Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNATO's Lost Cause
The west's 'good war' in Afghanistan has turned bad. A local solution, rather than a neocolonial one, is what's needed
In the latest clashes on the Pakistan-Afghan border, Nato troops have killed 11 Pakistani soldiers and injured many more, creating a serious crisis in the country and angering the Pakistan military high command, already split on the question.
US failure in Afghanistan is now evident and Nato desperation only too visible. Spreading the war to Pakistan would be a disaster for all sides. The Bush-Cheney era is drawing to a close, but it is unlikely that their replacements, despite the debacle in Iraq, will settle the American giant back to a digestive sleep.
The temporary cleavage that opened up between some EU states and Washington on Iraq was resolved after the occupation. They could all unite in Afghanistan and fight the good fight. This view has been strongly supported by every US presidential candidate in the run up to the 2008 elections, with Senator Barack Obama pressuring the White House to violate Pakistani sovereignty whenever necessary. He must be pleased.
That the "good war" has now turned bad is no longer disputed by a number of serious analysts in the US, even though there is no agreed prescription for dealing with the problems. Not least of which for some is the future of Nato, stranded far away from the Atlantic in a mountainous country, the majority of whose people, after offering a small window of opportunity to the occupiers, realised it was a mistake and became increasingly hostile.
The "neo-Taliban" control at least 20 districts in the Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan provinces where Nato troops replaced US soldiers. It is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. As western intelligence agencies active in the country are fully aware, the situation is out of control. The model envisaged for the occupation was Panama. The then US secretary of State, Colin Powell, explained that: "The strategy has to be to take charge of the whole country by military force, police or other means". His knowledge of Afghanistan was limited.
Panama, populated by 3.5 million people, could not have been more different to Afghanistan, which has a population approaching 30 million and is geographically quite dissimilar. To even attempt a military occupation of the entire country would require a minimum of 200,000 troops.
A total of 8000 US troops were dispatched to seal the victory. The 4000 "peacekeepers" sent by other countries never left Kabul. The Germans concentrated on creating a police force that could run a police state and the Italians, without any sense of irony, were busy "training an Afghan judiciary" to deal with the drugs mafia. The British were in Helmand amidst the poppy fields. As for the new satellite states involved - Czechs, Slovenes, Poles, Estonians, Slovakians and Romanians - it was useful training for the future.
Five years later, in September 2006, an attempted bombing of the US embassy came close to hitting its target. A CIA assessment that same month painted a sombre picture, depicting Karzai and his regime as hopelessly corrupt and incapable of defending Afghanistan against the Taliban. Ronald E Neumann, the US Ambassador in Kabul supported this view and told an interviewer that the US faced "stark choices" and defeat could only be avoided through
"multiple billions" over "multiple years".
The repression, striking blindly, leaves people with no option but to back those trying to resist, especially in a part of the world where the culture of revenge is strong. When a whole community feels threatened it reinforces solidarity, regardless of the character or weakness of those who fight back.
Many Afghans who detest the Taliban are so angered by the failures of Nato and the behaviour of its troops that they are hostile to the occupation. Nato itself has stopped pretending that its occupation has anything to do with the needs of the Afghan people and acknowledge it as an open-ended American military thrust into the Middle East and Central Asia. As the Economist summarises, "Defeat would be a body blow not only to the Afghans, but" - and more importantly, of course - to the Nato alliance". As ever, geopolitics prevail over Afghan interests in the calculus of the big powers.
The basing agreement signed by Washington with its appointee in Kabul in May 2005 gives the Pentagon the right to maintain a massive military presence in Afghanistan in perpetuity. That Washington is not seeking permanent bases in this fraught and inhospitable terrain simply for the sake of "democratisation and good governance" was made clear by Nato's secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the Brookings Institution in February this year: the opportunity to site military facilities, and potentially nuclear missiles, in a country that borders China, Iran and Central Asia was too good to miss.
More strategically, Afghanistan has become a central theatre for uniting, and extending, the west's power-political grip on the world order. On the one hand, it is argued, it provides an opportunity for the US to shrug off its failures in imposing its will in Iraq and persuading its allies to play a broader role there. In contrast, as one report (pdf) suggests, America and its allies "have greater unity of purpose in Afghanistan. The ultimate outcome of Nato's effort to stabilise Afghanistan and US leadership of that effort may well affect the cohesiveness of the alliance and Washington's ability to shape Nato's future."
