Afghans to Obama: End the Occupation
President Elect Barack Obama wants to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. But the US/NATO occupation is less popular than ever. Eman, an Afghan woman's rights activist with RAWA tells Uprising host, Sonali Kolhatkar, that Obama must end the occupation. RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, is the oldest women's political organization in Afghanistan, struggling non-violently against foreign occupations and religious fundamentalism for more than 30 years.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Many on the American left are celebrating the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US. But while he has pledged to end the Iraq war, he has also promised to increase troops in Afghanistan. What is your opinion of Barack Obama and his stated policy on Afghanistan?
Eman: We can easily judge Obama from what he said in one of his recent interviews that he does not feel the need to apologize to the Afghan people. We do not consider this [the result of] a lack of information. But didn't he feel the need to apologize for the wrong policies of the US government for the past three decades in our country? Didn't he feel the need to apologize for the fundamentalist-fostering policies of the US government in creating, arming, and supporting these brutal, misogynist groups like the Northern Alliance and other fascist groups during the past three decades? Didn't he feel the need to apologize for the occupation of our country under the banner of democracy, the so-called "war on terror," and women's rights, but then compromise with terrorists like the Northern Alliance, who cannot be distinguished from the Taliban in the history of their criminal acts? In fact these murderers were the first to destroy our nation. And even after seven years of a very long and very costly "war on terror," terrorism has not been uprooted in Afghanistan but has become stronger and the Taliban are becoming more powerful. Plus recently [the US is] talking about negotiating with the most wanted terrorist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and with the Taliban, which is in contradiction with what they claimed and what their main objective was in occupying Afghanistan.
From his statements during his election campaign, we don't think that Obama's position is different from the Bush administration; it is the continuation of Bush's foreign policy. As Obama's first message to our country was that of war, we cannot be hopeful about him.
Kolhatkar: Do you think the troops should be withdrawn and if so, what will happen in Afghanistan if US/NATO forces leave Afghanistan?
Eman: RAWA strongly believes that whatever happens, a withdrawal of foreign troops should be the first step, because today, with the presence of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, with the presence of many foreign countries in our nation, for the majority of our people particularly poor people in the other provinces of Afghanistan outside Kabul, the situation is so bad that it cannot get any worse. Today they are also suffering from insecurity, killing, kidnapping, rape, acid throwing on school girls (as happened just last week), hunger, lawlessness, lack of freedom of speech (with journalist Parwiz Kambakhsh being imprisoned), After seven years of occupation [the US] failed to bring peace, security, democracy, and women's rights that they claimed. I think seven years is quite enough time to prove that democracy and peace cannot be brought by foreigners. It can only be achieved by our own people by democratic organizations and individuals. It's our responsibility to become united as an alternative against the occupation, to rise up, to resist and to organize our people.
Obviously it is very difficult. No one can predict how long it will take, how much blood, how much sacrifice, and what price should be paid. But this is the only solution, as RAWA has always emphasized.
Right now our people are under attack from different sides. From one side we have the Taliban, from the other side are the US air strikes, and from another side are the Northern Alliance warlords in different provinces. We are in a political confusion. With the withdrawal [of troops] our people will at least get rid of one of these enemies.
We believe that even with the withdrawal of the troops they have a moral duty towards Afghanistan as they have empowered these dangerous fundamentalist groups economically; and given them arms which were a big threat to the security of our country. If the US and its allies are kind enough to try to help us and they are honest in their claim of helping our people then they can prove it in other ways. They can prove it by the disarmament of armed groups. They can prove it by stopping any kind of support, help and compromise with any fundamentalist groups by helping our people to prosecute our war criminals of three decades. They can do this by supporting democratic voices. So they have other alternatives to help us if they really want to.
Kolhatkar: Hamid Karzai's tenure is up next year and there are to be new elections. What do you think needs to happen before the elections, and is there any chance the elections could bring some positive change inside Afghanistan?
