Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid

DATE February 12, 2003 ACCOUNT NUMBER N/A
TIME 12:00 Noon-1:00 PM AUDIENCE N/A
NETWORK NPR
PROGRAM Fresh Air

Interview: Ahmed Rashid, author and journalist, discusses
possible repercussions of an Iraqi war
TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

We're going to talk about the possible consequences of a war with Iraq and the
current threat of terrorism with journalist Ahmed Rashid. He's been covering
militant Islam since the late '80s. His book "Taliban" was published in 2000
and became a number one best-seller after September 11th. His latest book,
"Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia," has just been published
in paperback. Rashid lives in Pakistan, and reports from his country as well
as Afghanistan and central Asia for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the
London Daily Telegraph. He's also written pieces for The Wall Street Journal.
Last month, Rashid was in Afghanistan. He's currently visiting the United
States. I recorded an interview with him yesterday, shortly after Colin
Powell announced the appearance of the new bin Laden tape.

Have you heard any inside information about what al-Qaeda is planning next?

Mr. AHMED RASHID (Pakistani Journalist): No, not really, but I think it's
long been expected, at least for the last six months or so. I mean, I was in
Kabul a couple of weeks ago, and there was a lot of rumor there that there was
going to be a big hit in the United States or in Europe. The Afghan
intelligence was saying that's what they were picking up, and some of the
peacekeeping troops and the American officers there were saying the same
thing.

There has been renewed activity on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border with
al-Qaeda and Taliban coming in and hitting at American bases, and a lot of the
propaganda that's been released there has been actually about Iraq and, you
know, launching a jihad against American forces in Afghanistan, but also about
that the Americans are about to invade the Middle East and capture the whole
of the Middle East and that kind of thing. So it's pretty apparent that they
want to do something that will coincide with possibly an American attack on
Iraq.

GROSS: So in some circles, this is being pitched as an American invasion of
the Middle East.

Mr. RASHID: Certainly. I mean...

GROSS: Well, I guess--right.

Mr. RASHID: Yeah. I mean, certainly, you know, the groups like al-Qaeda and
all are certainly talking about it. I mean, they see this not just as a
question of changing the regime in Iraq but actually occupying Arab land, and
then occupying the whole Middle East.

GROSS: Well, I've been really anxious to talk with you, because I'm very
interested in what you're hearing and what you're thinking now. Let's start
with your just general reactions. Based on your knowledge of that part of the
world, do you think we should be going into war against Iraq to overthrow
Saddam Hussein?

Mr. RASHID: I think, you know, Saddam has to go, but I don't think the US
should be going to war, and certainly not in the way that it's been worked out
for the last three or four months. I think to go to war without an
international consensus, without much more pressure to be placed through the
UN inspectors and the inspecting regime, and through the United Nations
Security Council, I think to go to war is going to be extremely divisive in
the West and is going to sharpen the conflict between the Muslim world and the
United States.

GROSS: Why do you think that Saddam has to go?

Mr. RASHID: Well, certainly I think Saddam has to go. I mean, you know--but
I think there are other ways to do it. I think if this administration, six
months ago, had gone step by step with the kind of pressures and perhaps
moving troops to the Gulf, pressures through the UN or tried to build an
international consensus with the Arab states, with the European powers--for
example, I mean, the kind of speech we heard from Colin Powell a few days ago
in the UN Security Council, I mean, to my mind, that speech should have been
given three months ago, not, you know right on the edge of war. So, you know,
you needed a consistent, a proper strategy, where the US was not seen by the
rest of the world as going it alone, as doing things arrogantly, but wanting
to do things in consensus with everyone else.

GROSS: How much of a threat do you think Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
are?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, the fact is that they haven't--Iraq has
never targeted the United States. It has certainly targeted, you know,
Middle Eastern countries, but I don't think Iraq would still target the United
States even now. I don't believe Iraq has handed over chemical weapons to
al-Qaeda, the way that Colin Powell has asserted. I think some al-Qaeda
members may be hiding out in Iraq, but I think Saddam Hussein's whole
strategy, if we go back to 1991, has been always to try and target Israel, to
bring Israel into the war so that he can then turn around to his Arab brothers
and say, `Look, Israel is now attacking an Arab country. Come and join me.'
I think that is what his tactics this time are going to be. I don't think he
has the kind of global sort of megalomania like al-Qaeda have, you know, that
they want to strike in Manhattan or something.

GROSS: So are you suggesting that you think Saddam Hussein would attack
Israel with the intention of dragging Israel into the war so that Iraq can
say, `Look, Israel is fighting us now. We all have to go to war against
Israel'?

