Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Call for Clarity on the Afghanistan War
While President Barack Obama reviews his strategy on Afghanistan, a perfect moment to send a strong unified message to end the war is slipping through our fingers. Whether it's because we seem to have bought into the lies about the goals of this war or because we mistakenly feel that a Democratic president is going to come to the right conclusion on his own, one thing is clear: There's no debate within the Democratic Party or in the White House about whether to end the war. The only thing being debated is how to continue the war.
Similarly, there's little debate among progressives about how this is a bad war, and at the very least we need an exit strategy. Paralysis has set in on the particular manner of ending the war: whether to wait for some sort of "peace process," to pull out troops now versus later, to preserve troop levels until Afghanistan's women are safe, or some variation of these questions. We're in a bizarre situation: As Obama waffles on how to continue the war in Afghanistan, progressives are waffling on how to end the war.
Despite some major differences between the Afghan and Iraq wars, U.S. military operations and their consequences in both countries are the same. Similar to Iraq, this war kills civilians and soldiers causing misery on all sides. Similar to Iraq, this war has made women less safe. Similar to Iraq, this occupation has become unpopular on the ground. Similar to Iraq, our actions are leading to greater instability. And similar to Iraq, our tax dollars are being disappeared into a sinkhole of destruction rather than human needs. Yet, unlike Iraq, where progressives were clear right from the start on ending the war, Afghanistan seems to confuse our moral compass.
Our actions in Afghanistan have caused a perfect storm of untold numbers of civilian deaths, fundamentalist resurgence, and women's oppression. We're protecting a corrupt government with a puppet president and criminal warlords, and our deadly bombing raids have led to a devastated and rightly bitter population and a stronger Taliban. There's no promising indication that our military operations can improve the situation, no matter how many troops are added. If ever the Afghanistan war ever had any legitimacy, it's irreversibly gone.
Enabling Women's Oppression
One of the original justifications for the war in 2001 that seemed to resonate most with liberal Americans was the liberation of Afghan women from a misogynist regime. This is now being resurrected as the following: If the U.S. forces withdraw, any gains made by Afghan women will be reversed and they'll be at the mercy of fundamentalist forces. In fact, the fear of abandoning Afghan women seems to have caused the greatest confusion and paralysis in the antiwar movement.
What this logic misses is that the United States chose right from the start to sell out Afghan women to its misogynist fundamentalist allies on the ground. The U.S. armed the Mujahadeen leaders in the 1980s against the Soviet occupation, opening the door to successive fundamentalist governments including the Taliban. In 2001, the United States then armed the same men, now called the Northern Alliance, to fight the Taliban and then welcomed them into the newly formed government as a reward. The American puppet president Hamid Karzai, in concert with a cabinet and parliament of thugs and criminals, passed one misogynist law after another, appointed one fundamentalist zealot after another to the judiciary, and literally enabled the downfall of Afghan women's rights over eight long years.
Any token gains have been countered by setbacks. For example, while women are considered equal to men in Afghanistan's constitution, there have been vicious and deadly attacks against women's rights activists, the legalization of rape within marriage in the Shia community, and a shockingly high rate of women's imprisonment for so-called honor crimes - all under the watch of the U.S. occupation and the government we are protecting against the Taliban. Add to this the unacceptably high number of innocent women and children killed in U.S. bombing raids, which has also increased the Taliban's numbers and clout, and it makes the case that for eight years the United States has enabled the oppression of Afghan women and only added to their miseries.
This is why grassroots political and feminist activists have called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from their country. After eight years of American-enabled oppression, they would rather fight for their liberation without our help. The anti-fundamentalist progressive organization, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), has called for an immediate end to the war. Echoing their call is independent dissident member of Parliament Malalai Joya, who tells her story in her new political memoir, A Woman Among Warlords. The members of RAWA and women like Joya are openly targeted by the U.S.-backed Afghan government for their feminism and political activism. RAWA and Joya have worked on the ground, risking their lives for political change and echo the vast majority of poor and ordinary Afghan women. It's they whom we ought to listen to and express solidarity with. If American progressives think they know better than Afghanistan's brave feminist activists on how liberation can be achieved, we're just as guilty as the U.S. government for subjecting them to the mercy of women-hating criminals.
