Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'What Happens if We Stay in Afghanistan': A Response to TIME Magazine
The August 9, 2010 issue of TIME magazine featured a striking cover
photograph of an 18-year-old Afghan woman, Aisha, who was disfigured by
the Taliban last year. The cover title read, "What happens if we leave
Afghanistan." While Aisha's story and the stories of many other women
like her may depict some part of the reality of women's lives under the
Taliban, TIME's conclusion that continuing the U.S. occupation of
Afghanistan is necessary, is highly misleading and troubling.
Afghan women, like women around the world, have lived under very oppressive conditions for decades. Many women remain indoors, without education or health care, or economic security, have early marriages, and are unprotected from domestic violence. Today, after a decade of the U.S.-led occupation, the lives of Afghan women have become worse, not better: in addition to facing continued oppression under the Taliban and the equally oppressive Northern Alliance, they also live in a war zone.
TIME's statement echoes and resurrects the same justification for the war given during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan: if U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan, any rights gained for Afghan women will be reversed by fundamentalist forces. However, this false logic grossly ignores the history of the U.S. imperialist relationship and presence in the region and its effect on women's rights. During the Soviet occupation in the 1980's, the U.S. armed the anti-Soviet Mujahideen forces, who were at one point led by Osama Bin Laden. In subsequent years the Taliban rose to power, with the Unitd States as its ally. In 2001, when the Bush administration sought to topple the Taliban regime, the United States armed and enlisted the help of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of warlords with its own track record of human rights abuses. Indeed, the United States has consistently chosen the side of fundamentalist allies at the expense of Afghan women, and has always sought its own gains in the region.
In its nine long years, the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan has done nothing to improve the conditions for people in Afghanistan, especially for women. As the classified documents recently leaked by WikiLeaks.org corroborate, the coalition forces have been killing hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the 2009 civilian death toll, close to 2,412 civilian deaths, was the highest of any year since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, and an increase of 24% from 2008. There has been a general increase in violence and civilian deaths because of occupation. A Human Rights Watch Press Alert in 2005, stated that up to 60% of law makers in the lower house of Afghanistan's newly elected parliament are directly or indirectly connected to human rights abuses. By 2009, the U.N. human development index ranked Afghanistan 181 out of 182 countries. The maternal mortality rate in Afghanistan reveals the highest ever documented. Over the past decade, the immensely corrupt, U.S.-backed Afghan regime led by Hamid Karzai has passed and maintained numerous misogynist laws, including the one that put Aisha in jail after she fled from her in-laws.
For the last decade, the occupying forces of the U.S. and its NATO allies have nourished warlords and supported a corrupt government, leading many to join the Taliban and increasing their influence across Afghanistan. Increased civilian deaths, a fundamentalist resurgence, and deadly bombing raids have led to a devastated country and a Taliban stronger than ever before. TIME's claim to "illuminate what is actually happening on the ground" falsely equates the last decade of occupation with progress. The occupation has not and will not bring democracy to Afghanistan, nor will it bring liberation to Afghan women. Instead, it has exacerbated deep-seated corruption in the government, the widespread abuse of women's rights and human rights by fundamentalists, including Karzai's allies, and stymied critical infrastructure development in the country. The question should not be "what happens if we leave Afghanistan," the question should be "what happened when we invaded Afghanistan" and "what happens if we stay in Afghanistan."
The Afghan people are capable of creating their own democratic future. Progressive groups and democratic parties in Afghanistan are fighting to reconstruct the peace and safety of their country, and more often than not, are forced underground for fear of their safety. Despite the repression from the U.S.-backed Karzai government, thousands of brave students and women have come out on to the streets of Kabul to protest the bombings and the continued war. It is from these forces that a larger progressive movement will emerge that could play a role in bringing real democracy to Afghanistan. If the United States continues the occupation, the space for progressive forces becomes increasingly limited.
We must know and remember, that liberation never comes from occupation. We must know and remember, that there will always be resistance to occupation. Occupations, no matter where they take place, from Iraq to Palestine to Turtle Island, are unjust. The American people must come out in support and solidarity with the resilient peoples of Afghanistan and elsewhere who are fighting for their own liberation, and must call for the end of all U.S. wars and occupations.
Signatories:
South Asia Solidarity Initiative
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Derrick O'Keefe co-writer of the autobiography Malalai Joya -- A Woman Among Warlords
Veterans For Peace
Courage to Resist
Anjali Kamat, Producer, Democracy Now!
Robert Jensen, University of Texas, Austin, TX
- Posted in
51 Comments so far
Show AllThe most telling argument against continuing the US presence in Afghanistan is the recently conducted poll that says unequivocally that the Afghanis want us out of their country. Apparently, they feel they have more to fear from the excesses of US military action than they do from violence perpetrated by the Taliban. It is not that the Taliban are decent, caring people. They are not. But the people in Afghanistan believe the citizens of that country should determine the future, not the forces of foreign nations.