There are at least two routes out of the Khyber impasse. The first and the worst would be to Balkanise the country. This appears to be the dominant pattern of imperial hegemony at the moment, but whereas the Kurds in Iraq and the Kosovans and others in the former Yugoslavia were willing client-nationalists, the likelihood of Tajiks or Hazaris playing this role effectively is more remote in Afghanistan.
The second alternative would require a withdrawal of all US/Nato forces, either preceded or followed by a regional pact to guarantee Afghan stability for the next ten years. Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia could guarantee and support a functioning national government, pledged to preserving the ethnic and religious diversity of Afghanistan and creating a space in which all its citizens can breathe, think and eat every day. It would need a serious social and economic plan to rebuild the country and provide the basic necessities for its people.
Nato's failure cannot be simply blamed on the Pakistani government. It is a traditional colonial ploy to blame "outsiders" for internal problems. If anything, the war in Afghanistan has created a critical situation in two Pakistani frontier provinces and the use of the Pakistan army by Centcom has resulted in suicide terrorism in Lahore with the federal intelligence agency and a naval training college targeted by supporters of the Afghan insurgents.
The Pashtun majority in Afghanistan has always had close links to its fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan. The present border was an imposition by the British empire, but it has always remained porous. It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500km border that separates the two countries. The solution is political, not military. And it should be sought in the region not in Washington or Brussels.
Tariq Ali has been a leading figure of the international left since the 60s. He has been writing for the Guardian since the 70s. He is a long-standing editor of the New Left Review and a political commentator published on every continent.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
20 Comments so far
Show All@Ken Mitchell June 12th, 2008 1:43 pm
"I originally supported our invading Afghanistan. After all, that country actually was involved in 9/11"
@poopdeck June 12th, 2008 3:43 pm
"At the time George Bush demanded that the Taliban arrest Bin Laden as a condition for not invading the country. When that did not happen he ordered the attack on the Taliban"
How quickly we forget. Or perhaps the MSM did not tell you the whole truth.
My understanding is that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden on the condition that he be tried in the World Court of the United Nations, as there had been no evidence had been presented, as yet, of the involvement of Bin Laden.
To this day, there has been no evidence that Bin Laden was involved apart from videos supposedly issued by Bin Laden himself. I dont know whether it was the real Bin Laden speaking on those tapes, and if it was really him, I dont know whether he took the glory for something he did not do.
I personally think that trial in the World Court was not only a fair offer, it was the RIGHT offer, morally speaking. The World court exists so that a fair trial can happen in the case international issues. The World Court has, on occasions shown itself to be independent from the USA, as on the occasion when the USA was found guilty of terrorism upon Nicaragua. I have to ask why having Bin Laden tried int the World Court of the UN would not be acceptable to any GENUINE party.
I dont know why this was turned down. Perhaps it is because a) Bin Laden would not have been found guilty. Clearly there was not much chance of fairness in the USA. Or perhahps b) GWB was not going to lose his chance to become a "War President" or perhaps c) all of the above.
In the last two days before the invasion, the Taliban lost their nerve and offered to give him up anyway. Too Late, declared George Bush. We are going to invade anyway. This offer also should have been accepted. But by that time GWB's popularity was soaring, and he wasnt going to give that away.
I strongly suspect that the pipeline to the Caspian Sea, that the Taliban had refused to co-operate with all those years before, may have had something to do with things also.
I have not read of any evidence that factually connects anyone in Afghanistan with the events of 9/11/2001. And I am quite sure that is because none has been forthcoming.
The C.I.A. has been deep in the drug trade since Laos and the days of Air America, so it should be no surprise that heroin trade exploded after the C.I.A. arrived.
UNOCAL, now Chevron, wants to build a pipeline from the Caspian Basin the the Arabian Sea. The route they ignorantly chose for this project runs through the Pashtun tribes' homeland which straddles the artificial border the British set up between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pashtuns are not willing to be partners with Chevron, so they must be taught "democracy" in the gunsights of pilotless aircraft firing Hellfire missiles. Negroponte, (Mr. Death Squad), has been there, but so far the new elected Pakistani government has not agreed to the idea of the "covert operations."
Even if 9/11/2001 was not an inside job, in Afghanistan it was never more than cover for the stupid Corporate/Fascist plans to get their fangs into Caspian Basin oil by transporting it in a pipeline over the Hindu Kush through the Pashtun tribal area. It ain't gonna happen. Period.
Those plans are not just evil, they are idiotic. No outside force will ever dominate the incredibly rugged terrain of the Pashtuns.
