Should the West support the Northern Alliance?

The Northern Alliance say they are strengthening their grip on the key northern Afghanistan town of Mazar-e-Sharif.

The opposition group say they've taken one hundred Taleban prisoners since Monday, partly aided by US air strikes.

Control of Mazar-e-Sharif could provide a springboard for American ground operations in Afghanistan, and Washington is counting on the help of the Northern Alliance in their attempts to overthrow the Taleban.

But humanitarian groups are concerned about the human rights record of some of the group's members.

They say that troops routinely indulge in looting, raping, and killing in their attempts to capture the whole of Afghanistan.

Are the Northern Alliance suitable allies in the war against terrorism? Or is the West storing up future trouble in the region?

From a military point of veiw it is better to attack an enemy from multiple points

Don, USA

Yes, aiding the NA is a double edged sword. They have a very bad Human Rights record. But from a military point of veiw it is better to be able to attack an enemy from multiple points, and supporting the NA allows the US to do just that. The difficult part, as always, is what happens after the military actions end. The US has a terrible history of backing a despot. In my mind it is imperitive that the neighboring countries be involved in the long term plan to support a coalition government and monitor military and policing activites. But I don't see that being accomplished very easily either. These countries all have their own agendas as to what they want to get out of a new government. This is where the UN needs to step into the spotlight and show the world that it is not a forum for US policies only.

As for those of you who think the US needs to their own "dirty work" - whether the government will admit it or not, the boys are on the ground already. More American lives will be lost before this chapter has finished.
Don, USA

By all means, the US and its so-called allies should help the Northern alliance gain more power in Afghanistan. Yet another puppet government to rule and oppress a ruined land and a demoralized people. God forbid that America, with all its civilization, would think the people of Afghanistan worthy of the very freedom that they are bombing it for - the freedom to choose their government.
Noura, Canada

Imagine having to use terrorists to fight terrorism!!

Sonya, UK

America armed Iraq against Iran, it armed Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, so this is nothing new. America doesn't have much choice though, its troops are hopeless at ground fighting and are used to hiding behind hi-tech equipment. It's okay for the largely bloodthirsty American public to want revenge, but when it comes to the crunch, America doesn't have much choice. It can fight behind the Northern Alliance (a bunch of gangsters) or get savaged by the Taleban. I have a feeling Bush has bitten more than he can chew, and now America will resort to anything to save face. Imagine having to use terrorists to fight terrorism!!
Sonya, UK

The main complaints against the Northern Alliance are their lack of internal stability and their affinity to ethnically-based atrocities. However, this description can be applied to all groups currently on the ground in Afghanistan. The two main Pashtun clans, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara, Turkmen are all well-experienced in committing atrocities across ethnic, religious, and geo-political lines. However, these groups are also the only choices available, since they make up Afghanistan's entire population. Perhaps the best bet is to keep administration in Afghanistan weak and local, with Kabul as a UN-administrated "free zone", to allow for regional stabilization, before trying to put together a whole country.
Rick Pettit, Rutland VT USA

It certainly is easy to ridicule others' difficult decisions. Yes, the U.S. formerly backed Saddam, the mujahideen, etc. because they appeared to be better than the alternatives. I'm sure that the pure souls who mock these choices similarly condemn the U.S. and U.K. for supporting Stalin - who killed millions of his own and became a dangerous adversary. Although it offends some people's naive tastes, backing the NA and attempting to construct a decent post-Taliban government is the best option open in a brutalized place.
Bryan, Oregon, USA

This is the time to be ruthless.

Andrian Harsono, Indonesia

It seems that despite the bleak human rights record of the NA, they ultimately know the Afghan terrain and landscape best. This is the time to be ruthless. Work with them for now and make full use of their expertise. Once all this is over and done with, kick them all out and install something else which would truly be of the best interests of the Afghan civilians...
Andrian Harsono, Indonesia

A difficult situation. The Opposition's bases and anti-Taleban expertise might save us many casualties, but we must remember that they ultimately want to rule the country.