Mr. RASHID: Yeah. I think that is one of the huge dangers in this conflict,
and I think one of the biggest dangers would be if Israel joins the conflict,
and we really have not had anything from this administration to explain if
they are trying to keep Israel out of the conflict. I think Israel--last
time, if you remember, Scud missiles fell on Israel; this time, God forbid,
you may have chemical or biological missiles falling on Israel. But Israel
has to keep out of the war, because if Israel gets involved in the war, I
think it will become a much bigger and bloodier affair.

GROSS: You know, I know the Bush administration wants Israel to stay out of
the war, and it seems like--well, here's the United States, on the verge of
invading Iraq because of the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction,
and is it a lot to ask of a country to do nothing if it's actually attacked
with weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. RASHID: I agree with you, I mean, Terry, but you know, Israel showed
patience in '91 when they were attacked by Scuds, and those Scuds could also
have been carrying chemical and biological weapons.

GROSS: But they weren't. But they weren't.

Mr. RASHID: But they weren't. I mean, I agree with you. But I think the
aftermath of a war with Iraq is going to be extraordinarily dangerous anyway,
and if Israel does get involved, I think it's going to be even more dangerous,
with the Arab regimes up in arms, with protests in the streets against the
Arab regimes, with an escalation of the Palestinian issue. I think it's
critical that the US does mount pressure on Israel to keep out, or tries to
protect Israel in some form or the other.

GROSS: Colin Powell in his presentation to the Security Council said that the
militant Islamist group in northern Iraq, Ansar al-Islam, is tied in with
al-Qaeda. What do you know about that group?

Mr. RASHID: Ansar al-Islam is a Kurdish group; we should remember that. It's
the Islamic fringe, if you like, of the mainstream Kurdish nationalist
movement. There's always been a small Islamic fringe. Now it is certainly, I
think, it's being funded and has been supported by al-Qaeda, but it is very,
very small. It's a couple of hundred people, basically. They've carried out
some terrible acts, atrocious acts against fellow Kurds, but you know, they're
not in a position to be a fighting force for Saddam or to really affect the
battlefield. I mean, the point is that, you know, these people can probably
be eliminated. They will be eliminated, I'm sure, very quickly on in any kind
of American invasion.

I think there are dozens of groups like this scattered around the Muslim world
now which have at some point been funded by al-Qaeda, to which also al-Qaeda
militants have fled after the war in Afghanistan, so I mean, in my opinion,
there's nothing more in Ansar al-Islam than there is in many groups in
Pakistan, in Iran, in the Far East, who are all involved in extremist acts and
acts of terrorism.

GROSS: Is there any connection, as far as you know, between this radical
Islamist group, Ansar al-Islam, and Saddam Hussein?

Mr. RASHID: Yes, I think there is. I mean, certainly there are connections.
But I think Ansar al-Islam is too small to be any kind of effective fighting
force for Saddam Hussein in a conflict with the United States. I mean,
they're made up of a few hundred people. They control a very small area. I
think they would be immediately bombed or they would be immediately surrounded
by other Kurdish fighters. It was an attempt by him to create a kind of
Islamic bloc within the Kurdish movement, which would split and divide the
Kurdish movement, and really they haven't even succeeded in doing that
effectively, because the kind of extremism that they have espoused is very
unpopular in the Kurdish region.

GROSS: But if this group is linked both to al-Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein,
does that effectively create some kind of link between Saddam Hussein and
al-Qaeda?

Mr. RASHID: No, I mean, Ansar al-Islam is one of the many, many groups which
have been funded by al-Qaeda. It's one of the many groups in the world which,
since the defeat of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, has received and
hosted al-Qaeda members. But you know, al-Qaeda has gone into many countries
and been hosted by many countries, I mean, even hosted by intelligence
agencies of many countries which are ostensibly with the Americans. I mean,
we can take the example of Yemen, of Iran and even to some extent of Pakistan.
Many Muslim countries are hosting al-Qaeda willingly or unwillingly, and
Saddam is just one of them, I think. I mean, you know, if this is a raison
d'etre to go after Saddam, then you might as well go after another half a
dozen countries who are doing much the same kind of thing.

GROSS: So you're saying that this link that Colin Powell is using as a
justification for war isn't really significant.