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre
Thanks ,love Robespierre.Malalai and Derrick stay safe.
peace
Although I agree with the sentiments expressed thus far, I wonder if they read this sentence from the article:
"The Afghan people are capable of creating their own democratic future."
They are? Capable in the face of armed fundamentalists? I wonder how.
I think that once we let Osama bin Laden get away from his hideout in Bora Bora, we should have pulled our troops out. That would have left the Taliban in power, but if the Afghans were really capable of setting up a democracy, they would have done so then.
If you would study the history of Afghanistan you will find that as they experience long periods of peace, the policies inside the country tend to change and Fundamentalism "Moderates".
The problem is that whenever they get on such a trajectory, foreign powers will meddle and intervene.
When FOREIGN powers do this and create crisis and strife inside the country, trhe fundamentalists regain power.
Fundamentalism tends to gain traction in times of strife and conflict. See Iraq as example which at one time had all manner of rights for women. See Iran before the CIA stuck its nose inside that country.
When people are occupied by a foreign power, or when their continual strife and conflict, fundamentalism is somethong they turn to to gain some semblance of "security".
This process also happens in the USA wherein the people turn to religion or Militarism to "save them". In a Cuba , the State is under constant fear of attack from their "Good neighbor" to the North, either directly or via agents inside of Cuba, thus the oppression of Political dissidents.
Allow them peace. Allow them to build up their economies wherein people rise out of poverty and fundamentalism will wane. It will take time and for many far too long , but it has a much better chance of success then the extreme of bombing them to moderation.
Right on!
Fair comment. Aside from which, I can't find the day that the Afghan people decided they wanted a Democracy? The best age they had was under a monarchy.
Cuba surpress's political dissidents because she is afraid of the US? Sttrrrreeeeeetttchhh. All dictatorships surpress PD's in every case.
It a FACT That the USA has armed Cubans to plant bombs throughout Cuba. This is beyond dispute. It is also a FACRT That the USA has used agents to poison Cubas food supply. This is beyong dispuite. It is a fact that the USA has called for the regime of Fidel Castro to be overthrown. This is a fact. It is a fact that the USA shleters terrorists inside of the Unoted States who have attacked Cuban Civilian aricraft with bombs. This is beyong dispute.
It is a fact that since Castro came to power the USA has tried everything to remove him powere including multiple assassination attempts. This is beyond dispute.
Now given the FACT That Cuba as less people in prison per capita then the USA and given the fact the USA itself has people in their prisons for violating the "Patriot Act" and have imprisoned people for merely being suspected of helping MUslim Charities or defending prisoners in a Court of law, for you to suggest that Cuba has nothing to worry about from the Good old USA and or to suggest that none of those "Dissidents" in Cuban prisoners had any links to the US Intel agencies or the supporters of the old dictatorship of Batista that live in Miami , is again you displaying both ignorance and double standards.
Your own prisons would be filled with "dissidents" were there 67 attempts on the life of Obama all funded by Russian Intelligence. (See Macarthyism for what happens with a fabricated scare let alone a real one)
Now to Afghanistan. I did not say they wanted a democracy. I said that if foreign powers stop meddling the country will moderate. Countries always at war or always end conflict tend to see the same types rise to power. If there is never any PEACE then those proponents have peace can never gain traction.
The people of Afghanistan should desice if they want a democracy and just to make another point, a monarchy may serve the needs of the people a heck of a lot better then a "democracy" like they have in Haiti or in the USA.
This is the best repudiation of TIME magazine's disgustingly manipulative cover story I've read so far.
Agree. The logic is simple; however, the message won't be transmitted by most of M$M to the public as it conflicts with the propaganda.
I amazed at how incompetent the "peace" organizations are when it comes to educating the public as to why the U.S. has occupied Afghanistan and militarized surrounding countries.
Public opinion in American would turn against the occupation much faster if EVERYONE knew this is little more than a corporate imperial occupation to further future profits of American energy corporations seeking hegemony over Central Asian resources that will be marketed in Asia for huge profits for a long time to come.
This corporate globalization plan is looting the Federal treasury to sustain their schemes at a time when the American economy is imploding.
These are war crimes designed to create private corporate profit paid for with public debt for decades to come.