Excluding the NA after accepting their help would mean trouble. Either we build the new country with them, in which case we'll need to find and bring to trial the criminal ringleaders, or later we will have to fight them too.
Russ, UK

Graeme of The Netherlands puts the point eloquently. How can we expect any sort of world peace when we keep making these sticks for our own backs? This is a short term strategy that will cause more misery in the country in the long run. By this move of pumping more arms in, Blair and Bush have already broken their promises of helping this country to recover. We are arming a violent, extremist group with appalling human rights records to get rid of a violent, extremist group with appalling human rights records.
Matt, Amsterdam, Netherlands

For the US to engage in a strategic alliance with the Northern Alliance would certainly be a grievous foreign policy error. The NA is a disparate conglomeration of forces opposed to the Taliban. Encouraging them to be a major force in a post-Taliban government would have serious ramifications for not only the geostrategic concerns of neighboring Pakistan, a key ally in the anti-Terrorist coalition, but also for Afghanistan itself. It is not difficult to anticipate the in-fighting which would plague the NA in the absence of their common enemy, the Taliban. More years of civil war and greater instability in Afghanistan is precisely what the US does NOT want. Any future government must be broad based and multi-ethnic in order to bring stability to the country. Pursuing real politik policies and alliances of convenience are only temporary solutions to a larger and more complex problem.
Imran Sharih, Pakistan

If we share a common goal, we should join forces.

Daniel, USA

Yes. Our objective is to catch (or kill) Bin Laden, his network, and oust the Taliban. If we share a common goal then we should join forces.
Daniel, USA

Well, it looks like there is no choice, is there? If the US Coalition do not band with the Northern Alliance and battle the Taleban themselves, you can be sure that the NA will feel left out and perhaps join the Taleban to fight against the US Coalition. Some contributors say that the NA has an appalling human rights record - Well, so does the Taleban. Now is the chance for US to correct its past mistakes and do it right this time. After the Taleban is defeated and Bin Laden and his terrorist network are destroyed, the United Nations should work towards a solution for Afghanistan.
Willie Ching, Hong Kong

Let's put the question another way. Would there be any chance of complete success for the US had there been no Northern Alliance? The US is doing everything to weaken the Taleban, but it is not able to remove them from power by means of air-strikes. It is only the Northern Alliance as a force on the ground that will ultimately complete the mission by overthrowing the Taliban and squeezing Al-Qaeeda. Barry, Afghanistan
Barry, Afghanistan

At least the Northern Alliance is not influenced by Osama Bin Laden

Manu, USA

When you have to make choice between two evils, you go for a lesser evil. At least the NA is not influenced by Osama Bin Laden and won't try to enforce his form of government. Moreover, with allied forces around this time, I doubt they will behave as they did last time. They must have learned from their mistakes.
Manu, USA

Look at the Northen Alliance - they have been held together by different ethnic people, and if we can add the Pashtun dimension by the way of the King, I think this is the only way Afghanistan can have a multi-ethnic democracy wherein every tribe is bound together in a single constitution. Is there another way this can happen? No!!! Even for this to work out, we need to ensure that Pakistan does not interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. How can Pakistan claim to be Godfathers of the Afghan people when, instead of guiding the real interests of Afghan people, they are forcing their own interests in Afghanistan.
Anil Rao, India

Its just like hatching some more Bin Ladens...
Wasif Gilani, Germany

America has to support Northern Alliance for two reasons:
1. America does not want to get into a situation like the former USSR - which had to retreat after very heavy losses.
2. Nor does it want to get into a situation like the Vietnam war. Instead, it wants the Afghans to fight among themselves and become weak so that an outside government can be imposed.

This war can make or break America, but if America inserts ground troops in Afghanistan, its more than likely to break itself like the former USSR.
Ghouse, UK

The Taleban and the Northern Alliance, are two peas from the same pod

Asif Siraj, Scotland

As the prophet of Islam said, today's enemy is tomorrow's friend, and yesterday's friend is tomorrow's enemy. One should not be too friendly, and one should not be too hostile. America's foreign policy, put simply, is the ends justify the means. The Taleban and the Northern Alliance, are two peas from the same pod. Both are brutal. America is doing what it has done in the past: backing a brutal alliance against a brutal government.
Asif Siraj, Scotland

