Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan: Time To Go
One thing is clear: Nato's military mission has failed. We need to focus now on a power-sharing deal to enable an early withdrawal
It is easy to forget that the nine-year war in Afghanistan began its life as "Operation Enduring Freedom". In the discursive vacuum that followed 9/11, such trivialised and overblown rhetoric was commonplace - as were notions that security and democracy in Afghanistan and the Middle East could be achieved through US-led invasion and occupation.
While the original "war on terror" paradigm has long been discarded - foreign secretary David Miliband has stated the obvious that the strategy was simply wrong, as was the implication that the correct response to terrorism was foremost a military one - here we are still fighting its wars.
And most British people do not buy the justifications offered by the government for doing so. Its reasoning on Afghanistan has been incoherent, inconsistent and disingenuous. First Tony Blair, then Gordon Brown, told us that priority number one was Osama bin Laden and ridding the world of al-Qaida. Then we were getting rid of the Taliban. We were the benevolent invaders, bringing democracy to a downtrodden people. Or we were stabilising the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our streets would be safer. It was about women's rights or the opium trade.
In Washington, Barack Obama considers General Stanley McChrystal's request for up to 40,000 more troops, which would take the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan towards 150,000. Yet he knows that the deployment of thousands more foreign soldiers has so far failed to stem the tide of Taliban influence. Recent insurgency attacks in Kabul, Peshawar and Baghdad show the violence and insecurity in the region only seem to be increasing.
What's more, the grotesque parody of the recent elections exposed the hollowness of "democracy" in what is now the world's second most corrupt regime.
Despite the efforts of the UN and the western powers, there is no credible national government in Afghanistan. In part, wilful amnesia in foreign policy has prevented us from learning from past mistakes; attempts to impose a western model of democratic governance on a failing state, with ill-informed notions about the culture, geography or history of the place and its people, are bound to end badly. Worse still, attempting to do so through the barrel of a gun and via million-dollar bribes to corrupt warlords and criminals can only result in a failure of devastating proportions.
Every possible strategy for the way forward contains unpalatable elements - such is the depth of this quagmire. But what we know is that military action, characterised by desperation rather than well-considered strategic aims, has failed to achieve security or democracy. To reach that long-term goal of securing rights and freedoms, we need a strong, accountable and legitimate government - as well as a multilateral agreement with Pakistan and other neighbouring countries to provide guarantees of support for Afghan security.
The failure to address what one American official describes as the "criminal mafia" surrounding the newly inaugurated president, Hamid Karzai, has given Taliban insurgents another argument with which to appeal to ordinary Afghans. And while Karzai has been strong-armed into committing to anti-corruption measures by western dignitaries, there are signs that he may already be falling short of his promises.
Pressure must be maintained on Karzai, but the international community must play its part in preventing criminals from profiteering from US and Nato military contracts.
Nato and the UN need to pursue talks with traditional leaders and the more moderate Taliban groups over a potential power-sharing agreement, and halt Nato offensives with the aim of agreeing a ceasefire - enabling foreign troops to withdraw. Afghan Taliban loyalty seems generally to lie with tribe and locality - not to a nationalistic, homogenous organisation - so we must focus aid efforts on local communities and help build solid political institutions from the top down to provide good governance at every level.
Sustainable economic development should be a top priority. According to a recent survey by Oxfam, the majority of Afghan people blame poverty for the war. Military solutions are not the answer here; people need support for agriculture, improved infrastructure, education and health services. In a manner typical of foreign invaders, western governments have thrown money at the problem - and it has failed to reach those who need it most. The UK should now be funding a concerted NGO effort on the ground, rather than channelling the majority of its aid through corrupt government officials. And having evaluated their programmes aimed at developing the capacity of the Afghan government, they should continue and expand those found to be effective.
Some are rightly concerned that if foreign troops leave, there will be even more bloodshed. Withdrawal will create a power vacuum that al-Qaida and the Taliban can occupy. However, we know that the current strategy is not working. What people want more than anything is security - and more military action will not bring security. We must halt offensive missions now.
At the same time, the international community must increase the humanitarian and reconstruction effort, build capacity and promote good governance. Following our misguided foreign policy endeavours, we have a responsibility to leave the country in order. We need to genuinely win hearts and minds, tackle corruption head-on, drop our misguided and unsuccessful war against drugs and instead work with farmers to promote development from the ground up. We must switch our efforts towards creating friends and allies among the people of the region, transparently operating for their interests and making every effort to hand over control of affairs as rapidly as possible.