Mr. RASHID: I don't think the al-Qaeda link is really significant. I think
the al-Qaeda link is certainly there. I don't think Saddam would be about to
hand over chemical weapons to them. I think he's given sanctuary to some of
the al-Qaeda people fleeing Afghanistan, like many other Muslim countries have
given sanctuary to al-Qaeda, which the United States knows well about, and I
think this Ansar group is not so much al-Qaeda, it's a fringe Kurdish group
which has connections to al-Qaeda, but it's not in a position to really affect
the strategic balance in the Middle East or any kind of strategic balance in a
war between America and Iraq.

You know, I think the linkages with al-Qaeda are very tenuous. I mean, a lot
of countries, unfortunately, have developed links with al-Qaeda since 9/11,
but, you know--and Iraq is no better or no worse than others. I think the
much bigger--I think where Colin Powell was successful in his description was,
of course, explaining the failure of Iraq to deliver on its chemical and
biological weapons systems. I think the linkage with al-Qaeda is far more
doubtful.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Ahmed Rashid, and he reports
from Pakistan, Afghanistan and central Asia for the Far Eastern Economic
Review and the London Daily Telegraph. He's the author of the best-seller
"Taliban," and his latest book, "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central
Asia," has just come out in paperback. Let's take a break, and then we'll
talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: My guest is Ahmed Rashid, and his latest book, "Jihad: The Rise of
Militant Islam in Central Asia," has just come out in paperback.

A lot of people are speculating, you know, does the Bush administration have a
hidden agenda? Is the agenda something than just overthrowing Saddam Hussein
because he poses a threat with weapons of mass destruction? From your reading
of the situation, do you see a hidden agenda? Do you think oil is the real
agenda?

Mr. RASHID: No, I mean, oil is very important, there's no doubt about it, I
mean, but I don't think, you know, the US is doing this whole thing because of
oil. I think, you know, there's been a long-running standoff between the Bush
family and Saddam Hussein. I think there's a very ideological group of
officials at the top end of the administration who are very supportive of
Israel and are very keen to try and reshape the Middle East in the way that
they see it, and they're not going to allow anything to come in their way. So
I mean, I think oil is a very important factor.

I mean, in fact, one of the problems I have within the post-Saddam era, how is
the next Iraqi government--which will be installed by the Americans--how is
that going to deal with the oil business? Who's going to get the contracts?
The point is that Saddam has signed contracts with the Russians, the Chinese,
the Europeans, with all sorts of major countries and major oil companies. Who
gets now--you know, will those contracts be honored? Who gets the benefits of
Iraq's oil? And I think there's a lot of suspicion right now that, you know,
is this just going to be a kind of--you know, that the American general who's
running Iraq or the Iraqi exiles who are installed by the Americans are going
to hand out contracts to American companies?

I don't think, you know, that will be the case. That would be very naive if
something like that happens. But certainly it's an issue that has not been
discussed, that the Bush administration has done not anything to give some
kind of sense of security to other major countries who have got investments or
contracts in Iraq.

GROSS: Are there other dangers related to terrorism or economic dangers that
you think the Bush administration isn't prepared for, or at least hasn't told
us to be prepared for?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think the main thing which is completely missing from the
administration's debate and discussion and information about this issue is the
post-Saddam Iraq. What we don't know--I mean, where is the kind of discussion
as to what kind of Iraq this administration wants? I mean, you know, do you
think the Arabs or the Iraqis are going to be satisfied with a bunch of Iraqi
exiles being flown into Baghdad by the CIA and then being told, `Well, this is
your new government'?

The point is that there has been no coalition building, not just for the war
but for the postwar scenario, especially with Iraq's neighbors. The problem
is that all of Iraq's neighbors have potential candidates to be the next ruler
in Baghdad. They all want their proxies to be there. The Turks, the Saudis,
the Syrians, the Israelis, the Gulf Arabs, they all want a particular kind of
government, preferably their kind of government, in Baghdad.

Now they're not going to necessarily accept what the US is going to set up
there. What the US really needed to do was, apart from--you know, the whole
discussion today is just about whether so-and-so country is giving the
Americans bases or military flights or whatever. What real discussion needs
to take place is some kind of consensus building on post-Saddam, and, you
know, like in Afghanistan, would there be a consensus government, meaning
would the international community, perhaps through a UN Security Council
resolution, give support to a new government in Iraq which would be
uncontestable. We don't see that at all.

GROSS: The Bush administration is hoping that the Iraqis will welcome
American troops as liberators. What do you think are the odds of that?

Mr. RASHID: I think it's a presumption. You know, this is a dictatorship.
It's been one of the most awful and bloodiest dictatorships that the world has
ever seen. There's no way that anybody has any idea what the Iraqi people are
thinking. Yes, we know in '91 that thousands of troops laid down their arms.
That could well happen again, but an attack on Baghdad and on the major urban
centers of Iraq, would that lead to resistance from die-hard supporters of
Saddam? Could that prolong the war? Could they hide Saddam? I mean, I just
don't think we know enough about the mood amongst the Iraqi people as to
whether they fight or not.