Eman: We have two kinds of elections ahead of us: parliamentary and presidential. About the presidential election, everyone knows that the White House determines who is going to be the next president. Our public's votes are just used as a formality. But what we are sure of is that the next president will not be independent or a real democrat. So our people are not so hopeful about those elections.
About the parliamentary elections, it is important to state that this election, like the last one, will be conducted under the shadow of guns, airpower and money. So we cannot call it a fair and free election. For a fair and free election to be held we think that disarmament of the powerful warlords which have private armies in different provinces, is a necessary factor. Otherwise it will be a repeat of the last election. For example, according to a law made by the Election Commission, warlords cannot take part in the elections. The last time, our people appealed to the election commission against criminal candidates and drug lords with evidence but nobody paid attention to them and these most-wanted murderers found their way to parliament. There were just a very few exceptions who were really elected by the people. The majority were well-known murderers, criminals, and rapists.
Kolhatkar: In RAWA's recent statement on the 7th anniversary of the US war on October 7th, you say "Our freedom is only achievable at the hands of our people." How strong are democratic grassroots forces in Afghanistan, and are they capable of rising up and leading the country?
Eman: Unfortunately the democratic forces are very weak due to many reasons. The two main reasons are, firstly, financial problems because there is no government support at all, and powerful international forces like the United Nations have never been interested in supporting democratic groups, individuals, and voices. Secondly they are weak for security reasons, which have always suppressed these groups. We believe that the main source of power lies with our people. Today they have become hopeless with false promises from the West of establishing democracy. And moreover people are fed-up of the fundamentalism of the Taliban, Northern Alliance, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, etc. So today if we witness demonstrations organized by our suffering and tired people, tomorrow they will be much more organized under the leadership of democratic movements. So we should not lose our hope. The groups are weak but they exist. I think it's the duty of democratic forces all over the world to support democratic movements in Afghanistan and they should show their practical solidarity with them.
Kolhatkar: When we started our conversation, you weren't very optimistic about Barack Obama's stated policy on Afghanistan. What advice would you give President Elect Barack Obama, when he takes office in January?
Eman: We believe that if the American government does not have any bad, expansionist, hidden intentions regarding our country then they have to accept and change their long-term mistakes and wrong policies in our country. In the early 1990s they supported the anti-democratic, anti-women forces and they still have not learned a lesson and still they rely on and compromise with the different fundamentalist groups, which makes the situation of our country even worse. So from one side they are still nourishing and working with those drug lords and warlords of the Northern Alliance. And from the other side they complain about drugs, corruption and insecurity which is a painful game with the destiny of our people, who do not want more troops and war. Our people want justice, peace, and democracy.
As the US failed with spending billions of dollars on the presence of thousands of troops for the past seven years, I'm sure that they will fail even if they bring millions more troops as long as the American government does not change its policies in Afghanistan.
Kolhatkar: Finally, what advice would you give the American anti-war movement on what Afghanistan needs from them?
Eman: Since the US government has always supported fundamentalist groups and ignored democratic voices in our country, I think that the US government does not represent all American people. But there are great American people and great peace movements who have always raised their voice against war and defended peace with justice. History shows that these movements have always affected government policies, for example on the Vietnam war. So I think that they have a great responsibility to put pressure on their government and especially its foreign policy, to change the policy and to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. And they have to show their solidarity with the democratic movements in Afghanistan. It's very very important for us and we need their voices. But I just read an article that some parts of the US peace movements are supporting the Iranian government. We condemn this position because we consider the Iranian government a fundamentalist, fascist government. But as long as the peace movement is concerned, we need their solidarity and we are very happy to have their support.
Find out more about RAWA at www.rawa.org. Sonali Kolhatkar is host and producer of Uprising, at KPFK, Pacifica Radio, www.uprisingradio.org.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
32 Comments so far
Show AllJan because that's what has been declassified so far. Go file a freedom of information act inquiry if you need up to date info. Pakistan's ISI is still funding them everyone in South Asia knows this even Karzai keeps saying it.