No Negotiations with Fundamentalist Criminals
Some on the left have made the case that the Afghanistan war can come to an end through a negotiated peace process where everyone has a seat at the table, including women. But this ensures that only those within the corrupt clique of Afghan politics remain involved in the future of Afghanistan - such as a few female allies of the fundamentalists who are plentiful in the current government.
Joya struggled her way into getting a "seat at the table" through the 2005 elections. For representing her people's views that war criminals ought to be brought to justice, she has been rewarded with death threats, assassination attempts, and the loss of her electoral title. Asking ordinary women and men to have a seat at a negotiating table with war criminals is akin to asking them to silence themselves or mark their foreheads with a target.
The reason why democratic forces in Afghanistan are completely underground and constantly living in fear of being killed is that time and again the U.S. government has insisted on bringing warlords and even Taliban leaders to the negotiating table. Asking the Obama administration to sponsor a "peace process" between civilian representatives and our warlord allies whose private militias we have armed, is the same as asking for exactly what President George W. Bush did eight years ago in Bonn, Germany after the fall of the Taliban. That process predictably led to the establishment of today's corrupt government. In fact, the Obama administration is very likely to patch up the recent failed presidential elections in the same way: by creating a power-sharing deal between two corrupt sides and their proxies and claiming that all sides were represented at the negotiating table.
Given our violent role in Afghanistan over the past three decades, the United States has scant credibility in sponsoring any kind of "peace" process. The most responsible action the U.S. can take is to end its occupation immediately, and clean up its mess.
Let's Call for an Immediate End to the U.S. Occupation
Those who make the case that withdrawing U.S. troops will unleash another bloody civil war where Afghan women and men will be at the mercy of the Taliban and warlords, are raising the exact same justification made for the war in 2001: that it's our moral duty to protect Afghans from fundamentalist violence. This logic ignores the fact that we have nurtured and created the very fundamentalist violence that targets Afghans as explained above. By empowering war criminals and protecting a corrupt government that has forgiven the crimes of all sides including the Taliban, and that even includes some Taliban leaders, all we have done is complicate a war that was on-going. "A member of RAWA who goes by the pseudonym Zoya in a U.S. speaking tour last month made it clear that it's hard to imagine things getting worse if the U.S. does pull out immediately. The damage isn't being prevented by the United States - it's being carried out by the United States.
Instead of subjecting Afghans to the three oppressive forces of a stronger Taliban, a corrupt and criminal government, and a deadly foreign occupation, the first thing we Americans can control most directly is to end our occupation immediately. This alone won't address the Taliban and Northern Alliance. But it will reduce the oppressive forces at work, and potentially reduce the legitimacy of the warlords and the motives driving the Taliban.
How do we undo the damage we have subjected innocent Afghans to? Afghans themselves have the answers to that. Surveys have shown that a majority of Afghans want a complete disarmament of our warlord allies - essentially that the U.S. needs to take back the guns we put into the hands of the Northern Alliance and their private militias. Surveys have also shown that Afghans want war crimes tribunals to hold all the corrupt and criminal fundamentalists accountable in some sort of court, perhaps even the International Criminal Court (U.S. government officials shouldn't be exempt from this type of accountability either). With weapons, warlords, and U.S. troops gone, real democracy could potentially take root and pro-democracy forces could someday operate freely. Many have also called for a massive Marshall Plan for poverty-stricken Afghanistan, to flood the country with money in the hands of small groups, organizations, and civil society, and eventually to help rebuild the country with a strong, non-drug-based economy. With all the money freed up from military operations that would be fairly feasible.
