Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAfghanistan: Time to Leave
Patrick Cockburn, our award-winning reporter who has covered the region for more than 30 years, explains why it is best for the world, and Afghanistan, if our troops are brought home
Britain should start withdrawing, not reinforcing, its troops in Afghanistan. Sending extra troops is unnecessary and will prove counter-effective. The additional number of British troops is small, but the US is poised to send tens of thousands more soldiers to the country. The nature of the conflict is changing. What should be a war in which the Afghan government fights the Taliban has become one which is being fought primarily by the American and British armies. To more and more Afghans, this looks like imperial occupation.
With regard to disputes in Washington and London about sending more troops, it is seldom mentioned that Afghans are against the deployment. Contrary to Western plans, just 18 per cent of Afghans want more US and Nato/Isaf forces in Afghanistan, according to an opinion poll carried out earlier this year by the BBC, ABC News and ARD of Germany. A much greater number of Afghans - 44 per cent - want a decrease in foreign forces.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Taliban have been able to win some support. The cruelty of their rule before 2001 is becoming a distant memory and they are successfully portraying themselves as the defender of the country against foreign occupation. Matthew P Hoh, the senior American civilian representative in Zabul Province east of Kandahar, resigned last week convinced that the US military should not be in Afghanistan. As a former US marine officer who served in Iraq, he says in his resignation letter that the US has joined in on one side in a 35-year-old civil war between the traditional Pashtun community and its enemies. "The US military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency," he says. "Our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people."
What is true for the Americans in Zabul is true for the British in Helmand. It may seem to military commanders on the ground that, with more troops, they could hold more ground and send out more patrols. Throughout history, generals have believed they are a few thousand troops short of victory. But Afghans, who have long experience of war, think more foreign troops means greater violence, more dead and wounded Afghans. Support for the Taliban is highest in those areas where there have been US or Nato shelling or air strikes inflicting civilian casualties. In other words, the Taliban's best recruiting sergeants are the American and British armies.
The future good of Afghanistan is not the first reason why Britain has an army of 9,000 troops there, according to Gordon Brown. He said on Friday that they are there to protect people walking the streets of Britain: "Our children will learn of the heroism of today's men and women fighting in Afghanistan protecting our nation and the world from the threat of global terrorism." We are fighting there, he adds, so we are safe in our homes and guarded against the atrocities carried out by al-Qa'ida not only in London, but across the world.
The problem with this argument is that al-Qa'ida is based in Pakistan not Afghanistan. There is no particular reason why its leaders should return to Afghanistan since they have a measure of support in the Pakistani intelligence services and among fundamentalist jihadi organisations. If Britain has sent 9,000 troops abroad to fight al-Qa'ida, then they are in the wrong country. Mr Brown slyly tries to evade this point by claiming that "three-quarters of terrorists' plots originate in the Pakistan-Afghan border regions". His sudden geographic imprecision avoids having to admit that they originate in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The US military says there only 100 al-Qa'ida militants in the whole of Afghanistan.
In reality, the presence of a large British military force in Afghanistan is making Britain a more dangerous not safer place to live in. Interrogation of would-be suicide bombers captured before they could blow themselves up reveals that their prime motive since 9/11 has been opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In portraying Britain as being at war with al-Qa'ida, Mr Brown, like President Bush and Tony Blair, has walked into the trap laid by al-Qa'ida at the time of 9/11. Its aim was not only to show the US was vulnerable to armed attack, but to provoke retaliation against Muslim countries. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa'ida's chief strategist, stated soon after 9/11 that the purpose of the provocation was to tempt the US into reprisals and open the way for "clear-cut jihad against the infidels".
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and Britain have faced similar dilemmas. These wars were started by President Bush, with Tony Blair trotting along behind, in the expectation that they would be short and cheap. The initial military assaults were wholly successful, but the American and British armies were then caught up in prolonged, bruising, guerrilla wars. By then, too much prestige was at stake and too much blood had been spilt for a withdrawal. The puniness of the armed insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, in each case probably a few tens of thousands of fighters, makes the humiliation of retreat all the greater.
The main reason for Britain's military commitment in Afghanistan was to maintain its position as America's principal ally in the world. As recently as 2006, this seemed a sensible strategy, but any engagement in Afghanistan, as a brief look at any history of the region will show, is always going to be dangerous. The Taliban had not really been defeated on the battlefield in 2001: its militants had gone back to their villages or taken refuge over the border in Pakistan. It took time for the Pakistan government, on which they were highly reliant, to decide that it was safe to unleash them once more because the US was too bogged down in Iraq to do much about it.
By this time also, the government of President Hamid Karzai, below left, had gone far to discredit itself. It is less of an administration than a racket. Its officials probably make more money out of opium and heroin than the Taliban. Some 12 million Afghans, 42 per cent of the population, live below the poverty line, trying to survive on 45 cents (just over 25p) a day. They are malnourished or starving, and feel little loyalty to a government in which ministers live in their "poppy palaces", built with the profits of the drugs trade, and foreign aid consultants earn $250,000 a year.
"Sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a byword for corruption," said Mr Brown. "And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption." Taken at face value, this means Britain will withdraw its troops since it is a certainty in Afghanistan that a government so viscerally crooked is not going to reform. "Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of Afghanistan," continued the Prime Minister, but Mr Karzai's election victory was attained by allying himself with the most blood-stained warlords in the country. Presumably, Mr Brown's pledge is no more than rhetoric.
The US and Britain have tumbled into a second war in Afghanistan that they weren't expecting. Justifying their own misjudgements, American and British leaders claim that Afghanistan is a war that has to be fought because it is the epicentre of the war against international terrorism. These threats are all grossly exaggerated. The Afghan Taliban comes from the Pashtun community, which is 42 per cent of the population. The majority of Afghans will always oppose them. Of course, present Afghan or Pakistani leaders have every interest in painting themselves to their foreign backers as the one alternative to the Taliban.
"The Pashtun insurgency," says Mr Hoh, "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal an external enemies." Britain should not be part of that assault that will not succeed in crushing a regional Pashtun rebellion on behalf a non-Pashtun state. Once this is accepted, then the need for a large combat force in southern Afghanistan disappears. What ultimately happens in Afghanistan should be left to the Afghans.
23 Comments so far
Show AllHector
boysgramps -- Fine. And then?
me
Keep in mind that the buildings in New York which collapsed in spectacular explosions into their own footprints are the only steel framed skyscrapers to collapse in history. Others have been struck by airplanes. Others have burned. If you watch the video (easy to do on YouTube) you will see that they were brought down with explosives.
So the so called justification was as much a ruse as the non-existent torpedo boat attacks of the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the mass expansion of the Viet Nam war.
The idea that the United States needs to defend itself against Afghanistan is one of the most absurd notions ever promulgated in human existence.
We need to be building massive solar collectors and photothermal plants to convert solar energy to electricity. The real threat is carbon pollution of the atmosphere, not some goof riding a donkey in the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan.
We need a society based on energy sources where the fuel is free, such as solar and geothermal power. But Corporate Capitalism owns the airwaves and the government, and they have a lot of carbon based fuel to sell. Energy sources with free fuel don't fit their business model. $400 a gallon gasoline (what gas costs, delivered, to Afghanistan) sounds great to them.
That contradiction is where the real battle for the future and security lies. And it's a battle that must be won if our planet is to remain inhabitable.
An Afghan sweetheart once told me that the elites of Britain were responsible for dividing up India and Pakistan in 1947 and thereby leading to the mess it is in. Perhaps joining India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan back as one nation and leaving would help, would it not? Please correct me if I am wrong since I'm not good at foreign policy but can get interested on the occasion.
"An Afghan sweetheart once told me that the elites of Britain were responsible for dividing up India and Pakistan in 1947 and thereby leading to the mess it is in. Perhaps joining India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan back as one nation and leaving would help, would it not?"
What would help would be less trying to "help" them by telling them what to do, ie joining them up; and more just letting them do what they want.
Britain definitely had some responsibility for the Partition of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) but they weren't the only ones responsible.
Trying to shoehorn India, Pakistan, Afghanistan into one nation will only create whole new mess.
Notably, Bangladesh, which was then East Pakistan, did not join, and has not joined to date, with India when it won its war of independence from Pakistan, with Indian help.
Its a pity that the cover story for occupying Afghanistan is given so much credence, by pointing out its lack of rational underpinnings. It has never been more than a fig leaf.
Of course the governments cannot put out real reasons to invade, such as to secure gas pipeline routes and get favourable deals for US fossil fuel venture capitalists, or to keep up the fabulous consumer lifestyle of the masses, requiring so much cheap energy, or feed the priveleged world using cheap agricultural chemicals.
Just imagine the US and British leaders saying, look, we need to keep our unsustainable civilisation going just a bit longer, so we are going to invade this poor nation who does not know what is good for them, and blast their energy poor lifestyle to bits. And in doing so we will make sure China and Russia do not get the best deals first. No, that would not do.
Instead we will tell the unsubstantiated lies that no one will question to hard, because it will sound unpatriotic. The beauty of the terrorism threat is that the tiniest speck of truth in it can be turned into a mountain, and it is difficult to argue against, when the emotional connotations are so irrational, and the evidence logically tenous, and the terror proponents so loud. So the war parties interested in a share of the takings, and supplying the troops, have helped the terror argument along while trying not to say anything specific that might be challangeable.
No that would be too honest. Democratic governments bask in secrecy and self delusion. The leaders have to make up these stories about the dread terrorists, who have at their worst barely made a scratch on the paintwork of the dominating world consuming civilisation. In some cases the terrorist plots have been helped along by the intelligence agencies eager to demonstrate a significant threat. Simple police work and community observation has kept a lid on a few small instances of home grown terrorism.
The numbers and damage of home terrorism is microscopic compared to the total long term damage and human suffering inflicted by the occupying forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are the real taxpayer funded national government terrorists who are deployed at an enormous scale. The total war cost to the taxpayers of the energy rich civilisations is large, but not much compared to current total riches, our standard of living even in deep recession times is a thousand times better than the victim nations we bomb and sack.