The Afghanis can complain all they want but they will have no more influence over whether and how long the US occupies Afghanistan than the Iraqi people have over our occupation of Iraq - or for that matter the South Vietnamese did over our occupation during the Vietnam war. We're 'king of the hill' wherever we go and pretty much where we want to be in the world and will remain where we are until pushed out. Like we used to complain about dealing with the Soviets: 'Force is the only thing they understand'. Well, force is the only thing we understand.
Occupation usually serves the ruling class of both the occupiers and the occupied territories, however constituted. The people of those occupied territories are usually exploited, abused, and degraded, and sometimes killed. No matter how 'benevolent' an occupaction may be at its start, and for whatever, even humane, reasons the occupation is initiated and justified, sooner or later all occupiers begin to behave the same and brutalize the occupied. People just don't like foreigners with guns telling them what to do in their own countries and eventually begin to resist. The greater the resistance the more violence the occupiers use. Even the ostensibly peaceful and harmonious Tibetans have begun to resist the Chinese occupation with violence.
When PE Obama becomes president there are two real and one potential wars/occupations waiting for him on his desk: Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Iran.
We will soon thereafter learn whether he will "resolve" all three a.s.a.p. or whether this triple albatross will remain around his neck for four or even eight years.
Here are my hunches:
1. Iraq. Muddle through until the end of 2011. If another "Fallujah" happens because US civilians were not evacuated soon enough, he will have to send troops back into Iraq.
2. Afghanistan/Pakistan. Bomb, bomb, bomb from the air in the hope that a bombing "surge" will resolve his problems there with a minimum of US casualties. It will not.
3. Iran. He will first try to bring about "attitude change" and "uranium-stop" with a combination of talks and illegal blockade. When that fails, as it will, he will emulate JFK on Cuba and allow Israel to use US airfields in Azerbaijan to bomb Iran. (Flights from Azerbaijan to Iran will not have to use Iraq's airspace!).
4. Unless removed quickly, the "triple albatross" will financially and morally choke the Obama administration to Bushian impotence. Obama will try to divert our attention with "socio-economic issues".
5. To add more albatrosses in Latin America would be the height of criminal folly.
I knew Afghanistan was a mistake when Bush invaded them. Other than Osama Bin Laden having a training camp there they were no threat to us either. All Bush had to do was send a covert operation to kidnap the man and be done with it(when has it ever bothered him to break a international law). But, oh no! He had to start a useless war we couldn't win. The Soviets tried it in the 80's and it bankrupted them and lead to their eventual downfall. What made Bush think it was going to be any better us doing it? It's going to destroy us to if we just don't get out of there and forget about it. Those people have fought among themselves for centuries and will still be fighting when the crack of doom comes. They have their little war lords who fight among themselves for more power. The country is controlled by the opium trade. Anytime that happens it's going to be a lawless wonderland. Islam is to strong in those countries and getting stronger by the day. Anytime religion rules people's hearts and minds good sense goes flying out the window.
Religion ruling hearts and minds, look to your own country before mouthing off about others.
lol --- Good one
Obama = LBJ II? It is not unlikely that Obama will fare well with his domestic programs, at least providing some improvement with respect to the current debacle, but that his foreign policy will sink him. Like Johnson, he wants to focus on domestic policy and only uses foreign policy to posture as a "tough guy." The appointment of Hillary is NOT a good sign.
U.S. troops have been in Germany and Korea for over half a century. Can't the Afghanis understand that once the foot is in the door, that's it. Have they built any McDonald's restaurants there yet? I wonder how that oil pipeline is coming along.
As a black man and a president Obama has wowed not to preside over the liquidation of the American Empire and end the glory which is the illegal occupation of third world countries.
Why doesn't the U.S. government simply buy each year's entire opium crop?