GROSS: Let's talk a little bit about your country, Pakistan. What are the
risks or the benefits to Pakistan if the United States leads an invasion of
Iraq?

Mr. RASHID: Well, Pakistan, like the rest of the Muslim world--I mean, there
could be--it's a very unpredictable situation. We just don't know how the
fundamentalist parties will react, and we should remember that in Pakistan now
we had these elections in October which were very heavily rigged by the
military, who facilitated the victory of a fundamentalist alliance in two of
the country's four provinces. It's very unpredictable as to what they will
do, especially in those two provinces that they're now governing.

Certainly we will see street demonstrations and that kind of thing. We may
well see even acts of, you know, violence and terrorism by some of the
extremist groups against Western targets. I think at the moment now there's a
very heightened sense of alert in Pakistan against acts of terrorism. But it
remains very unpredictable.

GROSS: Is everybody in Pakistan talking about the possibility of war? Is
that on the forefront of everybody's minds?

Mr. RASHID: It's a complete preoccupation, for several reasons. The first
thing is that in '91, we suffered a horrendous economic downturn because, you
know, the whole region was locked up. And if there's a second war, there'll
be no planes, there'll be no ships, there'll be no trade, there'll be no
exports. You know, Pakistan is heavily dependent on Gulf oil. Ships will not
want to come to Karachi. I mean, so there's enormous economic fear.

There's enormous political fear about what the fundamentalists will do, what
the repercussions will be. And you know, the postwar scenario also offers,
you know, a lot of hesitancy and doubt for many Pakistanis. So there is
enormous--and you know, one thing which has kind of gripped the press there at
the moment is this whole idea of many countries in the Muslim world saying,
`Well, who's next?' The Iranians are saying, `Well, after Iraq is going to be
Iran.' And many Pakistanis are saying `Well, with Pakistan's nuclear program
and Pakistan still, you know, not fully cooperating with on the Taliban and
al-Qaeda, maybe Pakistan is next.' And so there's a lot of this kind of
speculation also going on.

GROSS: And you're saying that that's one of the problems of a pre-emptive
strike.

Mr. RASHID: Well, exactly. I mean, I think this pre-emptive policy of the
United States now has--you know, I mean, one thing about the US during the
Cold War was that, I mean, the US and the Soviet Union, no matter how acute
the tensions were, that you know, they were predictable powers. The US in the
last 10 years, since the end of the Cold War, as the sole superpower in the
world, has been a predictable power. I mean, what it has done or not done
under the two Clinton administrations was fairly predictable.

I think where this whole doctrine of pre-emption brings you to is in creating
enormous instability and unpredictability, and I think, you know, everyone
from the stock markets to politicians and intellectuals and educators, I mean,
people are very concerned about this. I think in America they're very
concerned about this, which is why, you know, we've been seeing these
demonstrations against a war in America.

GROSS: Journalist Ahmed Rashid will be back in the second half of the show.
His latest book, "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia," has
just been published in paperback. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

(Announcements)

GROSS: If the US goes to war with Iraq and ousts Saddam Hussein, we'll face
rebuilding Iraq in the aftermath. Coming up, are we succeeding in rebuilding
Afghanistan and creating a democracy there? We continue our conversation with
journalist Ahmed Rashid. He was in Afghanistan last month.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with more of our interview
with journalist Ahmed Rashid. He's author of the best-seller "Taliban." His
latest book, "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia," has just
been published in paperback. Rashid covers Afghanistan, Central Asia and his
country, Pakistan, for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the London Daily
Telegraph.

If we attack Iraq, we will also be responsible for rebuilding Iraq. We've
taken on that responsibility with Afghanistan. You spent part of January in
Afghanistan. Let's talk a little bit about your trip there and what you saw
and how well the United States is succeeding in trying to rebuild Afghanistan.
Let's start with Kabul. What kind of shape is Kabul in physically?

Mr. RASHID: Well, Kabul is definitely, in many ways, in better shape. About
a million--you know, the population has gone up from about three million to
four million just in the last year because about a million refugees have come
into Kabul and settled there. So there is extraordinary pressure on the
infrastructure. Now, I mean, there's no electricity in most of the city. The
center of Kabul has a little bit of electricity at night. And don't forget
we're talking about freezing temperatures, below freezing temperatures here
with snow on the ground. There is enormous pressure on water, on electricity,
on fuel, on power, on everything.

