Afghanistan:
Continuing the war in a different way
10 June 2013. A
World to Win News Service. The U.S. plans to pull out
the bulk of its forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The U.S. withdrew
33,000 troops last year in view of this plan, but there are still 68,000
American soldiers in Afghanistan. The details of the rest of the withdrawal have
not been announced yet. Other Nato countries taking part in the occupation, such
as Britain, France, Canada and Germany, have also signalled the pull-out of
their forces from Afghanistan before or by then.
The occupying
imperialist forces have devoted much publicity to this plan and are giving the
impression that they have completed their mission and are ending their
occupation. There has been a lot of debate about the necessity and the pace of
withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in the media and policy-making circles.
While some object to the plan and want the occupation to remain at more or less
the same level, others want it to be completed at a much speedier pace.
What does this
plan represent? First, if and when it is completed, would it really mean that
the imperialists are leaving Afghanistan and ending the war? Second, would it
mean that they have "completed their mission" and achieved the goals they set
for themselves, as they might claim?
There are no
short and clear answers to these questions, because there are many factors and
contradictions at work. In addition, the imperialists' lies and deception make
the situation even more difficult to analyse, and there is a need to investigate
the real contradictions involved.
The U.S. plan to
withdraw its forces
The number of
remaining American soldiers, 68,000, is equal to the highest level before the
so-called "surge" in 2009, and the U.S. might decide to keep all of them in
Afghanistan until the end of 2014, which is 18 months away.
Even if the
U.S.-led occupation ended today, it has already lasted much longer than the
Soviet occupation in the 1980s.
The Western
occupiers expected to achieve their goals in Afghanistan in a much shorter
period of time. However, the strategic agreement between the U.S. and the
government of Hamid Karzai foresees an open-ended occupation. According to that
treaty, the U.S. will keep its military bases in Afghanistan, along with
aircraft, Special Forces and "advisers" – with the announced expectation that
they will number about 10-15,000 – at least until the end of the treaty in 2024,
with the intention of renewing the treaty, with possible modifications, at that
time.
In fact the U.S.
military will not just be present, it will remain very active in fighting the
war as long as it continues. One aspect of their military operations is to
continue to train and dominate the Afghan army as a whole and retain control of
those special operations that the Afghan forces are incapable of conducting or
might not be trusted to carry out. American soldiers will be there to support,
lead and conduct the overall operations against any and all opposition, not only
the Taliban and Al-Qaeda but any other forces or even mass
revolts.
The other main
task of the remaining U.S. forces – and one not discussed in the media – is
carrying out spy missions, posing threats and meddling in the affairs of
neighbouring countries like Iran, Pakistan and world powers such as China and
Russia. In this way the U.S. plans to counter and compete with other powers in
this strategically important region.
Considering that
the U.S. and its allies started their occupation of Afghanistan with 30,000
troops, the plan to keep 10-15,000 soldiers there, mainly "advisers" and Special
Forces, and lead the army of more than 352,000 Afghan soldiers, is far from
ending an occupation and intervention in Afghanistan and the
region.
What this plan
does represent is a change in U.S. occupation strategy according to its present
needs and situation.
The U.S. and
Karzai governments signed an overall strategic treaty last October, but the
Karzai government wants to make a show of independence from the U.S. and is
drawing out negotiations on some "security and military" articles. In early May
2013 Karzai said that the "security agreement means U.S. bases in
Afghanistan", and added, "The U.S. is asking for nine military bases in
Afghanistan after 2014 – in Kabul, Bagram, Mazar Sharif, Herat, Shindan,
Jalalabad, Gardiz, Helmand – and to keep 20,000 soldiers in Afghanistan." Karzai
went on to say that he has "in principle no opposition to the U.S. bases in the
country", but wants "assurances that the U.S. will help strengthen the security
forces, government rule and the economic development of Afghanistan". (BBC
Persian service Website, 14 May 2013)
Why is Karzai
putting up conditions to meeting U.S. demands? These conditions could be either
a gesture to show that he is not a puppet, or a reaction to criticism of him by
the U.S. media and officials. But they could also reflect real contradictions
and complaints about what the U.S. is doing and not doing. In any case, the
U.S.'s goal in regard to this agreement is to ensure its military
dominance and political supervision over political and economic affairs in
Afghanistan, and its control over the region.
"Side effects" of
the war
While the U.S.
assumed an easy victory, events did not develop as they planned or expected. The
mass discontent against the occupiers, the increasing ability of the Taliban and
other reactionary opposition forces to make use of that discontent, and the help
provided them by the Pakistani army were the main factors that caused the U.S.
to get stuck in a long war that Washington could not abandon. The deterioration
of the situation forced the U.S. and its allies to increase their troop strength
to more than 150,000, not counting private military contractors. This meant a
huge increase in the financial cost of the war. The imperialists might have been
prepared to pay that price, seeing it as an investment for their long-term
interests. It is estimated that the Afghan war cost the U.S. 100 billion dollars
a year at its peak. That is a huge expense, especially in view of the financial
crisis world capitalism is sunk in.