A lot of the money has been recycled into the profits of military hardware and support corporations. There is the real corruption of Afghanistan and Iraq, it is in the pockets of the weapons and logistics suppliers. This dwarfs the petty cash sums used to prop up the corrupt puppet governments, who really are a cheap deal compared to the cost per soldier and mercenary. Some of the money and influance comes back to reward the politicians who had been persuaded to carry out the war and provide the cover story for the mafia deal. They will all get their rich dues, respect for their nation and people murdering toughness, and get post government jobs and sinecures. Mass media will report their utterences as the words of the gods to their chosen people.
Meanwhile in the poisoned landscapes of the victim nations, and in the minds of the observers in the whole wide world who keep their ears eyes and minds open, we have seen enough, and we know what you really are still doing, and we will never forget. There will be payback. Human beings should count on it.
Thanks for pointing out the types of discourse that have been systematically excluded from the dialog. In my opinion, the key to fighting a successful antiwar campaign is to understand what actually motivates your enemy - the national security state - and not to directly counter the miasma of lies that clouds their strategy. We can't afford to waste time and energy on these lies.
Your post implies what one of the pillars of the antiwar strategy must be: Solidarity with the Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani peoples. We are destroying the livelihood of one of the poorest countries in the world to support our lavish and unsustainable lifestyle. Your conclusion that they will revenge themselves on us, justly, I might add, however, leaves one with a sense of hopelessness.
Instead, I think that the antiwar movement should expand and deepen this critique, setting it up as the starting framework for all discourse about the Af-Pak war. Then we could have a real debate and attack the real enemy - the demand by the ruling elite to sustain their unsustainable oil-based empire of illusion. Then it will be they who are the idealistic utopians who ignore the very real possibilities of creating a sustainable world. They are the ones who irrationally cling to the illusion of infinite expansion while progressives offer realistic alternatives that bring a measure of social justice with them.
Nanoo
You would think that a country's people invaded, bombed and controlled, would be a major concern of the anti-war groups. Sadly here, that's never been the case. All the candlelight vigils have been only for the US military fallen. Then a later demonstration trying to appeal to the general public has been the cost to us as taxpayers. It's become pretty obvious to me that the organizers seem to think this is best way to gain support, which hasn't happened.
And never will. Because it begins by accepting the framework used by those who perpetuate the war. Real antiwar work starts by creating a different mental climate, a psychic atmosphere where different priorities reign. For one blessed moment, we live in a world where we truly care about what happens to Afghanis and we create theater around that solidarity. But it begins with a complete rejection of the frames presented by the media and that takes an imagination strong enough to turn that world on its head.
"By then, too much prestige was at stake and too much blood had been spilt for a withdrawal."
I thought it was all about oil, pipelines, war profiteering, Israel and imperialist control of the Middle East. But it seems that too much prestige and blood lost calls for even more.
when you do leave, bring back some primo.
George Wanker Bush already has dibs on ALL of it.
SHIT!
It was time to leave Afghanistan eight years ago.
- American and British leaders claim that Afghanistan is a war that has to be fought because it is the epicentre of the war against international terrorism. -
Afghanistan is a theater of the absurd and DAFT war. Iraq is another.
I suggest that Progressives try to end the war and stop failing with futile attempts to deal with Afghanistan in isolation.
The true Theatre of the Absurd is the United States under its current artistic director, one Barack Obama. An absurdity of a human being to lead an absurdity of a nation.
You got that right.
We ARE a pitiful bunch.
We need those soldiers on american streets keeping order, and making the world safe for cleptocracy!! God bless our brave boys!!!
That's why they took them out of Viet Nam.
from deep inside the psyop - the pointlessness of "rebuilding" afghanistan seems overwhelming to say the least
good thing for the us that the country of afghanistan is of no consequence - nor are the citizens
couldn't give a donkey fart about those folks - as our drones prove over and over again
from paul craig roberts:
Amb. Murray (british ambassador to uzbekistan) learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up. He saw the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK military aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from “terrorism,” and the utter fools would believe the lie.
“If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you’ll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It’s what it’s about. It’s about money, its about energy, it’s not about democracy.”
Guess who the consultant was who arranged with then Texas governor George W. Bush the agreements that would give to Enron the rights to Uzbekistan’s and Turkmenistan’s natural gas deposits and to Unocal to develop the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It was Karzai, the US-imposed “president” of Afghanistan, who has no support in the country except for American bayonets."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11062009.html
the us is not leaving the mid-east any time soon - at least not until the oil and gas are gone
to that end we will kill every last one of them - no worries
but as our ambassador to afghanistan richard holbrooke says - and i surely believe: "we'll know victory when we see it"
http://washingtonindependent.com/54803/holbrooke-on-success-in-afghanistan-well-know-it-when-we-see-it
talk about a well reasoned and properly described war
too bad the american public - stuffed with their gmo foods and various medications can't comprehend an imperial fascist murderous plan when they see it
party on garth
party on wayne
The British lord class want to send their token force in order to maintain favor with their US boss class cronies.
The people in charge of every country are the enemy of the people in their country and the enemy of humanity in general.
Ditto, Obamanation. SINGLE TERM!