The words "Northern Alliance" are nothing but a catch-phrase. In reality, the group is a breakaway faction of the old Mujahadin that was created by the West to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. The members of the alliance are the ethnic Tajik and Uzbek warlords who fight against the ethnic Pashtun warlords. Only, helping them this time are the Russians and, shamelessly, the Indians. They are not doing so for the love of poor Afghan people, but for their own geopolitical advantages. A gain made by Russia in Afghanistan is a loss to the West. A gain made by India in that part of the world is a loss for Pakistan. Tajiks and Uzbeks are the minorities in Afghanistan. The minority rule in Afghanistan with the support of outsiders, be that the Russians, Indians or the West, will lead to another round of bloodshed and further devastation of Afghanistan.
Alvipervaiz, USA

The Taleban are lambs compared to Northern Alliance. These Northern Alliance warlords have a human rights record far worse than the Taleban. Ask the residents of Kabul and they will relate how 65,000 of their residents died because of their power-seeking civil war in the city. Their rule was one of gang rapes of innocent women, mass killings, torture, tyranny, and lawlessness. Their leaders are renegades from hell. Helping the Northern Alliance will be the biggest mistake the West could have made, for itself and for Afghanistan.
Zaid Mainazara, USA

Once again, there's going to be a decision to arm a country that twenty years later will come back and bite us in the ass.
Jonathan, USA

I hope everybody talking about 'guts' and 'doing your own dirty work' has considered the tactical effort concerned with this operation. We are going in ourselves, along with our true allies. Maybe certain folk from this talking point would like to volunteer and come along?
Cav, UK

Any pact with any group in a conflict torn region is a black pact

Robert Morpheal, Canada

Clearly any pact with any group in a conflict torn region is a black pact. Inter group conflict brings out the worst on all sides. It is inevitable that the true colours of any group involved will be obscured, as to any good or evil in the grey area of an ongoing war. Certainly assurances as to the future of basic freedoms and rights for the people of Afghanistan, and commitment to some form of democratic constitutional government, perhaps initially under the tutelage of politically and economically advanced powers, needs to be established. A country, any country, ought never to be simply handed over to any group, no matter how favourable the alliance is to any particular military objective, without adequate enforcable assurances that will provide for the long term safeguarding of freedoms and rights for the people, including religious freedom.
Robert Morpheal, Canada

Supporting the enemy's enemy is the short sighted policy that got us into this mess in the first place.
Gerry, Scotland

Is there any other choice but supporting the Northern Alliance? No matter what political structure and composition they have, they are the only effective force that can overcome Taliban's regime, considering their experience and understanding of the area, if support is provided to them. What we should do next, when the Taliban is overthrown, is to support and help Afghans to rebuild a just and fair political system as well as giving economical, financial and technological support. At the same time we should suppress all the war lords and other armed gangs who have ruled and terrorised the area for decades as well as being involved in drug smuggling. We should remember some of the violence which have been linked to the Northern Alliance was mainly related to the frustrating circumstances that they were left in.
Reza Zaraatkar, UK

The Northern Alliance are little different in their crude religious doctrines and war-lust than the Taliban. They are a shoddy alliance of warlords and various ethnic and religious groups that once formed the mujahideen and later went to war with each following the Soviet withdrawal. How can anyone seriously suggesting these people should take over Afghanistan? What right do we have to decide that these militias should have a role in the future of Afghanistan, just because they are armed with kalashnikovs?
Daniel Brett, UK

No, no, no, no, no. We put the Taliban in power to get rid of the Soviets. And now we're going to make the same mistake twice? The Afghans are really going to hate us if we put them under another 20 years of hardline Islamic rule. What's wrong with a secular government - Iran seems to manage just fine?
Ella, UK

Let's get in there and get this over with

John, UK

Yes lets get in there and get this over with. Our main aim must be to eradicate Bin laden and his terror network. However, once the job is done we must stay and ensure that the Afghan people get a government that represents the whole country.
John, UK

The Human Rights Watch claimed the Northern Alliance had committed human rights abuses and violated humanitarian law through 'discriminate aerial bombardment' and 'direct attacks on civilians'. Remind you of anything? Like what the US is doing right now?

Your article said the Northern Alliance could be as bad as the Taliban. But in truth, we're all as bad as each other. So who does it matter who we side with? We all see civilians as simply 'collateral damage'.
JP, London, England

I agree with JP from London. They are too many sides to the story for one person to understand fully. Yes, we are all as bad as each other, but some of us manage to portray this in a way that seems right, when it is actually the same. Killing the innocent is simply Murder.
Fawad Ali, UK

I believe the US is not concerned about Afghanistan or its people as much as with taking revenge - even if this entails killing thousands of innocent people in the name of eliminating terrorism.
Muhammad, Egypt

I am tired of fighting weapons we gave to a country years before.