But, you know, on the other hand, I mean, there are now--you know, the city is
looking much fresher, women are going about unveiled. Kabulis are back to
work and all sorts of things. There's an enormous hustle and bustle in the
bazaar. The major urban centers, you know, are showing a very dramatic
improvement and change. Schools are open, hospitals are open, government
offices, you know, are open. And there's a lot of cultural activity, which of
course is terribly important to restore civic life after the Taliban, who had
destroyed all culture. You know, music recitals, concerts, things like that.

GROSS: In a recent report, you wrote, `Despite pledges of help for President
Karzai, Russia is arming one warlord and Iran another. India and Pakistan are
continuing their long rivalry and secretly backing different claimants to
power, while the Central Asian republics are backing their ethnic allies.'

It sounds like chaos.

Mr. RASHID: Well, unfortunately, I think, you know, the bottom line has been
that for the last year, since the war ended, the reconstruction of Afghanistan
has not taken place, the money for reconstruction has not been delivered, and
the lead role that was expected of the United States in that process has not
happened. Now what that has led to, of course, is that the central government
has not been able to expand its authority into the provinces to curb the power
of the warlords, to try and disarm and demobilize these warlord armies. And
in this kind of vacuum, a lot of the neighbors who were interfering in
Afghanistan before have made a comeback. And they're all, you know, like they
were before.

I mean, if we remember in the '90s, one of the major causes for the Afghan
conflict was the fact that all the neighbors were involved in backing either
the Taliban or the opposition to the Taliban. And then they kind of laid off,
you know, after 9/11. But now they've seen that the Americans, some of them
are judging perhaps the Americans are not serious about reconstruction, the
Americans may leave in a hurry. So we better get back and create our
spheres of influence, which is what they're doing.

GROSS: Do you think that the Karzai government is in trouble? Do you think
it's possible it will be overthrown?

Mr. RASHID: No, I don't think so. I mean, I think--the point is that the
government is still supported by 90 percent of the people. And the warlords
who are opposed to the government are not defying the government or Karzai. I
mean, they may not be implementing what he orders to be done, but they're not
defying him. There's no challenge to Kabul at the moment. But the fact is
that you cannot have a kind of sustained, low-level kind of anarchic
situation. And you have to strengthen the center. You've got to help the
center rebuild the country, build up road and communications and electricity
and agriculture and, you know, all the necessary things. And it really hasn't
happened.

And I think there's enormous frustration amongst many Afghans, but that is
still not, I think, going to turn them against Karzai because Afghans know
that if--you know, I spoke to many people on the street and the kind of common
assumption was, `Well, he's better than anyone else. If anyone can deliver
international aid and assistance, he can do it. Certainly nobody else can.'
So there's still a belief in him, which I think, you know, is still strong.

GROSS: Did you get a sense of whether the popular sentiment is that America
is fulfilling its promise to help Afghanistan rebuild?

Mr. RASHID: No, I mean, the popular sentiment is very frustrated with the
Americans, with the United Nations and with all the donors. The fact is that
a year ago, $4.5 billion was pledged to Afghanistan in reconstruction. None
of that really started last year. Only now are we in March and April,
something like, you know, a billion dollars will be coming in for road
construction, which is critical to kind of relink the country. There'll be
money for agriculture. There will be some money for demobilization.

But now, of course, the big theory is, you know, that even if the money comes
in a year, year and a half late, it would still do incredibly good things, I
think, and wouldn't be too late. But the real fear is this effort which now
the Americans and the donor community seem to have launched for this
spring--will that be completely overshadowed by Iraq? Will Iraq now distract
from Afghanistan. And that's the fear of President Karzai and other leaders.

GROSS: If you look at Afghanistan and see how things are going there in the
light of the bombing of Afghanistan, what lessons do you think--or what
questions do you think we might take away and apply to the future of Iraq if
the United States attacks Iraq?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, Afghanistan--first of all, the choice
of Karzai to head the interim government right after the war in January 2001,
this was a choice where all the Afghans, you know, sent their representatives
to Bonn; there was an agreement which was endorsed by the entire
international community. Even enemies of the United States, such as Iran,
Korea--I mean, they endorsed Karzai. We don't see any of that kind of
process happening in the post-Saddam Iraq.