As for the Taliban, even the U.S. government publicly admits that the Pakistani government's own agencies have long supported the renegade army as a tool for national and regional stability. With the U.S. troops gone, the Taliban's raison d'être inside Afghanistan would be greatly weakened. If the United States were to take the lead in regional talks between Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, and China to address the Pakistani government's fears of a hostile regime in Afghanistan, it would go a very long way toward undermining the Taliban.
These measures are necessary but may not guarantee stability for Afghanistan. Still the current occupation only guarantees instability, so at the very least the time for a non-military solution is now. In other words, we can choose to repeat a failed experiment with predictably negative results by extending the war in any number of ways. Or we can implement the complex, constructive measures that could potentially help stabilize Afghanistan, undermine the fundamentalist misogynist criminals, help the Afghan people take back their country, and undermine the conditions for violence.
These are complex demands to make of the Obama administration. But it has taken a complex set of destructive American policies and many years to destroy Afghanistan. It will take a similar amount of time and complexity, as well as trial and error, to help rebuild Afghanistan for ordinary Afghans, and by extension make Americans safer. We can make these demands as secondary points in our call for an end to the war. But the primary demand easily fits on a protest placard: "End the U.S. War in Afghanistan NOW." Let's make that call loudly, clearly, and ubiquitously, as soon as possible, so that Obama and Congress can't ignore us any longer.
This article originally appeared on Foreign Policy in Focus, and is reprinted here by the author's request.
- Posted in
32 Comments so far
Show AllThe antiwar movement has to somehow get people to march around the White House with those placards in their hands:
"Out of Afghanistan NOW."
They have to link arms and start chanting to Obama and the rest of the Democrats:
"Hey, hey O-bomb-a,
how many kids did you kill today?"
While I understand your anger, this confrontational strategy will fail and waste our valuable time.
Please focus on the DAFT war against future terrorism. We solve that, and Afghanistan no longer needs to be a battlefield in our insane war against al-Qaeda and other phantoms.
America is good at lying to the people, ignoring common sense, and killing for peace.
Some commentators on TV are calling for a pullout and an end to the war... and I don't see much hyping of the war at all.
I think demonstrators who want results are saving up their energy and resources for a time when there can be a critical mass of opinion, the tipping point for peace in history. Our efforts so far have caused burnout which is necessary for the next stage of rebellion against the War machine.
"Our efforts so far have caused burnout"
So I suggest something completely different.
A successful effort ATTRACTS people.
"(D)emonstrators who want results" should stop demonstrating and start entertaining.
A political or any other kind of movement has to compete for the attention of the American public.
"the tipping point"
A point is a small thing. Like a tiny law, and that's all we need to change in order to change the world.
I suggest that Progressives need to do 2 things. Focus on one goal. Focus on the correct goal.
If it's done entertainingly, it can garner public attention and support.
Yes, I got your message many times.
The act was not really called "Defense Against Future Terrorism" was it?
And Who wants future terrorism?
So just the title you give it sounds reasonable and it would be more entertaining to use it to end the war that is causing more future terrorism since War = terror. Like we are paying the opium war lords to protect our military.
Repealing a law may take longer than ending a war, but since we need all kinds of new ideas, can you tip me how this is "entertaining", besides the word "DAFT"?
In the meantime, I'm against the next war too.
- "End the U.S. War in Afghanistan NOW." -
This idea to keep harping about a 'War in Afghanistan' is a primary reason why Progressives have failed for 8 years, just like the recent futile gestures of CodePink and MoveOn.org which this author suggests we continue, ad infinitum, evidently.
al-Qaeda is the enemy of the US.
The US is stuck in Afghanistan (and Iraq) because US troops must prevent future terrorism by al-Qaeda.
Any talk of 'withdrawing from Afghanistan' without considering terrorism is futile, hopeless and time-wasting.
If you want to be successful, pick the right target. 'War in Afghanistan' is not a good target (8 years of failure prove this).
DAFT is the target.
If you want to end this madness, end the DAFT war.