Name Here

I agree with the statements I have read. The US government is short sighted and often the US news tells the citzens very little. That is why I read BBC news - I have learned more about the Northern Alliance and refugee problem reading the BBC. But my ideas seem to be in the minority and I can't change the government alone. I just hope they think their decision out completely for once. I am tired of fighting weapons we gave to a country years before. It happened in Iraq and it is happening now.
Julie, USA

Like it or not, to attack the Taliban is to help their rivals. There's no long-term stability in a Northern Aliance victory but the Northern Alliance is an unavoidable part of any stable broadly based future government. For that matter so, probably, are the Taliban.
Malcolm McMahon, York, UK

If we share the same goals then yes, of course provide the NA with help.

I don't think it is this straight-forward though. How much is really known about the long term goals and conduct of the Northern Alliance? Are they unblemished? Remember that the Taliban had relatively decent intentions when they came to power.

The NA are 'friends' at the moment because we share a common enemy, but are their intentions to simply pull down the Taliban? What after that? If they are agreed to fight to see a democratic government policed by the Alliance against terrorism then great, I am sure they would prove very useful as they know the land well. But only if they have no other intentions.

If they are provided with unconditional support then there is a danger that the Taliban is toppled only to see an alternative extreme and corrupt government installed.
Barnaby Moffat, UK

I thought the world would has changed after September the 11th, but it seems that short sighted solutions are still the order of the day. The West seems always trying to solve a problem while giving birth to another one.
Jennifer, UK

Alliance with the NA would allow them to absolve themselves of past atrocities

Graham Mallaghan, UK

While the Northern Alliance have an appalling past, they do have advantages over western armies on the ground. They know the terrain and know how to deal with other Afghans in order to shift allegiances and secure defections, in a country where the sole unifying factor, Islam notwithstanding, has always been resentment of foreign intervention.

However alliance with them could be more than just another short sighted military expedient, as it will bring them into the international community, and under the scrutiny of those able to make it clear to them, that the rebuilding of Afghanistan is contingent upon all parties respecting human rights and personal liberty - and the equality of all Afghans under the law of their new state.

An alliance now, leading to political relations with the NA is the best way to ensure they feel they are able to make a valid and valued contribution to the new Afghanistan, rather than having to fight because they have been once more marginalised and excluded from the affairs of their own country.

Alliance with the NA would allow them to absolve themselves in some way of past atrocities, and ensure the end of ethnic/tribal conflict in Afghanistan.
Graham Mallaghan, UK

How can I know what the people of Afghanistan want? Why don't you ask them? A short term broad based puppet government until a democratic election sounds like a good idea, but it's just that, an idea.
Byron Wu, Australia

Support for the Northern Alliance is OK, as it keeps the pressure on the Taleban.

Name Here

Limited support for the Northern Alliance is ok, as it keeps the pressure on the Taleban. The US has made it fairly clear (following pressure from Pakistan) that they don't want the Alliance to capture Kabul and run the country, and the support being provided currently means they are unlikely to do so in the near future. Once again I am forced to ask other contributors, who are brilliant at telling us what should not be done (i.e. anything), to offer a workable alternative.
KW, UK

KW in the UK wrote: "Once again I am forced to ask other contributors, who are brilliant at telling us what should not be done (i.e. anything), to offer a workable alternative."

Well KW, how about the USA and the UK sends in its own troops and does the dirty work for once eh?
Rachel Gordon, Spain

In addition to their catalogue of human rights abuses and their involvement in opium production, the Northern Alliance who evolved from the Mujahideen are also repsonible for bringing Osama Bin Laden back into Afghanistan. By giving any form of support to the Northern Alliance the US will only demonstrate that the it has learnt nothing from history. Supporting extremeist groups does not solve the problem of terrorism, but rather exacerbates it.
Fara, UK