I think the other big problem has been the--I had hoped certainly at the end
of the war in Afghanistan that the Americans would understand that they needed
to help rebuild Afghanistan, not just for the sake of the Afghans, but as a
kind of model for the whole of the Islamic world, to show the Islamic world
that, look, we can bomb you but we can also help rebuild you. But,
unfortunately, that hasn't happened. And there's an enormous, I think, amount
of mistrust in the Arab world that, well, what'll the Americans do? They'll
come in, they'll bomb Baghdad, they'll kill Saddam and then they'll, you know,
leave a kind of chaotic situation in Iraq and then get up and just take a
backseat as they've done in Afghanistan. So the American record,
unfortunately, in Afghanistan, as far as reconstruction and rebuilding, has
not been good.

GROSS: Is there a feeling in Afghanistan among people you spoke to that the
United States' bigger concern now is Iraq, therefore Afghanistan has kind of
dropped in its level of priority?

Mr. RASHID: Well, certainly, you know, I spent a lot of time with President
Karzai, and I would say it is about one of the top issues on his mind right
now. He is being courted; President Bush has invited him to Washington at the
end of February and, clearly, American officials are trying to allay his fears
and suspicions that the Americans are about to dump Afghanistan and, you know,
not focus on it anymore. But certainly, you know, it remains an overriding
concern because, you see, it's not just the Americans. I mean, if the
Americans stop paying attention to Afghanistan as far as reconstruction is
concerned, it really means that the rest of the international community will
also drop by the wayside. It's not that the Europeans or the Japanese or the
Arabs, who are all major donors to Afghanistan, are going to continue.
They'll just feel, well, if the US is not interested, this is not important.

GROSS: My guest is journalist Ahmed Rashid. His latest book is called
"Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia." He's also the author of
the best seller "Taliban." We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH
AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Pakistani-based journalist
Ahmed Rashid. He's the author of the best seller "Taliban," and his latest
book, "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia," has just come out
in paperback.

Do you have any idea where the Taliban who fled Afghanistan are now?

Mr. RASHID: Almost the entire Taliban leadership which is still alive is
sitting in Pakistan. It's been given sanctuary there by the military
government. The intelligence services have been working very closely with the
Taliban, helping out their families, settling them down. And some of these
Taliban have reorganized and are now crossing the border back into Afghanistan
and attacking US forces there.

GROSS: But Pakistan is officially supporting President Karzai and has
cooperated with the United States in handing over al-Qaeda operatives. So
what's--how can they be doing both at the same time, cooperating in the war on
terrorism and at the same time harboring the Taliban?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, this is an issue that is creating
growing concern in Washington and amongst many Pakistanis. President
Musharraf is running a military regime there; he basically gets to do what he
likes, and he does not take public opinion in. I think there was a lot of
support for the U-turn he did after 9/11 towards dumping Pakistani support for
the Taliban and siding with the US and joining the coalition against
terrorism.

Now he seems to be doing a U-turn upon a U-turn. And there are several
reasons for this, I think. I mean, I think one thing is that the intelligence
services and the section of the military which are highly influenced by the
Taliban-style ideas of Islamic fundamentalism have really not been purged by
the general. In fact, they've been strengthened to some extent. So you have
an ideological affinity there with the Taliban. The other thing that Pakistan
is very wary about is the growing political and economic presence of India in
Afghanistan and the influence that India has. I mean, the last thing that
Pakistan wants to face is a kind of two-front situation where it has India on
the west and the east, as it were.

GROSS: What's one of the most interesting and surprising things that you saw
in your trip to Afghanistan?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I still think, you know, it's extraordinary enthusiasm of
the people and the extraordinary patience of the people. Although, you know,
their lives have not changed all that much in the last one year, they are
still very expectant. I think the other thing has been the remarkable change
in what women are doing. I mean, you know, women are back to work; children
are back to school. I mean, you know, after visiting Afghanistan so many
times and seeing all the schools shut up, you know, to see children carrying
satchels full of books, you know, on the street in sort of raggedy uniforms is
really one of the most beautiful sights. I mean, it really makes you want to
just, you know, stand there and cry, basically, because for years and years
and years, that was not a sight you saw. And I mean, I visited friends, you
know, where, I mean, you know, three months, six months down the road, when
mothers say goodbye to their children in the morning as they go to school and
the mothers are crying because they can't believe that it's still, you know,
actually, their children are being able to go to school. So, you know, there
are advances that have taken place there which are still very, very moving.

GROSS: In NATO now, one of the big issues is Turkey, and the United States
wished to provide military aid to Turkey, military assistance to Turkey, if
Turkey is attacked during a war with Iraq. That was vetoed. What do you see
happening within the NATO alliance now?

Mr. RASHID: Well, first of all, let me just say I think Turkey is in a
terribly difficult position. I mean...