Whatever it cannot make use of in the medical sphere, proceed and destroy the balance.
It would be a public relations coup and neutralize the warlords and sentiment
for the Taliban. Think up an imaginative way to fight ants.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declare that Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are more dangerous than the Taliban or al Qaeda. The president brings all the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan, pledging to train them for counterinsurgency soldiering in Latin America. Centcom Honcho, General Petraeus, who is bribed by being made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurs. The Republicans want to yell "Kill the traitor! Hang him!" but cannot. The School of the Americas is left open by President Obama as a sign he means business (but subsequently the funding is slowly but steadily cut). The Republicans congratulate the president. The veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan indeed train for a Latin American invasion but no such thing ever takes place. How's that for a fairy tale?
Afghanistan is only a small part of the Bush/Cheney "war on terrorism". Obama has embraced the Bush/Cheney foreign policy. Obama will continue Bush/Cheney foreign policy by wanting to re-deploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama embraces the Israeli zionist occupation of Palestine; blames Russia for events in Georgia despite Geogia's provocation; etc. Obama seeks a post for Madelyne Albright, perhaps for her past efforts in killing 500,000 children in Iraq sanctions and thinking "it was worth it", and perhaps for trying to destabilize Chavez in Venezuela, etc.
The root cause of the wars in the middle east started with the decline of U.S. capitalism since the 1970s. Manufacturing has left the U.S. Immigrant labor has flooded the U.S. from Mexico due to U.S. corporate destruction of living standards in Mexico. 9-11 provided the spark to exploit the only thing left that the U.S. had: military power.
U.S. and global capitalism no longer serves any "progressive" purpose. The ruling corporate elites are destroying the planet and waging a "war of genocide" agains all "unprofitable" peoples in it's mad rush to retain wealth and power in this collapse of capitalism.
Obama and the Democratic party cannot be "reformed". They are now part of the problem.
A new movement to end capitalism with a transition to socialism is now only the realistic and practical solution possible. Socialism is essential to the survival of humanity.
Read this article on where Obama-mania is leading us:
Obama’s “left” cheerleaders and the right-wing transition, 22 November 2008, by Bill Van Auken:
http://www.wsws.org/tools/index.php?page=print&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsws.org%2Farticles%2F2008%2Fnov20...
Incorporate We the People and let the people decide.
Get out of Afghanistan? Obama is just getting warmed up, and he's a big Israeli supporter, so case closed. Afghans, get used to your uninvited "guest," they're going to be around for awhile. Bin Laden is dead as a doornail and has been since the al Qaida training camp, Tora Bora, was bombed. There's no excuse to be there anymore. Oh, by the way, why did the U.S. give the Taliban millions of dollars in 2001, before 9/11? Anyone know?
"Oh, by the way, why did the U.S. give the Taliban millions of dollars in 2001, before 9/11? Anyone know?"
I believe the U.S. gave them $40 million to bribe farmers to stop growing opium.
bligh4
Get out of Afghanistan now. Give it back to the war-lords or Taliban. Who cares who runs the place?
What's to negotiate?
Like the lady said in her own way - GET OUT NOW (If not sooner)
It would also be a nice way to 'Support the Troops'
But I'm afraid the Carlyle Companies, KBR, and the rest of the US arms industry who paid for Obama's campaign still control our policy.
There is some irony to this since the US snookered Russia to bleed it's economy to death in Afganistan.
The end of empires ain't pretty. To bad nothing has or will change until the electorate educates itself and takes back the US government.
But I could be wrong !
What's to negotiate?
At least an orderly withdrawal. It is traditional as a way to plan for the future. Peace treaties are negotiated traditionally.
A treaty with the Taliban would be a good thing for this group of Women who don't like and are afraid of the Taliban.
War is terror and a negotiated peace is what governments are supposed to do.
The Taliban offered to turn over bin laden before we invaded. They might tell us if he is still around if Obama negotiated.
