Killing Afghanistan’s Children

On Saturday a world largely numb to the decades long violence coming out of Afghanistan, was moved to horror by the attack on a school in the Dasht-e-Barchi neighbourhood in the west of Kabul. Those targeted by the attack, its tactics and its devastation were a combination of deep savagery. As media reports explained; “initially, a suicide bomber blew up a car full of explosives at the school gates; as school children ran out in panic, two more bombs went off, killing even more."

On social media one counterterrorism expert exclaimed; “DON’T TARGET SCHOOLCHILDREN”, and it is a question worth asking as to why the attack was planned, who did it and what do they hope to benefit from it? There has now been a series of attacks against civilian targets in Afghanistan, predictably the softest and least defended, which have gone unclaimed. The Taliban certainly haven’t claimed it and on Monday announced a three-day ceasefire for the Eid holiday following the attack that has now confirmed to have killed at least 85 people.

It seems decades ago, around the time of the Palestinian Second Intifada, that the rise of the suicide bomber phenomenon became an issue of global concern. Reams of writing investigated why people did it and incidents of the tactic would dominate the global headlines. There were 470 suicide bomb attacks in 2016 although that number has dropped considerably in recent years. The logic of volunteering or being coerced into becoming a suicide bomber often involves agreement as to the legitimacy of the target and that’s what makes it so hard to imagine how killing dozens of schoolgirls can be something worth dying for.

Yet that is exactly what happened. One scenario is the offshoots of the Taliban or more hard-line splinter groups are preparing the country for the post-US period from September. Sending bloody messages about whether girls should be allowed to go to school or not is politics by the most brutal of means. How many parents will think twice about sending their daughters to school after this attack? Already an estimated 3.7 million children are out-of-school in Afghanistan – 60% of them are girls.

A second logic is around the strategy of posing questions that only you have the answer to. If the Taliban or a linked group want to portray themselves as the best bet for a more secure Afghanistan, in a not too dissimilar way to their initial ascendency to power in the 1990s, then there is now better way to prepare the ground by encouraging carnage that only they can bring an end to.

There is often the paradoxical logic around winning the hearts and minds of a population by slaughtering their children. This may make little sense in more stable and representative body politics but in countries like Afghanistan which have a long history of contested governance it is a bit on the power of fear to assert rule.

Another factor is around accountability. There is obviously no justice in this life for the main perpetrator of the attack, but what of those who organised it and provided all the logistics? The number of burning fires and levels of violence in the country are such that the likelihood of successful criminal investigations is exceptionally slim.

Instead, the attack will be remembered in passing by most of the global audience and only those who’ve lost daughters and sisters will be left dealing with the lifelong trauma of having those nearest to them suddenly ripped for their lives in an attack of such wanton and illogical chaos.

Any action or event in Afghanistan over the next four months will be seen directly in the context of the US withdrawal and there is an interesting and outstanding question as to what Washington’s response to attacks like this will be. There initial response, via the State Department, was a standard condemnation of “the barbarous attack near a girls' school in Kabul, Afghanistan. We offer our condolences to the victims, many of whom were children, and their families. We call for an immediate end to violence and the senseless targeting of innocent civilians."

Condolences alone will not be much of a salve for those who lost so much from these attacks. The US should be far more imaginative in not allowing these types of heinous acts to go unchallenged. Supporting global investigative mechanisms and being clear that these attacks won’t just be historical footnotes but rather pivots on which the future Afghanistan will be judged are more tangible and immediate steps that should be considered.

by: James Denselow

James Denselow