"The bombardment against the innocent Afghan people, already persecuted by the Taliban, are as vile as the terrorist acts against the US," said Arlette Laguiller, spokeswoman of the French Workers Struggle party, as hundreds marched in Paris to denounce "terrorism and the logic of war." The "senseless slaughter of innocent [Afghan] people" was condemned also by Keith Benjamin of the Western Province Council of Churches, co-sponsor of the march in Cape Town, South Africa, to protest the brutal US-UK assault.

Anti-war protests are being held in other non-Muslims countries as well. They should gain strength because, despite Afghanistan being a media black hole, horrifying casualty-reports are filtering out. The "unintended loss of life" ("collateral damage" became embarrassing after Timothy McVeigh used this Gulf War euphemism to shrug off the carnage caused by his attack on the US government) is already in the hundreds and the injured in thousands. Entire villages have been obliterated, nearly 200 women, children and old men blown to bits in Kadam alone. And the war is only a week old.

It is, thus, becoming more and more difficult for more and more people to make a moral (or even legal) distinction between what the US-UK are doing in Afghanistan and what Osama Bin Laden (OBL) is alleged to have done in the US. Both have divided the world neatly into good and evil and invoked God on their side to avenge innocent blood by spilling more innocent blood. Thus, President Bush is leading a crusade and OBL a Jihad as both claim the high moral ground in proclaiming to be the victims of the other's perfidy. The bizarre identity even in their rhetoric led Robert Fisk (The Independent) to wonder who is copying whom in the war of words?

It is, sadly, a case of two wrongs trying to make a right. The US had undisputed control of the high moral ground and complete world support after the Black Tuesday catastrophe. It could have used this unique unanimity and its own unparalleled power to lead the world anywhere - even to a shared moral and material co-existence. But it failed the leadership test yet again within the space of just over a decade.

When the Cold War ended, a peace euphoria had intoxicated the world living in fear of nuclear vaporisation. The natural corollary of the end of the ideological conflict seemed to be the destruction of the awesome military arsenals and diversion of the colossal military expenses to the sharing of prosperity and consolidation of peace. But it wasn't to be. The proverbial military-industrial complex was too strong to just roll over a die.

"Islamic fundamentalism" suddenly appeared as a threat to the Western civilisation. A new ideological war was at hand and Nato, rendered redundant by the Soviet collapse, was suddenly expanding to fight the new enemy around the Mediterranean rim. The US was, of course, looking for a global reach. Thus, their military expenditures and profits from worldwide military sales increased as smaller countries also began arming themselves for unforeseen wars.

The mother of them all was provided by Iraq. On a wink from the US ambassador, April Gilespie, it suddenly rolled into Kuwait and its doom. What followed was a near casualty-free and profitable victory for the US as the Arabs, Japan and Europe picked up the tab. But since Saddam Hussain eluded the otherwise smart-bomb, US forces stayed in the Gulf. Despite spending billions of dollars on Western weaponry, the oil Sheiks were obviously not feeling any safer externally or internally.

This lit the fuse of a bomb which, we are told, reduced the World Trade Centre to rubble. After an initial, and understandable, explosion of anger, it had seemed briefly that the US leadership had seen the dangers inherent in a hasty and massive response and was calming frayed nerves at home. But the deadly assault on Afghanistan, ravaged already by war, drought and famine, indicates that the hawks have won again.

With the US notifying the supine UN that it could take its endless crusade to other (Muslim) countries as well, the world has suddenly become a very insecure place. What next? Pakistan?

The UN Security Council, crippled by discord during the cold war, has now fallen victim to a half-baked anti-terrorist accord. It has churned out dangerously ambiguous resolutions condemning terrorism without defining the contentious term, obligating countries to help bring terrorists to justice without crafting an international mechanism to hold and try them and, crucially, without specifying the punitive procedure in case of non-compliance. Instead of adding clarity, the General Assembly collapsed in a deadlock. Ironic indeed (or fitting?) For the UN and its Secretary General to be "rewarded" with the Nobel pace prize at the time of their greatest failure.

But by far the most shameless failure has been the OIC. It could have pre-empted events by stepping forward after Black Tuesday to persuade the Taliban to deliver OBL to its custody, as promised by them, for trial in a neutral country. When the OIC foreign ministers finally met, a month after Black Tuesday, the "emergency" session yielded no solution to the miseries of Afghanistan or the US-Taliban impasse.

In the continuing irrelevance of the OIC to the issues facing the Muslim world lie the real causes of the radical upsurge. The despotic and decadent regimes of its members deny the people free, fair and democratic governance. It is as much the support for these unpopular regimes as their double standards in world affairs which shifts Muslim anger towards the US-West. OBL is an extreme example of this reaction. But the adulation for his defiance of an arrogant West is a pervasive sentiment.

In the vacuum created by the UN and OIC, the US waved the self-defence Article of the UN Charter and, with the UK tagging along for kicks, assaulted Afghanistan to eliminate its terrorists. Considering the hype being built around the "anthrax scare", its vow to use "every weapon" becomes very ominous. Ignored is the fact that a dangerous precedent is being set for others, like India, Israel, Russia, to attack their "terrorists."

Also ignored is the detail that the US Attorney General is still reporting progress on the as yet incomplete investigation into Black Tuesday. And that in the 70-point "evidence" released by the UK (why not the US itself?), only nine points "relate to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and these often rely on conjecture rather than evidence" (Robert Fisk). And this "indictment" itself begins by conceding that it "does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law."

Yet, the "evidence" is deemed sufficient to pass a death sentence on him, his protectors and even to wage war against Afghanistan. Thus, even if justice is being done it is certainly not being seen as being done. This only cements the bitter perception that the blood of the uncounted, unnamed and un-lamented victims of US bombs (or Israeli or Indian bullets) is worth less than that of the Black Tuesday victims. It is difficult to see such a morally lopsided enterprise yielding peace for the region, or the world.

What else could President Bush have done in the face of the truculent Taliban? If living up to the soaring approval ratings was the objective, the correct course has been followed - even though the ratings could plunge if the going gets tough. He did well also if money is to be made, first, by destroying Afghanistan and, then, from its reconstruction and a permanent presence astride the new oil routes. Otherwise, the Taliban had opened a chink for a peaceful settlement of the OBL imbroglio.

Working on their tribal psyche with vigorous UN-OIC assistance, even the existing "evidence" could have yielded a Lockerbie-like trial in a neutral venue. Even the Nazis and the Balkan butchers, despite causing far greater mayhem than is attributed to OBL, were given their day in court. The disinterest in this option reinforces the perception that the game is much bigger than OBL or Al-Qaeda and, in any case, the US (and its Arab allies) would prefer OBL dead than taken alive. This would obviate a trial that might turn awkward. The 19 main accused are already dead, and dead men ask no questions. But they do become martyrs and magnetic symbols.

The writer is a freelance columunist