If Obama left like Viet Nam.... He would be impeached pronto.
I could be wrong too... We'll See.
After all that has gone on in the last eight years, why would anyone think that Obama "would be impeached pronto" for leaving "like Vietnam"? Yes, start negotiating January 20. However, Obama will have to ask his bosses to see if it's O.K.
impeached?
In my view, If the USA was chased out like in Nam before Obama knows if bin laden is alive...and then Osama turns up again...
Obama would be in big trouble.
It is not good enough to think he is dead or alive if you are fighting a war and killing innocents to find him.
That is my point.
It is fine for us to speculate but that is no excuse for a president.
If he recognizes the World Court, that would make it easy for all plans for peace.
"Impeached?" You said that Obama would be "impeached pronto". Why the question mark?
Obama will have to negotiate a pull out and Peace in Afghanistan if anything at home is going to get better.
This revolutionary group should be his closest advisors.. and maybe they will want to negotiate with the Taliban also if peace is to happen. If they want to fight the Taliban and not talk with them, that would be their choice... Nothing has worked so far so Obama will have to leave sooner or later... the sooner the better.
He probably will send in more troops at first to show strength before negotiation.
I can see Hillary listening to them and taking them seriously.
Peace is the only option now... the world is broke, War is expensive.
The War economy and monetary system based on continually increasing Debt will keep getting worse and the world seems to be waking up now about the whole Global financial structure and how it has failed.
To try and kill or capture bin laden before anyone knows if he is alive or a ghost, is the stupidest thing Obama could do.
He should recognize the world court and ask bin Laden to give himself up for a fair trial... Then the world can get together on fighting terroism effectively.
Time to think outside the Box.
Why is the US in Afghanistan?
Probably because War has been the only answer to 9/11.
That is what Osama wanted. He said the expense of the war would break the USA... it also exposed the corruption of the world monetary system.
"...War has been the only answer to 9/11...That is what Osama wanted."??? No, that is what Bush, Cheney, and their little cabal of neocons wanted. A contribution to the fact that we are still there is that so many still believe that the patsy of the CIA, Osama bin Laden, orchestrated 9/11. Pure rubbish. But who, as much as anyone, has used 911 and the "War on Terror" to further their own political agenda--Obama, Biden, Clinton, and the rest of the slimy Democratic leadership. And Osama has served them all well, even if he has been dead probably since December, 2001.
Mister Chips
Except for the part about Obama, Biden and Clinton...and perhaps Osama being dead, I think you are correct.
Maybe a little more research on Osama might help you in the question of Osama's existence. Regarding the issue of Obama, Biden, Clinton, et. al. using the "War on Terror" in their campaigning, what's up?? Did you miss that somehow? It's all been based on a BIG LIE and inveterate liars such as these folks required no extra effort to roll with it. Besides, it's just my opinion at this point, but I really believe that Biden knows a lot more about 911 than we think.
campaigning is just campaigning. What they do now counts.
I hope you are right and he is toast. I'm not sure he was ever that important anyway, the guy would have to have ten leauge boots to have dione and organized everything blamed on him.
If the US and Europe would quit funding the Taliban especially in Pakistan which is a menace to both India and Afghanistan on the issue or terrorist attacks, troops wouldn't have to be sent there to begin with.
The Pakistani ISI are the ones funding the Taliban. So are the Saudis. You're right though that Pakistani funded Taliban is both a menace to Afghanistan and India. Of course everytime we increase foreign aid to Pakistan its syphoned off by the ISI for their Taliban frankenstein monster. Personally if we cut aid to Pakistan and tell them its because of their connections to funding terror I bet you there would be an end to the war tomorrow and peace in South Asia. It boggles my mind that we let Pakistan get away with all this.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
DCBeltway1
That nsarchive link only shows information up to November 7 2001. A lot has happened since then, like elections in Pakistan for instance. With all the opium money why would the Resistance to the occupation need money from Pakistan now?