Obama better figure that out fast, or he is going to have a failed Presidency.
Afghanistan is the tombstone of Empire.
"People are not beasts "
Well you should keep this in mind while suggesting our glorious Marines and their partners in crime the Airforce keep airdropping vietnam style munitions to clear the ground of --- beasts.
Yeah we all want 'world peace' ... its how you go about it thats important. You have to be seriously deluded to think we americans or the english can bring peace to Afghanistan by pointing a gun to their heads. Get a grip.
But ill shut up ... i keep forgetting we are there for humanitarian reasons. Now if only we can convince the Afghans.
The British tried to conquer Afghans in 1900's failed
The Soviets tried in 1980'S failed
Do you think American and Nato will succeed
Please check their record so far and the Taliban are on the comeback trail.
"After all, that country actually was involved in 9/11"
No, my understanding is that that country refused to hand over a man to kangaroo-court american justice, absent an extradition treaty, without at least some proof of his guilt.
"Progressives must get behind Obama on this one." Man, you must be kidding or else you have a weird concept of what "progressive" is. Obama has no rational solutions for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or, for that matter, any other part of the world other than perhaps a slightly diluted imperialism, namely hot-air saber-rattling ("everything must remain on the table including nukes!")instead of naked aggression. Read his latest remarks to AIPAC and wake up before it is too late. Promises of today from this dangerous flip-flopper mean nothing for tomorrow.
Spoken like a true humanitarian. Spare me the communist party of utah speech. People are not beasts and the situation is more complex than mainstream media vs. alternative media, or communist rule (which isn't relevant to the future of Afghanistan)vs 'capitalist' rule.
"The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception."- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html
"[A] Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory..."- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Lochner v. New York 1905
"I hardly believe turning over Afghanistan's national security to a Russia ruled by Putin fighting its own 'war on terror' in Chechnya, an Iran ruled by theocrats, a Pakistan civil society still struggling for rule of law against a Pakistan military with long ties to the Taliban, is highly dubious."
Wow ..spoken like a true colonialist. This analysis of yours is based on the premise that somehow the only true guarantors of peace are the U.S. and NATO forces. Maybe if you try and read articles outside the mainstream media (based on the links you so graciously offered up) you may come to a different conclusion (im not about to educate you ... google it), but then again imperialists are known to completely disregard world opinion.
Its obvious by now (at least to the worldly-wise) that U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are complete disasters. Our war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with helping Afghanistan rebuild its society. At least under communist rule women had a helluva lot more freedom (Kabul University had a 40-50% enrollment of women) and the Taliban were non-existant. The condition of women in Afghanistan has NOT improved. Dont be fooled by a few photo-ops by the same 'media' you refer to ... they spin a nice long yarn, tempered for public consumption in the West.
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the warlords of Afghanistan are OUR creations. Our actions helped establish these terrorists in power. We are responsible. And the best you can come up with is EVEN MORE of the same. We are NOT interested in the betterment of Afghanistan or Afghan society. We are there to kill the very beasts we created.
I usually agree with Tariq Ali, but on this issue, his preference for 'the second alternative', i.e.
"... a withdrawal of all US/Nato forces, either preceded or followed by a regional pact to guarantee Afghan stability for the next ten years..." is based on the premise that "Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia could guarantee and support a functioning national government, pledged to preserving the ethnic and religious diversity of Afghanistan and creating a space in which all its citizens can breathe, think and eat every day..." I think is not thought out in regards to the interests of Russia and Iran, the political struggle in Pakistan, and I am not yet convinced that India has yet shown the political will or strength to stand up to Iran or Russia in an arena like Afghanistan if need be.
While I agree that any NATO withdrawal or economic development plan "would need a serious social and economic plan to rebuild the country and provide the basic necessities for its people" I hardly believe turning over Afghanistan's national security to a Russia ruled by Putin fighting its own 'war on terror' in Chechnya, an Iran ruled by theocrats, a Pakistan civil society still struggling for rule of law against a Pakistan military with long ties to the Taliban, is highly dubious. What certainties can there be that these countries political cultures would exert a benevolent influence on progressive forces like the women's rights groups fighting to make life better for everyday citizens of Afgahnistan?
The Taliban were not elected and no ethnic majority is the rightful ruler of a country simply because there are 'more of them'. And I think it is naive to think that the Taliban, Iran, or Putin would not exert a destabilizing antidemocratic pull on Afghan politics. If we don't act, I see no evidence that the Taliban will build anything less than they already did in Afghanistan before 2001- a theocracy capable of committing genocide.