"Progressives" have failed because among them are gullible people like you who believe our government's lies about why the US is in Afghanistan (and, in your case, even the lies about Iraq). Get your head out of the sand and think about whether there is any more truth to the government's claims about the "war on terrorism" than there was about the threat posed by "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq or, once upon a time, the "international communist conspiracy." The biggest threat in the world today is the US government and the corporations whose interests it supports.
And until "progressives" stop supporting pro-war candidates, there will never be peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else our government intervenes.
Such opprobrium.
I suggest a change of strategy from the failed efforts of the last 8 years. You suggest what?
- "progressives" stop supporting pro-war candidates -
Good luck with that.
cont'd
- A Call for Clarity on the Afghanistan War -
I keep seeing words like this on this Progressive site.
I keep explaining.
I keep explaining what can be done.
----
As an gift to all those bored by my repeatedly reiterating and repeating what is obvious to me, I share a joke I made up yesterday.
Did you hear about the centipede who finished last in the high jump contest?
He could only get 50 feet off the ground.
"al-Qaeda is the enemy of the US.
The US is stuck in Afghanistan (and Iraq) because US troops must prevent future terrorism by al-Qaeda.
Any talk of 'withdrawing from Afghanistan' without considering terrorism is futile, hopeless and time-wasting."
That's not the only argument that people are using to justify staying in Afghanistan.
The argument used by those who want to continue the invasion has expanded into the Taliban is the enemy of the US. And, "oh noes, why won't someone please think of the women".
"'War in Afghanistan' is not a good target (8 years of failure prove this)."
Locust, I don't get that because 8 years of failure IS a proven target because it is the unavoidable grim reality.
DAFT is a made up acronym which is cute but not much of a proven target.
Obama’s crucial decisions on Afghanistan --- and ‘Beyond Afghanistan’ --- on EMPIRE.
All the media talk is about the crucial decision that Obama faces in Afghanistan. Whether to give in to the generals, and allow the war to expand, after years of 40,000 to 70,000 US troops fighting and training Afghanistanis, to over a 100.000 troops (or more) with a massive weapons build-up.
But while the intense speculation regarding Obama’s decision about expanding the Afghanistan War, the designed-to-be-expanded ‘Global War on Terrorism’, into a likely AfPak war is on everyone’s front-burner, Obama has a multiplicity of other foreign policy decisions, and an even more vast array of domestic economic and social goals he desperately wants to pursue in the U.S.
Has any president, has any leader, ever had so many critical decisions to make at one time, and so many issues to speak to the American people about –-- and build their confidence that he can speak with them openly and address their combined problems?
Has any leader ever had such a problem in dealing with critical domestic issues that mean so much to him, and yet had such risks to his plans and hopes caused by a foreign war he would rather not have to speak about?
Like Obama, Rev. Martin Luther King was confronted with a similar monumental decision about whether to speak-out against the imperialist war ‘abroad’, that was grinding up the working-class sons of both black and white Americans, or to continue focusing on his most heart-felt problem ‘at home’ of economic inequality and racism’s tyranny against young blacks.
For more than a year, Rev. King kept his focus on the racial battle at home, and would not be detoured by addressing the combination of multiple issues that would inevitably spring from taking-on the crimes of imperialist foreign war, domestic racism, and the ‘class-warfare’ that linked these crimes of Empire.
Finally, on April 4th, 1967, and at the Riverside Church in New York City, Dr. King decided that it was “A Time to Break Silence” not only about Vietnam, but Beyond Vietnam, and to speak the truth about the nature of Empire and the class-war that Empire always uses to maintain its unfair, unjust, and un-democratic control over the indivisible political-economics of power both ‘abroad’ and ‘at home’.
Hopefully, Obama will reach the same monumental decision as Dr. King – and even more hopefully, average Americans of all colors will respond to a seminal outing of Empire by recognizing their common humanity, their common-wealth in country, their common ‘public interest’ in democracy (against the ‘private interest’ of Empire), and by treating this 21st century messenger and leader against Empire and for democracy differently than Dr. King was treated.
