Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield recently announced more American ground troops will enter Afghanistan, giving Taliban leaders even greater worries about their futures. In an interview with the first Western reporter allowed into Kabul since the bombing began, Taliban officials reiterated their desire to end the conflict through negotiation. And once again, their demand revolves around the United States supplying proof of Osama bin Laden's guilt. In the past, they've offered to turn bin Laden over to a third country for trial or even to try him in the United States under Islamic law.
Negotiation implies conversation; one party wants or needs to hear what the other has to say. Since the term "Ground Zero" entered America's everyday lexicon, the president has maintained that this is not a conversation - there will be no negotiation. The United States claims to have sufficient evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt to justify its aggression, and the president has been explicit about the United States' position on harboring terrorists and how it will deal with them. U.S. military action will end only when the Taliban hands over bin Laden and all members of al Qaeda within Afghanistan's borders.
The Taliban's military forces, not dealing from a position of strength to begin with, are currently being whittled down to nothing. A reaffirmation of a desire to negotiate after weeks of tough talk and forceful rhetoric indicates a weakening of their capacity to fight. There's no need to ask for what the force of arms will eventually obtain.
If the Bush administration were to break down and decide to accept negotiation over bin Laden's fate or the war's course, it would undermine the United States' global position. President Bush's ability to inspire confidence and trust both domestically and internationally would be damaged irrevocably after going back on a promise made so boldly and firmly. Ultimately, we are weak except for the strength of our word.
It is in Bush's word, and so our nation's, that our greatest weakness lies. Our administration has no responsibility to explain itself to the Taliban, but it does have a responsibility to its constituency - its greatest responsibility as a governing body. The U.S. government has repeatedly announced in public forums both national and global that it has substantial, verifiable proof that bin Laden is the force behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Despite the government's claims, no evidence has been presented to the American citizenry that the evidence does in fact exist. The United States has declared war, claimed lives and engaged the nation in volatile international relations - all in the name of the American people - without giving them even vague evidence that its actions are rooted in verifiable fact.
The only credible assurance we have that our government is not acting as an independent entity is the support of British Prime Minister Tony Blair which attests to its veracity. Full disclosure is not necessary because doing so might very well compromise crucial sources close to al Qaeda, but something more than blustery assurances from the government that it is heeding the representative contract is. Releasing some information to the media would allow independent verification of the validity of America's case, a necessary component of our system of political checks and balances. It would bolster national confidence in the government's actions if they are indeed appropriate, and allow us to restrain its aggression if we find it is undue or misapplied.
Although we should not compromise with the Taliban's demand for evidence, the U.S. government cannot ethically proceed in the name of the American citizenry without proving that its actions are being taken truly for its benefit. We have a right to know.
