by John Bottoms

While certainly no epitome of market anarchism, the situation in Afghanistan illuminates certain advantages of anarchist social organization.  The war brings these distinctions into sharp focus by pitting decentralized Afghan society against the authoritarian, hierarchical United States government.  The US paints terrorists, bin Laden's al-Qaeda Arabs, and the Afghan Taliban with the same broad brush.  They tell us incessantly about "links" between this or that bad guy or organization.  But other than a common goal of getting the US out of the Middle East, these groups are mostly independent and self-sufficient. 

After the rapid abdication of centralized control by the Taliban under intense bombing, the US installed its puppet regime in Kabul, exactly as the Russians had done 20 years earlier.  But America's war is just beginning, for the Afghans have reverted to their traditional tribal and regional organization unimpeded by Kabul’s politics.  These fighters comprise the militias of the Afghan territory.  In the 1980s, these same independent and even antagonistic tribal forces cooperated to oust the Russian invaders.  History may be about to repeat itself, as former foes are beginning to join forces against the new invader, whom they are learning is a greater threat than each other.  One can imagine an Afghan version of Mel Gibson's The Patriot character making the rounds of seedy inns and tea houses to sign up militiamen for his guerilla war against the invading empire.  “These are exactly the kind of men we need,” quips the Afghan Mel as he prepares for the next battle. 

Another anarchist aspect of this war is the relative unimportance of borders.  While the US clones little police state copies of itself, and bombs empty caves without even "hitting a camel in the butt," these militias are like the mythological Hydra who grew new heads for each lost in battle, as they appear in many new countries after being attacked in Afghanistan.  They've been reported so far in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Chechnya, Macedonia, Bosnia and Kosovo.  Not surprisingly, these are countries with weak central governments; bastions of anarchism.  The US naturally fears this lack of central authority, and seems quite willing to turn entire countries into US military garrisons or mold them into centralized, authoritarian states. 

The organization of the terrorist network, which is distinct from al-Qaeda or any national government, is based on loosely networked cells.  Considering that the FBI has yet to indict any of its hundreds of detainees, separating the true criminals from innocents vaguely linked to other suspects must be difficult indeed, further highlighting the advantages of an anarchist organization.  Terrorists don't wear dog tags. 

To win its Afghan war, the US has to sap the will or ability of these militias to fight, either by killing them, imprisoning them or permanently shutting down their supply lines.  The Afghan militias don't have to defeat their enemy in open combat, only inflict unacceptable losses, so the US will declare victory and seek easier prey elsewhere.  It's the decentralized fighters versus a powerful war machine unwilling to take losses due to the squeamishness of coddled American welfare state voters.  Advantage militias, at least as long as the US military is beholden to public opinion from the homeland. 

Since 911, the US has shifted its international focus from trying to control the foreign policy of "problem" countries to bribing them to modify their internal policies.  The US is in essence attempting to export its police state structure in the hopes that other governments will imprison or kill anti-US forces within their borders.  The decentralization of Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, has proved far more successful in limiting US power than has democracy in America.  Let that be a lesson to us all. 

I'm sure some are thinking that it's right for the US to control evil countries in this way.  It's like Arnold in True Lies, who when asked by wife Jamie Lee Curtis if he'd ever killed people as a secret agent, responded, "Yes, but they were all bad."  But the real answer is that our government's history of international abuses makes them the world’s primary bad guys at the moment, not because they’re particularly evil, just extremely well-armed and determined to control of the world’s oil supply. 

Others might say that I’ve put the final nail in anarchism’s coffin, since it’s such a good environment for terrorists.  Au contraire, it is The State which breeds the world’s worst killers, as shown by 20^th century despots Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others.  Make no mistake, America created its terrorists enemies.   To paraphrase Patrick Henry, if this be a “blame America first” attitude, then make the most of it. 

The war in Afghanistan contrasts sharply with Desert Storm in 1991.  Iraq's military reflected their country's dictatorial political and social organization, so when the command and control channels were severed early in the war, Iraqi forces were mostly helpless, and the war ended quickly.  Desert Storm shows that when two authoritarian regimes meet in war, the more powerful wins.  It seems that we’re about to find out if Saddam has any new tricks up his sleeve as the US prepares for Gulf War II: The Vengeance. 

The boys in Washington implicitly recognize the inherent advantages of an anarchist social structure, which is why they are acting so terrified, why they have created a Strangelovian shadow government, and why they are suddenly threatening to nuke anyone they consider a sufficient threat.