As with the takeover of Afghanistan by the Mujahadeen after the Russian withdrawl, there will be massive tension in the area. There has to be a lasting government put in place which will include all sections of Afghan society - not only the Northern Alliance. The deposed King will be the answer to bringing all these sections into a peaceful goverment. Also, there has to be a demilitarisation of Afghanistan as weapons and bombs are all too easy to get hold of.
Derek Whigham, UK

I don't believe America is going to leave Afghanistan in control of the Northern Alliance

SM, UK

The Northern Alliance are terrorists and were overthrown because they killed masses of civilians and raped young girls and elderly women. However, I don't believe America is going to leave Afghanistan in control of the Northern Alliance, they are probably just using them to overthrow the Taliban. We know that American troops are extremely brave at throwing bombs from hundreds of miles away against a country that has no self defence, but are not so brave when it comes to fighting face to face. They will use the Northern Alliance to hide behind just like they hid behind the Kosovan troops in the Balkans and then claim all the victory.
SM, UK

If the allies support the Northern Alliance, they are but beggars to their own demise, laying the foundations of future rife and struggle, toil and turmoil - the coalition must act alone and independently to show its power and to demonstrate they will not just be washing their hands of the dirty work on the ground.
Sebastian Harrison, Scotland

The Northern Alliance have an appalling record on human rights. The last time they entered Kabul there was a massacre. They are an undisciplined rabble of gangsters, drug runners and petty warlords - just the sort allies the US usually chooses come to think of it.
Eileen, UK

To Eileen: I would just point out that the Taleban regime is hardly a liberal one (and one might suggest that for the Afghans civil war is the norm). Also, how can you be so sarcastic about the country that bailed Europe out of two World Wars? We should remember who our friends are, and get on with rooting out Bin Laden. We must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and that war is part of that imperfection.
John Thomas-Hulme, London, UK

The US is often shortsighted

Hassan, Egypt

The US should not support the Northern Alliance, which has a bleak human rights record. The US is often shortsighted, supporting groups like the Taliban and Bin Laden himself in the past to achieve short term objectives - and look what happens. Giving people guns is a poor long term strategy.
Hassan, Egypt

My perception is that the the US and Britain dont want to put in too many of their own troops for fear of public opinion changing when young men come home in body bags. We'd rather help the Northern Alliance and worry about their human rights record afterwards. This whole campaign is badly thought out and will just serve to destabilise the region even more. Then, in ten years time, we'll have another September 11th. I wish Britain was not involved in this conflict.
Neil, Wales

If the West is going to overthrow the Taleban, then by definition it must be supporting the Northern Alliance

Ben jones, UK

Ensconcing the Northern Alliance in government over Afghanistan would be as dangerous as asking the IRA to govern the UK. But if the West is going to overthrow the Taleban, then by definition it must be supporting the Northern Alliance. I doubt very much that the minds behind the military campaign have ever considered letting the NA rule the country.
Ben Jones, UK

Why should Bush care who he's siding with? He wants vengeance, and it seems that he would side with the devil if that was the only way he could wreak revenge on Bin Laden. I'm not saying that the destruction of the WTC was right - far from it. Murder cannot ever be right, and on this scale it was truly horrendous (I lost a close friend in the attack). But by teaming up with terrorists, Bush has shown that he has little moral judgement.

From what I can see, as soon as the US and British armed forces killed their first civilian in Afghanistan, they were as guilty of murder as Bin Laden. Perhaps the deal is to kill one Afghan for every resident of the WTC that died?
Davina Macdonald, Scotland

If they can't remain true to their own, how can they remain true to anybody else?
Bassam Sulaiman, Kuwait

The key to the Northern Alliance is the fact that Russia overtly supports them.

Graeme, Netherlands

If the UK and USA decide to band with the Northern Alliance, that would be typical of the stupid, short-sighted approach to foreign policy that has made the world such a dangerous place. The USA stupidly armed Saddam Hussein to fight against Iran - smart move, guys! They stupidly armed and trained Bin Laden to fight against the Russians - smart move, guys! The key to the Northern Alliance is the fact that Russia overtly supports them. Imagine if they were to get their wish to rule Afghanistan granted after all these years - and with the help of the USA and UK! And then, how will the wonderful and clever Western world get the oil and gas out of Central Asia?
Graeme, Netherlands

Relying on the Northern Alliance is like an elephant relying on an ant. Show some guts and go in yourselves.
Banaris, UK