"Massacres of Hazara in Afghanistan"
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/
"Pakistan's Next Red Mosque Problem?"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650518,00.html
Progressives need to get behind Obama on this one. McCain is dead wrong, just like he was on Iraq. We should get behind the A.N.P. and support any democratically engaged political parties, but it would be a mistake to think that if negotiations with militants alienated in the past should break down that the best answer is necessarily to support plans to continue to withdraw government troops (with a chain of commmand unlike paramilitaries), if that withdrawal will lead to genocide that American, Afghan, or Pakistani military could have averted. We should emphasize our support for democracy, free media, and live with the results.
However, I don't think the Taliban have shown, unlike Hamas or Hezbollah, that they are committed to democracy, free media, or rule of law and I cannot support a withdrawal that enables an aristocrat like Osama bin Laden to have a base of operations from which to plan attacks like 9/11.
"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their own powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who someday will come and accomplish his mission."- Leon Trotsky, "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism", Der Kampf, 1911 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm)
"Moderates Hold Key in Pakistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/world/asia/26peshawar.html
"McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html
"Killing Ourselves in Afghanistan"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/
"A full occupation by a million troops and 50 years to 'educate' the Afghans might work, but I wouldn't want to bet on it."
Its precisely this kind of imperialist redneck attitude the Afghans have been fighting against. They really dont want anymore American style 'freedom' or 'education' !!
Not maybe, not perhaps.... Jeremiah Wright IS RIGHT. The problem is Americans do not want to see the truth. The truth is:
- The Dem Party is the Complicit Party
- American soldiers are war criminals (Bush too) and part of the problem, and we should not support them
- The mission is accomplished (established access to Iraqi oil for our corporations; destroyed an enemy of Israel; transferred huge amount of tax-payer money to Bush cronies)
- Those who back Obamaa (and the Complicit Party) are themselves complicit
- US is the greatest terrorist country
- US and Israel represent the real axis of evil and the greatest threat to world peace
- Palestine problem is not a religious one but a colonial, racist one
Maybe Jeremiah Wright was RIGHT. The chickens are really coming home to rooste. The seeds of colonialism are flowering...Whats next, pass the buck and blame the Pakistani...
I wonder whether this situation is just what the Neocons expected and predicted..Afhanistant has always been a strategic crossroad in history, linking East to West--it still occupies that position today..As long as there's chaos there and the people stay disorganized, the real owners of the world keep cashing in.
At the time George Bush demanded that the Taliban arrest Bin Laden as a condition for not invading the country. When that did not happen he ordered the attack on the Taliban. I've heard several experts on Afghanistan explain that it would have been much more likely that the Taliban leaders themselves would have been arrested by their own troops if they had given the order because Bin Laden was their major paymaster. The sole potentially successful action for us would have been for the CIA to tell the Taliban leaders: "we will take over from Bin Laden as your paymaster. How much do you need? Now go get him." The invasion of Afghanistan was not necessary.
There's never been a country called Afghanistan; it's tribes and clans, happily fighting amongst each other untill a common foe appears and then they'll unite for a while. It's been tried by Alexander the Great, quite some time ago, the British in the 19th century and the Russians not too long ago. A full occupation by a million troops and 50 years to 'educate' the Afghans might work, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Ken Mitchell June 12th, 2008 1:43 pm Where's your proof that Afghanistan was involved in 9/11??
Not everyone is fresh out of ideas on how to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. New Zealanders seem able to do it with what Nietzsche called 'joyful wisdom'.
"Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia could guarantee and support a functioning national government, pledged to preserving the ethnic and religious diversity of Afghanistan and creating a space in which all its citizens can breathe, think and eat every day. It would need a serious social and economic plan to rebuild the country and provide the basic necessities for its people."
This is the ONLY solution for the problems in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. However Pakistan cannot be in the forefront of this solution until such time the civilian government exercises real power.
The Pakistani military is responsible for fostering the terrorist machinations of the Taliban as well as Al-Qaeda, Lashkar (LET), Hizbul (HUM) and a host of other terrorist entities so as to gain strategic control over Afghanistan and India. To allow the fox to guard the henhouse is not necessarily the smartest move !!
This piece is so filled with basic good sense that it is guaranteed to be absolutely ignored.
I originally supported our invading Afghanistan. After all, that country actually was involved in 9/11. But Bush was so obsessed with Saddam Hussein, a dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11. The end result was that he let bin Laden get away and the Taliban re-take control of that country.