Pepe Escobar and Asia Times have lots of information on this globalization hydrocarbon war plan.
http://www.alternet.org/world/139983/pipeline-istan:_everything_you_need_to_know_about_oil,_gas,_russia,_china,_iran,_afghanistan_and_obama/?page=entire
Pipeline-Istan: Everything You Need to Know About Oil, Gas, Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Obama
excerpt:
"And then, of course, there are those competing pipelines that, if ever built, either would or wouldn't exclude Iran and Russia from the action to their south. In April 2008, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India actually signed an agreement to build a long-dreamt-about $7.6 billion (and counting) pipeline, whose acronym TAPI combines the first letters of their names and would also someday deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India without the involvement of either Iran or Russia. It would cut right through the heart of Western Afghanistan, in Herat, and head south across lightly populated Nimruz and Helmand provinces, where the Taliban, various Pashtun guerrillas and assorted highway robbers now merrily run rings around U.S. and NATO forces and where -- surprise! -- the U.S. is now building in Dasht-e-Margo ("the Desert of Death") a new mega-base to host President Obama's surge troops."
And this is only one of many Central Asian pipeline dreams via Afghanistan.
This Time magazine cover is the clearest sign yet of the abject fear and desperation infecting the Ruling Classes of the United States viv a vis America's adventure into the heart of darkness in the ME. Whom did they think they were fooling? In a nation that couldn't pass the ERA, what fool could possibly think that the majority of Americans were going to care about the fate of Afghan women? And someone ask Time's Asswipe-In-Chief, Rick (not Richard) Stengel, if he is willing to invade every nation on the face of the earth that still practices clitoral mutilation? What do you suppose Rick the dick will say to that?
Interesting that you should mention the 'Heart of Darkness' that seems to always accompany seemingly benevolent adventures and soaring rhetoric. Here's an excerpt:
All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz; and by and by I learned that, most appropriately, the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had intrusted him with the making of a report, for its future guidance...it was a beautiful piece of writing. The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later information, strikes me now as ominous. He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, 'must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings—'we approach them with the might of a deity,' and so on, and so on. 'By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,' etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence—of words—of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: 'Exterminate all the brutes!'
Makes me realize once again what an incredibly great writer Joseph Conrad was.
English was not even his first Language.
The goal for the occupation is not to liberate the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The goal of the occupation is to liberate the natural resources of the country.
... from their lawful owners.
Ignoring the biggest reason, of course, which is AIPAC. Which is also the biggest promoter of war with Iran.
Remember the USS Liberty!
De-Countrify Israel Now and force Zionists to pay Reparations.
Dear TIME:
Your cover choice and argument are repulsive. You feature a missing"nose' which is awful in itself, but you neglect the real pictures: those of the mutilated bodies of citizens which the U.S. has killed; the contamintaed water and food systems, and the real faces of the futility of war.
Suggesting that this is the face of war ignores showing the reality. To USE women as an argument to sustain this war, as if America and its Congress and corporations even give a "rats ass" about women in their own country, or the degredation of how often U.S. female soldiers, and females of occupied lands are thought of as nothing more than chattle.
By the way, if this was a 50 year old ugly woman that was missing a nose too, would she be on your cover? Oh yes, I can see your're going for the mythology of the "Beauty and the Beast ( of war) but you guys missed the mark!
The BEAUTY is all of the UNoccupied nations and peoples of the world, and the BEAST, well that, of course, is US, or U.S. which ever way you want to read that.
Wikileaks TIME, "is a better man than you are, and your guns and din."
>...During the Soviet occupation in the 1980's, the U.S. armed the anti-Soviet Mujahideen forces, who were at one point led by Osama Bin Laden.
Nope. Osama Bin Laden was a very minor figure in the resistance vs. Soviet Occupation. There were seven main anti-Soviet politico-military organizations (see Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan By Olivier Roy , http://books.google.com/books?id=m3OfC1ZRq38C&dq=oliver+roy+afghanistan&source=gbs_navlinks_s or the two books on Bin Laden and his family by Steve Coll ) and he was never a leader in any of them , only a leader of a few hundred "Arab Afghans, " as they are called in the literature such as , http://books.google.com/books?id=kIBgqHWq658C&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=Arab+Afghans+Osama&source=bl&ots=jWsSFKVhlV&sig=IDlxb8gwkLG9mz1CacAJSyuhVnc&hl=en&ei=Lt9mTI-CIsWclgeI6uCgBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Arab%20Afghans%20Osama&f=false ,"Taliban: Islam, oil and the new great game in central Asia , " by Ahmed Rashid. Such ideologically driven mythology is so common in radical leftist and "progressive" blogging on Afghanistan , which rarely if ever has any grounding in any academic or journalistic analysis/history of Afghanistan.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2010
Who is killing Afghan civilians? - A reality check
The UN mission in Kabul just released a report on Afghan civilian casualties during the first 6 months of 2010. Compare the last two figures in the following quotation (I've bolded them):
UN human rights workers recorded 1,271 civilians deaths over the period and 1,997 injuries. Of that total of 3,268, insurgent forces were responsible for 2,477 casualties, while Nato and Afghan government forces accounted for 386.
