is promoting," Shahrani said, adding that Khalilzad advocates putting members of the Pashtun ethnic group in power after the Taliban falls. "His solution does not deal with the structural problems, it just finds characters that serve (Khalilzad's) purposes."\nIf the Bush administration listens to Khalilzad's recommendations and props the Pashtun leadership, Shahrani fears the cycle of internal warfare in Afghanistan will continue. \n"We may get rid of one crop, but if we don't get to the root of the problem new crops will continue to arise," Shahrani said. \nBush denied the United States' duty in nation-building until his Oct. 11 address to the nation. During his first prime-time address to the nation, he said America "should learn a lesson from the previous engagement in the Afghan area that we should not just simply leave after a military objective has been achieved."\nShahrani also addressed the topic of nation-building in a letter published in Sunday's New York Times, endorsing a government in Afghanistan with community self-governance and a strong national constitution.\n"The task is daunting, but the rewards are liberation from terror for the people of Afghanistan and a new precedent for combatting the conditions that give rise to terrorism elsewhere," he wrote. \nAs far as an end in sight, Henry Glassie, a member of the National Council on the Humanities and an IU professor of folklore who researched in Afghanistan in 1996, said it might not be clear. \n"It will have to be a symbolic moment when it ends, not like when the North took Richmond during the Civil War," Glassie said.\nWhen a resolution comes, Shahrani said moving forward will involve a jihad that defies conventional meaning. \n"The direct translation for jihad is 'struggle,' not 'holy war,'" Shahrani said. \nHe defined are two kinds of jihads. In a grand sense, a jihad is a personal struggle against inner evil. In a simpler sense, it is a struggle against an oppressor who has encroached on the land or revoked the right to religious freedom of Islamic people.\nBin Laden's widely publicized call for jihad within the Islam community is regarded as a joke by 99.99 percent of Muslim people, Shahrani said. Shahrani would rather see a jihad in the United States -- a struggle against the impulse to support another corrupt regime, and an endorsement of the democracy we embrace.\n"If in fact we pursue the great jihad of struggling against the evil within the United States, we'll be in the position of not having to go for the lesser jihad of fighting with arms," he said.