I hope that Obama is benefiting, in his time of decision, from taking the time to re-read King’s Riverside speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm
King noted, “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit”
And today, hopefully, Obama will take note that, “The war in [fill in the blank____________] is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit”
King continued:
“It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
Finally, King concludes with, “If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”
I hope that Obama, in preparing to make his choice, recognizes that the multiplicity of those “jangling discords of our world”, those pressing problems ‘abroad’ and ‘at home’ are but the uniform fingerprints of one thing ---- EMPIRE.
I hope that Obama recognizes that those “giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism”, plus the arrogance of super-power (as Francis Fukuyama now recognizes) are really the shadow of EMPIRE --- even if it is presented under the veil of sweet sounding speeches and through the facade of 'Vichy' democracy.
I can only hope that Obama recognizes that what makes peaceful revolution impossible is EMPIRE --- and that he soon shares this terrible truth with the American people, that the Empire is posing as us, the U.S.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
In the last paragraph the author states that complexity created the situation and that it will be complex to resolve the situation. This is playing into the hands of political power. Politicians love to create complexity and then hide the truth inside of it. The more complex the issue the greater the chance of maintaining power by confusion the public, and making them apathetic. We see this using of complexity to secure power, in all aspects of govt. The IRS, the military, wall street and the financial sector etc, etc. The most profound solutions are almost always the most simple and concise. In this case, the solution is to GET OUT NOW! Forget the yeah but's. Just leave immediately.
- Just leave immediately. -
And this idea is completely simplistic. This is playing into the hands of political powers who want Progressives to waste their time on futile efforts.
The only thing being debated is how to continue the war.
And the next thing to be debated is which homicidal, lying Republican will best imitate Richard Deathouse Nixon in 1968, claiming in 2012 to have a "secret plan" to end the Afghan war, thus defeating Obama, to whom we shall say "good riddance".
Politicians and Attorneys have many things in common and one of them is they manufacture complexity and this gives them obfuscation, which is another term for subtle lying which lets them do the dirty work for the MIC. I see the problem is always power and $ but maybe someone on this thread that is smarter than me has some solutions, because short of having an open season on crooked politicians for the MIC, I do not have any solution other than supporting third party candidates.
"Politicians and Attorneys have many things in common"
Aren't they one and the same?
--"With weapons, warlords, and U.S. troops gone, real democracy could potentially take root and pro-democracy forces could someday operate freely."
This is wishful thinking. I completely agree with the author on all she says and her suggestions of bringing in regional players into the equation. Russia, India, Iran and China are crucial players in stabilizing Afghanistan. However wishing the Talibs away is not an effective strategy.
The key to throwing out the Taliban is to destroy Pakistan's ISI. Pakistans paranoia will continue to fuel this mess. All of Pakistans neighbors are fed up with fundamentalism emanating from its borders, the very fundamentalism that is created and nurtured in the ISI's crucible. Iran, Afghanistan, India and the Pakistani people are copletely fed-up with Pakistans ISI/Military, which never fails to get funded by every single U.S. administration. Sonali hasnt really touched on this topic as it is politically incorrect to do do.
Pakistan's ISI/Military is thriving because of foreign intervention from the West.
this war is not about "talibs", to approach this way is disingenious. PIPELINE(S)! speak the truth or forever hold your peace.
When did the Democrats announce that they are against the war in Afghanistan?
Vision + Plan + Spirit = Change
"The vision?"
"Peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings."
"The Plan?"
"That we rise up en masse and see to it that our government puts and end to these perpetual wars, whereupon, empowered by our victory over the powers that be, it'll be up to us, the what sort of world."
"And the spirit?"
"All for one and one for all."
president obomber has given us two raeally stupid disasters. the first, before he was even elected, was to announce his determination ratchet up the destruction of Afghanistan. he seemed to think, or somebody told him, that people in Afghanistan had attacked the u.s., and would do it again if he did not crush them. like most Afghan killers,he had no clear idea who his "enemies" are, and was forever confounding Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Which led him to his second disaster, forging an alliance with pakistan, which is in fact the real home of both Talibs and Quedas (what's left of them)
now he's tying himself in knots trying to find some reasonable way out.
just leave ok?