Overall, there has been "a 31 per cent increase in conflict-related Afghan civilian casualties in the first six months of 2010 compared with the same period in 2009," including a 55% increase in killed and injured children. But this increase is entirely due to the Taliban. In fact, "[c]asualties attributed to Pro-Government Forces (PGF) fell 30 per cent during the same period," due primarily to a new policy of limiting the use of air strikes. Casualties attributable to the Taliban, on the other hand, have escalated dramatically.
Analysis by UNAMA Human Rights Unit identified two critical developments that increased harm to civilians in the first six months of 2010 compared to 2009: AGEs [i.e., Anti-Government Elements] used a greater number of larger and more sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) throughout the country; and, the number of civilians assassinated and executed by AGEs rose by more than 95 per cent and included public executions of children.
=> Of course, some people will respond that there would be no war in Afghanistan, and thus no civilian deaths, if the US had not invaded the country in 2001 and overthrown the Taliban. Thus, even the deaths of children executed by the Taliban are ultimately the fault of the US and its NATO allies, and the solution is to "end the war" by pulling out US/NATO troops.
Such people would be wrong. Before the 2001 US invasion, Afghans had already experienced two decades of uninterrupted warfare on a catastrophic scale, including a devastating civil war during the 1990s that culminated in the takeover of most of Afghanistan by one of most viciously repressive, reactionary, and stultifying regimes on earth. During that period, over a million Afghans died and millions more fled the country as refugees. After 2001, millions of those refugees came back home. As bad as conditions have been in Afghanistan since 2001, even since the renewed upsurge in armed conflict since around 2005, it is simply undeniable that the levels of death, destruction, and general misery were much higher during the 1980s or the 1990s. (Even the rates of infant mortality have fallen dramatically since the overthrow of the Taliban regime--from horrifying to merely awful.)
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, it intervened in an ongoing civil war. If US/NATO forces abandoned Afghanistan tomorrow, that would not mean an end to warfare in Afghanistan. Instead, the almost certain consequence would be a continuation of civil war along the lines of the 1990s. That's especially probable since support for the Taliban is almost exclusively limited to the Pashtuns, who constitute around 40% of the Afghan population, or about 12 million, plus another 25 million or so across the border in Pakistan. It is by no means clear that most Afghan Pashtuns would actually like to see a return of the Taliban regime, and considerable evidence suggests otherwise. But all serious analysts seem to agree that the non-Pashtun 60% of Afghans--Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and so on--overwhelmingly fear and oppose a restoration of Taliban rule and would resist it violently and tenaciously. And all sides would undoubtedly get aid and support from regional powers.
In short, people who try to pretend or insinuate that war and civilian suffering in Afghanistan began with the 2001 US invasion, and that pulling out US/NATO troops is equivalent to "ending the war" in Afghanistan, are not being intellectually or morally honest. (Andrew Exum and Spencer Ackerman are among those who have made this point especially well.)
Fourth of July weekend 1979 is when seeds of the "Afghan Civil War" were sowed in Washington, DC:
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
Also, some information that might give pause to those who are gung-ho on liberating Afghan women about the Time magazine reporter under whose byline the cover story ran:
"The (TIME) piece lacked a crucial personal disclosure on Baker's part: Her husband, Tamim Samee, an Afghan-American IT entrepreneur, is a board member of an Afghan government minister's $100 million project advocating foreign investment in Afghanistan, and has run two companies, Digistan and Ora-Tech, that have solicited and won development contracts with the assistance of the international military, including private sector infrastructure projects favored by U.S.-backed leader Hamid Karzai."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/aryn-baker-time-magazines_n_680380.html
The multimillion dollar projects run by "IT entrepreneurs" like the reporter's husband, whose specialty is "government procurement", would be in trouble if Karzai had to leave in a US military helicopter like his Vietnamese predecessors.
Those pretending that the invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with helping the people of Afghanistan are "not being intellectually or morally honest".
Seriously, Verdiman, I do think that this is your calling. Intellectually and morally, you seem very much aligned with the power brokers who put us there.
Please, please, enlist.
No, verdiman, the suffering in Afghanistan surely didn't begin with the 2001 Illegal Invasion and Occupation... which is in fact a war on an entire nation based on the premise of finding one criminal- a criminal who still has not been formally charged with any crime for any events of 9/11, nor even caught after using up hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of lives to ostensibly do so... a criminal who in fact may or may not be a false-flag-event agent, or unknowingly used as such. The war is thus a gigantic War Crime under the Geneva Conventions as well as illegal under the Constitution of the United States.
No, actually, the suffering of Afghanistan began with the Zbiggy B/CIA Afghan secret-war during the Carter Administration, circa 1978, the Actual US Invasion Date. So, actually, the United States has waged and perpetrated war in Afghanistan for Over 30 years now! And the USA actually formed and nurtured the repressive forces currently represented by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, its very own Frankenstein monsters! Turned on their creators!
