Propaganda plays a crucial role in the conflict between the United States, its allies and those responsible for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washinton one month ago. US leaders have made much of their decision to drop food and medicine along with the bombs and missiles that have rained down on Afghanistan this week. But humanitarian aid agencies are appalled at the huge difficulties the bombing campaign has created for their efforts to bring food to millions of Afghans before the winter season sets in. Their calls for secure food corridors to be opened must be heeded urgently if the US-led coalition against terrorism is to retain credibility and support. That should be part and parcel of the coalition's political and military objectives.
Up to seven million people are estimated to face displacement and starvation if aid does not reach them soon - one third of the Afghan population. The food and medicine being dropped can meet only a small part of their needs. Aid on the scale required is best delivered by truck, not by air. A failure to do that will make the coalition rapidly vulnerable to cynical interpretations of its motives. This could become a humanitarian disaster on a colossal scale, comparable to Rwanda or Ethiopia, and affecting many Afghans in the north and west of the country sympathetic to the coalition and hostile to the Taliban regime.
Thus the humanitarian crisis is inseparable from the overall crisis and the coalition's objectives. There has been considerable confusion this week about precisely what the objectives are, as the air attacks go into their fifth day. How long more will they continue? Will ground troops be landed for special operations when the main targets have been hit? What detailed information is available on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect? How central is the objective of toppling the Taliban regime and installing a new government that would cooperate with the US and its allies in pursuit of the terrorist organisations based there and provide immediate humanitarian aid? And is it intended to broaden the targets out to include other states, such as Iraq, suspected of harbouring these organisations?
These are all legitimate questions which urgently need clarification as the military campaign unfolds. Not all of them can or will be answered in public by US and British leaders, for security reasons or because there is as yet no consensus on them. But the classical military advice that objectives must be clear and clinically analysed applies in extraordinary measure to this crisis. The anti-terrorism campaign depends crucially on maintaining support from a broad international coalition which expects a targeted and proportionate response to the atrocities of September 11th and a genuine commitment to relief.
The coalition will come under great pressure if the bombing appears to be indiscriminate, if many civilians are killed and millions more people are displaced without humanitarian aid being made available. It would collapse if the military campaign is extended to other states without the most convincing evidence being made publicly available. A grave responsibility rests on President Bush, his colleagues and allies as these events unfold.