Only Afghans can solve Afghan problems - and they must be empowered to do so without the burden of foreign occupation.
- Posted in
17 Comments so far
Show AllBarak Obama: The Audacity of Oil
The new 'Great Energy Game" -- the original Great Game was the 19th Century battle between Britain and Russia for influence in Central Asia -- is the term for the geopolitics behind the efforts of the world's most economically powerful nations to secure a stable and long-term supply of energy.
The U.S. has a measure of control over or access to about 50 per cent of the world's oil reserves. It has backed the TAPI proposal for over a decade. Two U.S. administrations -- Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's -- negotiated with the Taliban on the project.
In a twist that has spawned numerous conspiracy theories, negotiations with the Taliban broke down in August 2001 -- one month before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The U.S. has significant interest in Central Asia, not just over the war on terrorism, but energy too.
At a 2006 NATO summit meeting, the U.S. proposed that NATO start guarding oil pipelines and sea lanes.
Furthermore, the U.S. also proposed to amend NATO article V commitment (an attack on one nation is an attack on all) to include energy resources. That illustrates how seriously the U.S. takes its commitment to securing its energy supply.
"Follow the money, follow the oil"
Your Great Game comment is echoed in a World Socialist Web Site article about Obama's escalation (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/afgh-n25.shtml):
"After the debacle of the Afghan elections, all of the pretexts for launching and carrying on the war have been exposed. The re-installation of the Karzai regime makes absurd declarations that the occupation is “a war for democracy.” And long since dropped is the claim that the war’s aim is to “capture or kill” Osama bin Laden."
"What is left is Obama’s hollow and repetitious line that the Afghanistan war is “a war of necessity” being waged to 'protect the American people” from the reemergence of al Qaeda. ...We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks.'” [what utterly self-evident nonsense!]
"Abetted by a docile press...Obama administration has itself acknowledged that the insurgency against the occupation is native to the region, and that al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan number in the dozens."
"Obama cannot utter the real motivation for the surge. The war’s initial aim was to place the US military astride the vast oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and, just as critically, to prevent the emergence of a combination of Eurasian powers that might undermine US global preeminence."
Bingo! Hoodwinked again. When we will ever learn? I suppose only when forced to.
Ms Lucas is pretty naive " to reach that long term goal of securing rights and freedoms"?
The USA began 30 years of warfare in Afghanistan in 1978 by arming those who were rebelling against the Afghan government which was implementing rights and freedoms.
Citizens are losing their rights and freedoms in the USA, is Ms Lucas willing to help us out?
Corrupt? Is exporting violence considered in that corruptness index? No than why not? Mass slaughter is a greater corruption than rampant graft.
And to claim anyone is more corrupt than the USA is absurd.
Pallets of cash unaccounted for in Iraq, soldiers gifting each other with pizza boxes filled with 100 dollar bills.
Halliburton no bid, almost nothing built and that built shoddy.
Is CIA involvement in Drug trade not corrupt.
All the precursors for Heroin come through the Kyber Pass in chemical tankers in tandem with USA convoys.
Even mentioning Karzai corruption is like slapping the school yard bully and ignoring the serial killer( USA) prancing behind the goalposts
US military does not bomb for "freedom." US military bombs to help the US plutoligarchy smash and grab.
US war ends when the plutoligarchy stops making money from it.
Early withdrawal? The U.S. Admin. and NATO apparently have no plans of doing so.
"Top NATO Military Brass Meet Behind Closed Doors
Realities Collide at Halifax “War Conference”"
by Anthony Fenton, IPS, Nov 23 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16256
EXCERPT:
While the world's top military elites gather inside a fortified hotel to discuss NATO's future, protesters question the organisation's legitimacy, secrecy, and the lack of democratic debate about the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan.
An imposing 'United States of America'-emblazoned aircraft greeted visitors on the tarmac of Halifax International Airport Friday, as more than 250 of the Western world's top military leaders and their brain trust descended on the city for the inaugural Halifax International Security Forum.
Co-sponsored by the government of Canada and the U.S.-based German Marshall Fund think tank, over 60 percent of the attendees hailed from these host nations for what is being dubbed a World Economic Forum-style conference for militarists.
Announcing the Forum last July, German Marshall Fund President Craig Kennedy called it "a step in the process of changing the conversation" about Canada's role in the 'trans-Atlantic community,' toward a recognition of its being a top-tier power in its own right that is worthy of a seat at the table with the globe's most powerful war-fighting nations.