And did the US care about Afghanistan in the 'Nineties when the warlords were raging? Hell No, after all, they were 'Our' Warlords/gangsters during the 'noble' fight agin' the russkies, and hey, they gotta get some goodies out of their 'noble' efforts after all. Let 'em fight over the scraps like good capitalists. May the best warlord/corporation win. Then, give the victors an oil pipeline contract/filthy lucre. Which happened, just so.
Back in the 'Sixties and 'Seventies (and I know Afghans who lived through that period), a peaceful Afghanistan was modernizing and secularizing, much to the Horror of the backwoods mullahs and medieval religious zealots; and also much to the Horror of the USA's own mullahs, the conservative, repressive, militarist, anti-social(ist) forces.
The cities, especially Kabul, were becoming cosmopolitan. The hillbilly country bumpkin faction was thus easy to be riled up by CIA agents, and were armed to the teeth by the USA to battle the secularist 'socialist' government. So with the countryside in turmoil due to US intervention, the endangered government called on the world for help. The Russians were asked in to defend the legitimate government, just as Zbiggy B hoped they would be. Zbiggy B could then, in his words, "hand the Soviet Union their own Vietnam"... of course with CIA/Special Forces soldiers, weapons and guidance - a war that was actually waged against the Soviet Union, without a public declaration of war, by the secret backroom government of the US.
So now, after the CIA formation of AL QUAEDA, along with training and arming CIA agents like Osama bin Laden, the neo-con Zionist editor of TIME says the USA has to stay in Afghanistan TO DO THE JOB THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE, that is, battling and clearing out the religious fundamentalists and the hillbilly Warlords to prevent them from destroying good government and a progressive country. But America's hillbilly Warlords won, and DID destroy functioning government and all progress, as well as the entire infrastructure of the country. Well, hoo-ray USA! We won!
The USA under Reagan/Bush-the-First fully supported with strategic weaponry and tons of money, and thus gave life to, these very same fundamentalist Afghan Warlords and fanatic groups for its own geopolitical purposes (just like they backed the Contras in another Illegal War, and who knows what else that has never become known), and the Warlords and Special Forces finally drove Russian support out, enabling the 'Nineties Civil War among Warlords that verdiman references, as after all THEY WERE WARLORDS, you neo-con idiots! And America, then as now, obviously really didn't give a shit about the Afghan people... except for propaganda/pro-war purposes.
So the best course of action is to get OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, NOW! The US didn't let the Russians secure the country, why should we now feel it is our right to rule a foreign country? Besides, the occupation is mainly about defending an alternate oil pipeline route... just see where the US bases are located. And alternate to what? Why, Russia's pipe routes, of course, as the USA's neo-Cold Warriors, capitalist pigs, and America's Mullahs Still Hate russkies and 'socialists' with an insane passion, and will spend every dime of (ours not theirs) American treasure and every drop of American blood (ours not theirs) to try and screw them.
It is clear that Afghanistan has become Vietnamistan. And soldiers do not rebuild a country, they take a country down! So either kill everybody there, and declare We Win, or get out.
And by the way, when is TIME magazine going to run a photo of a blown-to-bits-by-a-drone-missile bride of a wedding on its front cover with the headline, "IF WE STAY IN AFGHANISTAN..."?
So if the Taliban are killing large numbers of Afghan civilians (often, perhaps mostly, in ways that blatantly violate the laws of war), who should bear the blame for those deaths? Sophistry aside, the plain fact is that they are the responsibility of the Taliban (and of their foreign supporters, not least in Pakistan's security services).
=> A position like Andrew Sullivan's may or may not be correct, but at least he faces up honestly to the moral dilemmas involved, including the probable human costs if the US and its allies abandon Afghanistan:
[T]he vast majority of child murders are by the Taliban [....] I still favor withdrawal as soon as possible. I do not in any way discount the moral price. If I thought there was any way to win, my calculus might change. But I don't. And we're broke. And evil like this occurs tragically every day all over the world. The art of politics and warfare is the art of the possible within certain limits. We've reached them - and then some. It gives me no pleasure to say this, and my heart is torn. But politics is not the art of the heart in the end. It's the art of the mind.
Is it really that clear that further US/NATO involvement in Afghanistan is, realistically, a hopeless project? I'm not so sure. But that's a matter for a separate discussion. If Americans, Canadians, and Europeans decide it is in our interests to pull the plug on US/NATO involvement in Afghanistan, so be it. (I am not convinced by that position, but serious and plausible arguments can be made to support it.) However, we shouldn't pretend that we would be doing the Afghans a favor.
Meanwhile, even people who believe there are good reasons to favor a US/NATO abandonment of Afghanistan should face up honestly to the probable human costs of that policy and the moral dilemmas involved.