GROSS: Yeah, talk about that a little bit.

Mr. RASHID: ...you have just had an election in Turkey. You've got an
Islamic government in power which the military, the Turkish military which has
always intervened in Turkey, has been very wary of. But I think this Islamic
government has acted very moderately and very wisely in not trying to rock the
boat too much at home. But it still has a very difficult agenda at home, you
know, placating the military, placating--and then it has been lumped with this
whole foreign policy issue of, you know, the war with Iraq. And clearly, the
population of Turkey is very much against any war with Iraq because, again,
the economic dislocation is going to be so enormous, as it was for Turkey in
the first Gulf War.

So, you know, the Turks are really in a very, very difficult position. And I
think, you know, the US should be kind of ultra-grateful for even the minimum
kind of support and basing rights, etc., that they might be giving the US
forces. The issue in NATO, I think, has certainly become very divisive. You
know, the point is that the Germans, the French, they're facing enormous
pressure from their own populations. I mean, if you look at the polls in
Europe, I mean, I think more than 50 percent of Europeans are opposed to war,
generally broadly speaking. And these governments in Europe which are, like,
standing up to the United States right now face enormous public pressure and,
you know, I mean, their own political futures could well be on the line. And
I think this is the extent to which this policy with Iraq has unfortunately
become. Many regimes' lives are at stake.

GROSS: Do you think that the United States has a dependable ally in Turkey
now?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think it still has to be tested. I mean, for Turkey,
too, I mean, this is the first time that you have an Islamic government, an
Islamic party in power which has got a kind of blessing from the military and
which now has to work with the Western alliance, with NATO, and also pursue
its agenda to try and join the European Common Market. Now, you know, all
this puts a lot of burden on Turkey and this new government.

GROSS: Ahmed Rashid, your latest book, "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in
Central Asia," has just come out in paperback. So I want to talk with you a
little bit about Central Asia and how that figures into the war scenario now.
And by the way, by Central Asia, you're talking about Turkmenistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan. You say that the Bush
administration has seemed to take the attitude that Central Asia is little
more than a convenient base from which the US can stage its war on terrorism.
How do you think--and I know that you think that might backfire, that that's
not a good strategy and it might backfire. What kind of problems do you see
ahead if the Bush administration continues with that strategy?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think again, you know, like in Afghanistan, there was
enormous expectancy amongst people in Central Asia that once the Afghan war
was over, the Americans would develop a kind of broad-based strategy here
which would nudge and cajole and pressure and persuade through a mixture of
carrot and stick these regimes, very dictatorial, authoritarian regimes, to
open up a bit, to carry out some economic reform, political reform, allow
political parties to exist, you know, encourage some kind of civil society and
middle class to emerge.

But in fact, none of that has happened. The US has now three bases in three
countries: Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. It has done very
little--you know, apart from making some rhetorical noises, it's done very
little to encourage democracy or reform or greater freedoms there. And in
fact, what we've seen in the last 15 months since 9/11 is that all these
regimes have, in fact, stepped up repression. They have used their new
alliance with the United States as a means to kind of make themselves
legitimate, and they have stepped up repression against, you know, dissident
groups, against political parties, against, you know, human rights groups,
against the media. The amount of journalists that are in jail right now in
Central Asia due to this kind of crackdown by the regimes was not there
before. So rather than improving the situation, we're seeing a new wave of
repression which is going on, if you like, on the back of this kind of new
strategic alliance with the the United States.

GROSS: What impact do you think that repression is going to have on the
militant Islamist groups within Central Asia?

Mr. RASHID: Well, you know, I think, you know, 9/11 was a huge opportunity
for the United States, simply because anti-Americanism was not prevalent in
Central Asia at all; it was perhaps one of the few regions in the Muslim world
where there was no anti-Americanism, simply because the people there had no
experience of America. They had no knowledge of American culture or American
power or anything like that.

Now these Islamic movements have always been very fringe movements. I mean,
they have largely been in exile, living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or
other Central Asian states. They have always had a minimum of support. But
clearly, the fact that, you know, these states and these regimes have become
more authoritarian may well increase support for Islamic fundamentalism
because whatever you don't have in Central Asia, you don't have a democratic,
secular opposition. These regimes have not allowed democratic parties to
exist, which means that there is a political vacuum there, and that vacuum
could well increasingly be filled by militant fundamentalists.

GROSS: Who would be very anti-American.

Mr. RASHID: Who would be very anti-American and would want to topple the
regimes, who would want to link--you know, would like to link up their
movements with the aim of overthrowing the regimes and also, you know, link
themselves up with al-Qaeda and other such groups.