Canada's transformation to a counterinsurgency-capable expeditionary force and its contribution to the war in southern Afghanistan has earned it the respect of NATO's key power, the United States, which, in turn, has boosted its global profile among other NATO allies.
With Friends Like These...
In the opening session featuring Canadian Minister of Defence Peter MacKay and U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, MacKay said "We take great pride in knowing that Canadian's contribution to transatlantic cooperation as a steadfast reliable friend and ally is recognised."
Gates lauded Canada as a "major contributor" to the Afghan war and for helping to “hold the line in the South before U.S. reinforcements arrived,” following a mini-surge that began in the latter days of the Bush administration, and was subsequently bolstered by President Barack Obama's addition of over 20,000 troops to the conflict since last March.
Currently, the Obama administration is deliberating over whether or not to implement an Iraq-style "surge" of upwards of tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan. Canada's former Chief of Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, who spoke on a panel about the war with Republican Senator John McCain Saturday, said "The surge...is fundamental here, it's absolutely essential."
For his part, Senator McCain insisted that the Iraqi surge can be replicated in Afghanistan and that within the next year to 18 months, "We can turn the situation around."
Reflecting its parallels with other high-profile meetings among global elites, most of the Forum's agenda is off-the-record and closed to the media. ...
During his prepared remarks, Peter MacKay referred to this format as “a chance where people can speak openly, honestly, among friends,” albeit largely outside of public scrutiny. Contrary to its undemocratic overtones, MacKay said that he feels the conference is “an example of democracy promotion, having an international forum such as this...talking about issues that relate to the democracies of the world.”
MacKay also spoke proudly about instances where “the United States and Canada have collaborated in the past on democracy promotion, certainly Afghanistan is a good example of that.”
...
On Saturday, a larger protest took place which featured former Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya, who has been touring North America promoting her new book, A Woman Among Warlords.
...
During a press briefing Friday, Sen. McCain said that he would be “glad to meet” with Joya, and acknowledged that “she has kindred spirits here in Canada and in the United States who share exactly her view.”
A CBS poll earlier this week showed that 69 percent of U.S. citizens think the Afghan war is on the wrong track, the highest ever level of opposition that has been registered during the eight-year occupation. Despite this, McCain added that “the majority of Afghan people don't share that particular position.”
Apparently unfamiliar with Joya's position toward the unpopular war, McCain said, "in the course of our conversation, I would have to also try to get from her how she views the situation in Afghanistan after all the troops are gone."
END OF EXCERPT
What a bunch of hypocrites, liars, ..., eh!
The only way out of Afghanistan is to tell Obama that if he wants to keep the war going he must go to Afghanistan and sacrifice his life for freedom, liberty, democracy and women's rights. The war will end immediately.
You're assuming what's going on in Afganistan IS a war that needs to end. It's not. As an early poster on this thread mentioned, it's about US protection/access to oil. There's no war, there's just a cover story that needs to be maintained. And the best way to maintain the cover story endlessly is to pitch it in terms of Democracy, Freedom, i.e. the usual.
Oh, there's a war and it's really called a war of aggression, which is the supreme international crime, according to Nuremberg, which rightly judged this. It's also a war like former USMC Major General Smedley Butler wrote about in his book, "War Is A RACKET"; the kind of war that you actually speak of, war of aggression, that is. And there are two sides in this war of aggression, the aggressors and the resistance.
I don't know if this is why you believe this isn't a war, but just because the UNSC refused to authorise, that is, give its "blessings" to, this war (of aggression) and Congress perhaps (?) didn't officially declare this as war doesn't mean that it's not war (of aggression). I'm considerably certain that Congress did authorise recourse to all-out war measures, but didn't actually declare the U.S. at war; but am not entirely sure of the latter.
Perhaps you're not doing this, however people who have to stick by the book regardless of realities indicating that the book is mistaken, in a particular context, or for a particular consideration, that is, are handicapped. It's good to see and think "outside of the box", instead of limiting the mind's capabilities by only staying "inside of the box". The outside provides a very different perspective; often, or usually, anyway, and all the more certainly when the box is black, non-transparent. It provides a more thorough perspective, while the inside view is limited; often very.
It's war. The question is what kind of war. Like Smedley Butler said, all of the war contexts in which he served, during his 34 years in the USMC, it was always RACKET for the USA's elites. This hasn't changed.
Whew! So we can just pull the soldiers, mercenaries, and contractors out & go home.
I have to admit I was getting concerned, what with all the bombing and shooting and disarrayed body parts.
Um, why was it that oil -- or gas or transport corridors thereof -- would be mutually exclusive with conflict?