=> Norman Geras has usefully pulled together several recent reports, including this UN study, that highlight what is at stake for Afghans in this conflict. See below.
==============================
Norman Geras (Normblog)
August 10, 2010
Taliban talk
Further to these recent posts, there's this today from behind the Times paywall:
A pregnant widow was flogged and killed in public after being convicted of adultery by the Taleban in a grim reminder of the militant group's six-year rule of Afghanistan.
The woman, named as Bibi Sanubar, was given more than 200 lashes before being shot in the head three times, police said...
Mullah Daoud, a senior Taleban commander contacted by The Times, said he sat on the panel that convicted the woman in a remote area of Badghis province which is under militant control. "There were three mullahs that passed this verdict, I was one of them," he said. "We gave this decision so that in future no one should have these illegal affairs. We whipped her in front of all the local people to show them an example. Then we shot her."
Afghan police said the body of the woman, who was said to be between 35 [and] 45, was later dumped in an area under government control. "She was shot in the head in public while she was still pregnant," Ghulam Mohammad Sayeedi, the deputy police chief in Badghis, said.
And there's this from the Guardian:
The Taliban's increasing use of homemade bombs and political assassinations has been responsible for a 31% increase in the number of civilians who have been killed or injured in fighting in Afghanistan this year, the United Nations said today.
The UN's Kabul mission released data showing that even as the number of child [casualties] has soared by 55%, strict rules on the use of airpower by Nato troops has led to a 30% drop in the number of deaths and injuries caused by foreign forces in the first six months of this year, compared to the same period in 2009.
UN human rights workers recorded 1,271 civilians deaths over the period and 1,997 injuries. Of that total of 3,268 insurgent forces were responsible for 2,477 casualities, while Nato and Afghan government forces accounted for 386.
"These figures show that the Taliban are resorting to desperate measures, increasingly executing and assassinating civilians, including teachers, doctors, civil servants and tribal elders," said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch.
See also Shuggy here.
POSTED BY JEFF WEINTRAUB AT 6:51 PM http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2010/08/who-is-killing-afghan-civilians-reality.html
Verdiman, please enlist and go help the Afghanistan people on the front lines, and then get back to us on our glorious occupation of the little people.
After you return, loaded up on SSRIs and memories of kid's heads lying in the streets (some by NATO, some by US paid warlords, and some by office workers commanding drones), perhaps you can co-write an article with the always annoying inside-the-beltway, political connection drooling, Andrew Sullivan.
We can expect no accurate reporting from our corporate news agencies. Even if we listen to the alternative news things have become so polarized that their news is also skewed.
However, if we look at history which our politicians and military tacticians refuse to do, we see that most countries that have been invaded and occupied, for no matter the reason, have rebelled against the occupiers as a matter of nationalism. How can we expect different from the Afghanis? We revolted against the British. The Native Americans revolted and attenpted to repel the palefaces.
If Time magazine had been in existance then they probably would have published a picture of a scalped paleface to promote western expansion and the elimination of the Native American population.
These are the results of the impacts of the "democratic free enterprise system" on people and their civilizations and are the costs of "progress".
Truth be told, investors from all around the world have sunk billions into rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan because they were promised by the USA that their investments for new business would be protected.
The reason we have to stay is to insure these investments.
We protect these investments with our military occupation.
And we, the American tax payer, have to pay all the bills, for the Fascist elite empire.
Our government is going to lie to us for next 100 years if needed.They will stay in these countrys in a war mode or police mode until greedy Fascists feel safe .
These elite rich playing this game of empire staged everything to get us into the middle east,they wanted Iraq,and Iran,the crown jewels of oil reserves. Afghanistan was the easy door in, they dont have anything other country's want, and thats where the terrorists trained. 9/11 was the key.
No one in the world blinked,when we invaded Afghanistan, we had to get the terrorists, once there, the plan was always to invade Iraq and Iran.
You invade , destroy all infrastructure, devastate the country, then pour in the Fascist billions to rebuild,
And thats the recipe for regime change and spreading Democracy.
And now that we are at war with "Terrorism" every country we say has terrorists are subject to the next invasion and occupation.
These are dark evil times for Americans, and to keep us all in our place we now have 5 million people employed or have signed loyalty oaths to spy on us.
No protection from the 4th amendment , and the draconian Patriot Acts slowly choking are constitutional freedoms and civil rights protections into the grave.
Here's some reality .
Anyone who holds radical anti-taliban ideas will be tortured or killed( if not both) if(when ) NATO leaves. This includes women wanting to read, men who want there daughters to go to school or anyone who is trying to work with a have a normal life in this new society nato is building( hey someone offers you a JOB on a nato base cooking food you would take that job) .