No plan for Afghanistan can be taken seriously if it does not include the legalization and regulation of the poppy crop. IMO this is a huge blind-spot in Obama's views towards his massive "drug problem" both here at home, and abroad.
I hear lots of outrage about the war in Afghanistan, but rarely a rational explanation as to why the United States is slaughtering civilians and enriching corrupt warlords at such a steep cost to U.S. citizens. Obviously, we are not spending a trillion dollars to protect the U.S. from attack by the 100 Al Qaeda members which the military think inhabit Afghanistan. What is the real military goal being sought in Afghanistan?
In fact, the great game which the U.S. is playing, with the lives of Afghani and Pakistani citizens as the chips, appears to be "the prevention of a Russian energy monopoly" in Central Asia or Chinese domination of the energy-rich region, according to an article published last year in the magazine of the US Army War College by Dr. Stephen Blank, the college’s professor of National Security Studies. Studying the strategic papers of those who guide the national security state can yield rich understanding to those who want to counter their tactics.
For some reason we rarely hear about a promised pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, the TAPI pipeline, when pundits discuss the Af-Pak conflict on CNN. The energy industry is currently seeing a major expansion of its facilities in the Middle East.
"Not surprisingly," Blank writes, "the leitmotif of US energy policy has been focused on fostering the development of multiple pipelines and links to foreign consumers and producers of energy" that bypass the control of our regional rivals. Strangely enough, he singles out the most important of these pipelines as the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAPI) pipeline, which would pump oil and natural gas from Central Asia across the exact territory now occupied by US troops. Of course, many on the left assume this is a mere coincidence.
Suddenly, the 3.6 billion a month that we taxpayers are contributing to the "Great Game" begins to make sense. What are a few tens of thousands of Afghanis and Pakistanis and American soldiers compared to the control of Central Asian energy resources?
One other quick point - a strong, united Afghanistan could cause difficulties in our plan for dominating the region. Much better to have a failed state ruled by warlords, especially those in the pay of the CIA. Of course, the more civilians we kill, the more recruits flock to the Taliban, keeping the situation in an endless swirl in which we can work our will without resistance.
Kolhatkar rewrites history when she says:
"One of the original justifications for the war in 2001 that seemed to resonate most with liberal Americans was the liberation of Afghan women from a misogynist regime."
In fact, that was never offered as a justification for the war in 2001. What resonated with liberal Americans and conservative Americans alike was blind revenge for 9/11. Even a year and a half later that same revenge motive was still being used to rally support for the war on Iraq.
"Liberation of Afghan women" was invented years later by the propagandists of the G.W. Bush administration.
--"What resonated with liberal Americans and conservative Americans alike was blind revenge for 9/11. "
This is the holy truth and thanks for pointing it out. Our memory is always short lived and surprisingly contrite. I remember the mood in October of 2001 ... except for Barbara Lee from my constituency every single congress-person, senator and pretty much all Americans were baying for blood and revenge. How easy it is to play the 'progressive' card now !!
"One of the original justifications for the war in 2001 that seemed to resonate most with liberal Americans was the liberation of Afghan women from a misogynist regime."
Now, of all the nerve, of all the lies...this one takes the cake! And just reading that statement makes it so very brutally and offensively obsene. Imagine invading a country, killing millions of innocents - mostly women, duh! - and leaving millions of children orphan to liberate women. As if Americans ever cared about liberating anyone or anything that wasn't their own greed. Outrageous!
The article is a collection of many words hiding the obvious, as if in hope to keep the colander afloat.
The matter is not complex. Retribution looms. America is in a corner and will have to not lead but serve, and of course pay and pay and pay.
This means start!
If not it has no honour, no place on earth.
The only call of clarity in Afghanistan should be: "get the fuck out. NOW!"