Lysistrata convinces the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace
Lysistrata convinces the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace
If the closest thing America has to a Green majority party is the Progressive Democrats, why don't US Greens form a coalition with these and take back the Dem Party from the conservatives? Maybe they can change the name to Green Democrats and make everybody happy.
If the intent of the US government was to liberate and help the Afghanistan people, it would have happened years ago.
It never was the intent, never will be.
And American citizens, beware, the guns that are turned on other innocent civilians will be turned on you soon as things get more desperate.
Do you think that Blackwater will quietly stand down if the wars suddenly stopped? Where do you think they will point their guns if the American people want them to stop?
We have allowed ourselves to get caught in a terrible situation that has no easy way out, and everytime we vote for another corporate candidate like Obama we get further entrenched.
stop supporting corporate war candidates, which includes most democrats.
To say the effort has "failed" requires identifying its goals.
Neither Bushama nor 0'Bushey has mentioned these in anything like a believable way, so critics must surmise.
If this is all a pipeline/access control thing as Chomsky and Escobar describe, we might note that Exxon & the other Superpals are doing fine, thanks.
If it is a gesture of machismo performed out of impacted counterphobia--to reduce Daniel Ellsberg's description, perhaps unfairly--it's pretty hard to establish a standard for success or failure. If an inmate thinks he's Napoleon, he might do as well or as poorly at his personal Waterloo as he might imagine and regard consequences in the more or less mutually discernible world as a side issue.
Just what do the Americans think they're doing? It likely depends which American, even within the partially informal government and business syndicates that have taken this on.
That means that every separate thug will one day take his - or, occasionally, her - own advice about whether any of this succeeded or failed and in what way to feel bad about having killed humans perhaps more human than oneself and in what way to find or perform the idea that one has gained humanity by living part of the worst of human activities.
If one believes that Isaac went to the mountain to kill his son as described, in what sense did his assent constitute success or failure? When early priests did kill their sacrificial offerings, whether prisoners or volunteers, what manner of victory could they have brought to pass?
American actions in Afghanistan have their several million successes and failures; may these come to close.
Insanity has, at the moment, several billion faces.
I don't know if a copy of the following article was ever posted at CD, but in case it hasn't, I definitely recommend reading it. Check out the fierce resitance put up by a relatively small group of Taliban fighters against a relatively strong U.S. force, including Afghan army, and Apache helicopter gunships and a U.S. bomber and 2 F-15s.
"Fruitless battle against invisible insurgents of Badam Kalay",
Martin Fletcher in Badam Kalay, Afghanistan, Oct 2 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6858842.ece
I fully quoted the article with two posts, starting with the following one.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/25-4#comment-1351660
It was a rather awesome resistance this small group of Taliban put up. I am totally against war, but have to admit that they put up a very, strikingly impressive resistance.
"Obama cannot utter the real motivation for the surge. The war’s initial aim was to place the US military astride the vast oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and, just as critically, to prevent the emergence of a combination of Eurasian powers that might undermine US global preeminence."
So how does Russia sit with this? It is near their region after all. How about Pakistan? Is the US being drawn into a sort of proxy war of attrition?
We're in a self-replicating loop with a politics and economics of 'scarcity'.
What is valued is the rare (from land to diamonds to food). Even the singularity of who defines what an 'enemy' is an essential part of the dynamic. It is pride rather than dignity. The former asserting 'self' in a context rather than a space for coexistance in dignity.
That is to say - The individual who internalizes the dynamic and points outward is expressing participation in the greater whole and is reaffirmed by doing so.
For example: Biodiversity (eg many varieties of grain) is being demonized as 'unproductive' in an outward pointing toward the starving blaming them for the failures of hundreds of years of colonialism now 'dependent' on a dynamic of export/import (concentration of the rare) to the detriment of sustainability that is by nature diverse.
That is, for example, monoculture (material singular > rare) generates apparent paradox (conceptual singular > rare) that only the paradigm of market (dynamic singular > rare) is permitted to speak to or act on (control singular > rare).
A similar dynamic is observable in the institution of religion as replacement for spiritual clarity - the rationale of killing in the name of the noumenal/god. A fear based 'reaction' because the dynamic cannot make sense of consideration of the rare not being the basis of existance.
Identity of individual to group relies on increasingly ostentatious exhibit of the symbols. A politics of the consumate fact that claims necessity of preemption to 'sustain' attrition considered necessary from the perspective of the rare.
It is also a tacit claim that technology must also be held as something rare when in fact it has been proven that conscientious broad based use of varieties of technology are part of the answer.