At the same time we must look to history, before the Soviet Union went in to try and help out the Marxist( don't glorify them or say evil America destroyed a great socialist government- trying to enforce state atheism in a religious country is always a bad idea) government they were sponsoring they knew it was going to be a problem;
"We have carefully discussed the situation
which has developed in your country, we looked
for ways to assist you which would best serve the
interests of our friendship and your relations with
other countries. There may be various ways of
solving the problems which have developed in
your country, but the best way is that which
would preserve the authority of your government
among the people, not spoil relations between
Afghanistan and neighboring countries, and not
injure the international prestige of your country.
We must not allow the situation to seem as if you
were not able to deal with your own problems and
invited foreign troops to assist you. I would like
to use the example of Vietnam. The Vietnamese
people withstood a difficult war with the USA
and are now fighting against Chinese aggression,
but no one can accuse the Vietnamese of using
FOREIGN TROOPS . The Vietnamese are bravely
defending by themselves their homeland against
aggressive encroachments. We believe that there
are enough forces in your country to stand up to
counter-revolutionary raids. They only need to
be genuinely united, and created into new mili-
tary formations.
"
-RECORD OF MEETINGx
of A.N.KOSYGIN, A.A.GROMYKO,
D.F.USTINOV and B.N.PONOMAREV with
N.M.TARAKI
20 March 1979
Notice I put foreign troops in Caps, the reason we lost in Vietnam was because we were clearly a FOREIGN POWER intervening in a another countries affairs ( I have to make a quick note here, the Chinese sent in troops as well, but not in combat roles to support the North Vietnamese war effort). As long as the people of Afghanistan see us as a FOREIGN POWER occupying there country the war is unwinable . There are several solutions we have not looked at. For one we should allow minorities( if there concentrated in a specific location) to break off and have there own recognized states. States free from our interference. Aside from that this all will be very complicated.
But lets not kid our selves, the Taliban does not and never will represent the people of Afghanistan. There the remains of the radical groups that overthrow the Soviet backed Afghan government. Anyone who has the capability to get the hell out of Afghanistan already has , this trend will only continue .
Remember after the fall of Saigon the South Vietnamese didn't exactly just hold hands and sing kumbiya with the North Vietnamese( although Howard Zinn marginalized all the refugees fleeing communism to a bunch of capitalist rodies who "didn't want to live under communist rule"). 1.4 million people did what ever they could to escape South East Asia after American troops finally left( around one million died attempting to flee the dire conditions).
We have to think of a better way to go about this then cutting and running and leaving millions of people to suffer after we grow tired of nation building. Everything wont just be allright after we leave. Infact I fear there might not be much hope for a Afghan and his family to live a normal and peaceful life regardless of if we stay there for another 30 years or withdraw tomorrow- aside from of course getting the hell out of Afghanistan . I've spoken to a few Afghans who fled to the United States when the Soviets invaded, and unfortunately there not too optimistic about the future ether
blah blah blah.....your knowledge about who helped created the Taliban is lacking....You sound like only the WHITE west can solve the world ills. The irony is that ill out there was perpetuated by the US of A via the CIA and the ISI.
BTW, the only reason the US OF A is there is to liberate the natural resources. I bet you were one of the sheep that was surprised when the west suddenly announced that the is about 3 TRILLION dollars worth of minerals to be had there.
The Soviets even knew about the mass amount of minerals in that nation.
My whole point is theres not a clear solution, the over simplification of "American empire is bad therefore all enemies of the evil empire are good" has to go. Most educated or middle class Afghans ran out of that country long long ago( note the illiteracy rate of that nation is 94%.) For the ones that remain no matter what we decide to do, the future isn't too bright.
your knowledge of history is very lacking...
keithsoulasa
You have got some fragmented knowledge of what went on in Afghanistan in the last few decades.
Nice statistics, by the way. But, they're completely irrelevant to this entire illegal war.
In 2001 the US went into Afghanistan with bomber airplanes. Now in 2010 you're suddenly concerned with their education and their women.
Come back when you've got a decent argument put together. Until then spare us the agony of having to read through your grammatically challenged posts.
By the way, it's "their" not "there". So, there you have it.
The idea that US militarists and Israeli Neo-cons are concerned about women's rights, or that it is a legimate cause for a war that's killed tens of thousands of innocents (at least) is self-evident nonsense, as is the global war on terror, which only fuels itself---eternally for great profit.
Scahill had it right yesterday. This is part of the propaganda war to smother revelations by WikiLeaks of war crimes and mission failure, and to quash intelligent debate with emotional jingoism.
According to Richard Kline, posting on Naked Capitalism:
"This woman was NOT mutilated by the Taliban. The entire times cover and story is a deliberate and most disgusting piece of propaganda meant to whip up support for a failed war. This woman has been discussed by Ann Jones in a post at the Nation, who met her before the creeps at Time got their mitts on her story:
http://www.thenation.com/article/154020/afghan-women-have-already-been-abandoned
"She was attacked by her father-in-law. There was no Taliban angle. And Ann Jones makes the point that this woman had no protection from anything the US has done in its occupation of Aghanistan, nor any recourse in the courts of that country which are dominated by religous law. Her plight is real, and the social issues behind it relevant for others. The US occupation, the Taliban, or any of the _politics_ grafted to this story have NOTHING to do with her or her social context."