GROSS: My guest is journalist Ahmed Rashid. His latest book is "Jihad: The
Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia." He's also the author of the best
seller "Taliban." We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is journalist Ahmed Rashid. He is
based in Pakistan. He reports on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia for
the Far Eastern Economic Review and the London Daily Telegraph.

You regularly travel through parts of the world where terrorism is an
everyday occurrence. What's it like to be in the United States during a high
alert?

Mr. RASHID: It's very strange. As you can imagine, I'm on this book tour and
I've been to a dozen cities, and I am searched about four times more than
anyone else at the airports. And it seems very strange, I mean, to have to
go--I mean, I've been very patient, I haven't objected, but the way I look, I
suppose, and this and that, my name and everything, you know, my ticket is
instantly marked with--I don't know--all sorts of scratches and numbers which
means that every person who glances at my boarding pass has to search me about
three times over. So it's quite nerve-racking and very, very strange.

GROSS: And do you feel tolerant of that, like, `Oh, well, I understand. You
know, it's unfortunate, but I understand why they're doing it'? Or are you
angry about that and feel like...

Mr. RASHID: No, I'm tolerant about it. I mean, I do understand why they're
doing it. You know, I just wish there was a way that my publishers could
have, in fact, sent out a message saying, you know, `He's OK and he's with
Penguin and, you know, you don't have to search him three times.'

GROSS: Right. `He's the guy we're inviting here to help explain what's
happening.'

Mr. RASHID: Exactly, you know.

GROSS: I hate to ask you to speculate and look into a crystal ball on all of
that, but I'd really like to know what your best guess is about what happens
next.

Mr. RASHID: Well, Terry, I think in the best-case scenario, which is that
America invades Iraq, Saddam is toppled, the war is short, Saddam is killed,
you will then have the whole process of reconstructing Iraq. And I think that
is going to be incredibly complicated. And I really don't know whether this
administration has the patience, has the humility, has the conciliatory kind
of politics that will be needed to really build a government of consensus in
Iraq which could actually stabilize Iraq. And then you will be faced with
upsurges in the Muslim world and, most critically, the Palestinian-Israeli
problem. And will this administration be willing to put pressure on Israel to
meet the Palestinians halfway? I doubt it very much. So, you know, I think,
you know, very difficult times are up ahead.

GROSS: Wait a minute. That was your best-case scenario, right?

Mr. RASHID: That is my best-case scenario, exactly.

GROSS: Yeah, well, what's the not-best-case scenario? What if it's not a
short war?

Mr. RASHID: I think, you know, if it's not a short war and the war goes on
even for, say, six to eight weeks, for example, which in these days and with
this kind of technology and all for America is a long war, I think we would
see much greater acts of terrorism worldwide by Islamic groups, attacks
against American targets, you know, right across the world, in Europe, in
America. And I think there would be a reaction in the street; I mean, that
would allow a street reaction to build up. And then you would have real
problems faced by many of the regimes which are Western allies in the Muslim
world.

GROSS: Do you think there's any chance that this war won't happen?

Mr. RASHID: No. I think the administration is absolutely determined to have
a war, come what may. And clearly the kind of preparations that are going on
now have been quite extraordinary and really, I mean, seem to be pitting us,
you know, right at the edge there of a war.

GROSS: Well, Ahmed Rashid, I wish you safe travels and I thank you very much
for talking with us.

Mr. RASHID: Thank you very much, indeed.

GROSS: Journalist Ahmed Rashid covers Afghanistan, Central Asia and his
country Pakistan for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the London Daily
Telegraph. His latest book, "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central
Asia," has just been published in paperback.

(Credits)

GROSS: I'm Terry Gross.

I just recorded an interview with the blues singer and guitarist Alvin
Youngblood Hart. We'll hear it sometime soon. In the meantime, here's a song
from his latest CD, "Down in the Alley."

(Soundbite of music)

Mr. ALVIN YOUNGBLOOD HART: (Singing) Mother's children have a hard time some
of these days. Mother's children have a hard time some of these days. You
just grin like you don't know, then you cry from door to door. Nobody treat
you like a mother can, mother dead, Lord. Sister do all she can do now some
of these days. Sister do all she can do now some of these days, yeah. Sister
do all she can do; soon as you're married, turn her back on you. Nobody treat
you like a mother can, mother dead, Lord. Father do the best he can now some
of these days, yeah. Father do the best he can now some of these days.
Father do the best he can, so many things that he can't understand. Nobody
treat you like a mother can, mother dead, Lord.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.