"I put this article right on par with the infamous ‘pulling newborns from incubators’ propaganda plant after the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, an none and despicable lie. If it has escaped anyone’s notice, the propaganda shop ops in Aghanistan have been cranked up by an order of magnitude since David Petraeus took over there. —But then, lie-by-media is signature of his career, and was the essential tarmac-laying to his successful campaign to restore domestic support for the American occupation of Iraq. Of course he’s trying it again..."
Americans fall for these fabricated war pretexts again and again.
What will Aghanistan do without us?? What hubris! The United States has joined the dark side, folks, and we all know how that ends. Tell you what though--there will long be an Aghanistan after the United States of America becomes a footnote in the history books.
Yankee ain't in the Helping business...
The USA used this same argument in their continuing first genocide: supposedly trying to "Christianize the savage" native peoples whose lands they occupied.
That what we consider barbaric and cruel punishments for "crimes" is commonly practiced among Islamic socities is not in question. Tenents and requirements of the Islamic religion as practiced are not in question. So why the picture? To convince people that if we stay, these socities and religious groups will magically stop these practices. Sure they will!
'What Happens if We Stay in Afghanistan': A Response to TIME Magazine"
Easy to answer. More of our kids, more Afghans will be killed and maimed to no purpose. Afghanistans future (whatever it is) will be delayed.
who nose where the Time goes?
(hmmm)...
,,,,
00
o
o
"say dad... what happens when there's a place already full of violence and deception and unfairness... and then even more violence and deception and unfairness are added to it?"...
\\\\
00
o
o
"it becomes a place like afghanistan is right now!"...
(tell your lawmakers... no matter when their terms come to an end... and hopefully better workers begin!)... to wake up our government!... to care about the basics!... and stop misleading!... and end this war!... and don't waste anymore!...
(and here's one of many links you can use... and get congressional information etc too)... http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials
(and there's lotsa other stuff you can do too!)...
the best of wishes'n'ways'n'todays to each'n'everyone!... :)
Hey, America! One word: Congo.
If you really believed in the mission to help women, you'd be helping Congolese women (and their child soldiers).
--"It is from these forces that a larger progressive movement will emerge that could play a role in bringing real democracy to Afghanistan. "
... under the Taliban. Supported, aided and abetted by Pakistan. Unfortunately, this is the scenario that will emerge when the U.S. leaves Afghanistan. What the U.S. should be doing is bringing in Russia, India, Iran and China into the mix so as to help the Afghan Army defend Afghans from the Pakistani supported Talibs.
This will never happen because the U.S. is incapable of accepting failure. Instead, the above mentioned nightmare scenario will unfold, while all Liberals will heave a collective sigh of relief that their country is not part of the 'problem' anymore ... beacsue you know ... we dont have 'blood' in the game.
.
As if Pakistan and US interference was not enough, you also want Russia, India, Iran and China to dominate Afghanistan? And what makes you think these countries already have not played a role in the destruction of Afghanistan?
Do you seriously believe the Taliban will allow anyone to breathe ? Do you really believe Pakistan will not control Afghanistan the moment Americans leave ? Besides condemning U.S. imperialism (which i fully concur), Liberal elitism hits a wall when asked about post-U.S. Afghanistan. I you are a woman living in Afghanistan would you voluntarily allow the Taliban or the Northern Alliance warlords to take power ? You would be shoved under a burqa in less than a minute. Its probably not much different now and the friggin Americans dont give a shit, but alternatives are worth voicing.
I'm with of what this article says except:
"During the Soviet occupation in the 1980's, the U.S. armed the anti-Soviet Mujahideen forces, who were at one point led by Osama Bin Laden."
Osama Bin Laden did NOT lead Afghan Mujahideen. I grew up in a family deeply involved in the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance and I never heard Osama's name until a few years after the Soviet war.
My response to TIME has been to stop buying it and to stop recommending it and similar to students.
That was a regretful decision at one time, and I am concerned that few operations are left that can take fees to do investigative reporting. But how can one support a rag that takes fees and invents apologia for power.
And this kind of tripe sure helps one release one's nostalgia.
"During the Soviet occupation in the 1980's, the U.S. armed the anti-Soviet Mujahideen forces, who were at one point led by Osama Bin Laden."
Why start in the middle of the story? How about the fact the the USA armed the "Mujahideen" terrorists who were attacking the USSR in order to goad the USSR into ivading in the first place?
I bet THAT was great for the local women...