U.S. forces have
lost nearly 2,100 soldiers so far, while almost 20,000 were injured in the
Afghanistan war. According to The New York Times, "45 percent of
returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are claiming disability benefits. A
quarter of those veterans – 300,000 to 400,000, depending on the study – say
they suffer from some form of post-traumatic stress disorder." (13 October
2012)
Since American
soldiers have been trained to treat the masses of ordinary people as the enemy
or "terrorists" and do not show mercy even to children and elderly, many of
those who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq have been mentally reshaped and
disfigured to become eager killers. A few may now be employed as "security
contractors" or in higher ranking positions, but others are simply left to
fester.
Some reports on
the "side effects" of such horrible wars actually unveil the terrifying nature
of these wars themselves. For example, a report a few months ago disclosed the
rape and murder of a 65 year-old woman in Delaware, whose naked body was found
in a wooded area. She was murdered by a combat veteran, Staff Sgt. Dwight L.
Smith Jr., 25 years old, with no previous conviction. A letter he wrote to his
father explains much more:
"I am going to be
honest with you dad. I have killed a lot of men and children. Some that didn't
even do anything for me to kill them. Also some that begged for mercy. I have a
problem. I think I got addicted to killing people. I could kill someone go to
sleep wake up and forget that it ever happened. It got normal for me to be that
way. I never wanted to be this way. I just took my job way to serious. I took
things to the extreme. Anyone can tell you that I changed. It is like being a
completely different person." (NYT, 9 November
2012)
When the
imperialists invaded Afghanistan, they were in a situation of covering up their
real and vicious plans for the region, and falsely claim that they wanted to
liberate the country from the fundamentalists. They claimed they wanted to free
women, reconstruct Afghanistan based on democratic principles and achieve peace
They pronounced an endless list of promises. But the people of Afghanistan did
not have to wait to see the real results. The reality of the imperialist war
became apparent right away. The occupiers raided houses in the middle of night,
stopped and searched ordinary people, killed women and men, children and elderly
and whole families in cold blood. Soldiers shot and blew up people on the ground
and air bombardments and missile strikes murdered them from far away.
The people soon
saw the rule of warlords and other Islamic fundamentalists, and their overlords,
the U.S. and its imperialist allies. People soon saw the destruction of their
economy and their livelihoods, and many became homeless. And they soon witnessed
an economy based on the drug trade and imperialist "donations". Women soon saw
the return of Islamic laws and restrictions that increased the level of violence
against women in all aspects of the society.
Through the
twelve years of war so far tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and
many more injured. The latest International Amnesty report released on 23 May
says that more than 2,700 civilians were killed and 4,800 injured in 2012 alone.
The report confirms the torture of prisoners at the hands of the U.S. and their
Afghan "security forces" (which should be called mercenary militias and death
squads). It also confirms the extensive violence against women in official
institutions and in society. The report stresses that the war has left almost
half a million people displaced (not counting those forced to flee the country),
many of them living in camps with limited or no access to water, health services
and education. (AI Report on Afghanistan 2013). These are the results of a war
that was supposed to bring prosperity; democracy and peace for the
people.
In sum, this war
has done much to expose the imperialists' lies and has driven many Afghans into
the arms of the Taliban, especially in the southern and eastern part of the
country, despite their bitter experience when the Taliban were in power and the
hatred they might have for the Taliban. Due to the lack of a strong
revolutionary force in Afghanistan, the U.S. might be able to reduce the
political damage to themselves, but the damage to the people and the country has
already been done.
What is the
purpose of the new strategy?
Given the
political, military and economic problems in sustaining this war indefinitely
with no success in sight, and due to questions of strategic priorities, there is
tremendous pressure on the U.S. to reduce its forces and continue the war in a
different way.
This means
cutting back on the number of troops and keeping enough soldiers in Afghanistan
to enable them to control the country and conduct the war mainly with Afghan
soldiers. This brings to mind the U.S.'s attempt to "Vietnamize" the war in
Vietnam after it became apparent that military victory was not
likely.
At the same time
the U.S. has been trying to draw the Taliban to the negotiating table. There
have been some talks but they have not gotten anywhere so far, at least
according to the media, yet the U.S. is still trying to get the Taliban to
negotiate. Maybe the U.S. has reached the conclusion that they cannot defeat the
Taliban militarily, but more importantly, it sees no problem in principle in
sharing power in Afghanistan with the Taliban. There might be some
contradictions, some political price because the Taliban were the initial target
of the war, but the U.S. seems to have come to the conclusion that it is better
off to pay that price.
Does this mean
that the U.S. imperialists have accepted defeat and are retreating, or that they
have achieved their goals and are making a substantial change in their
Afghanistan strategy for that reason? As mentioned before, there is no short
answer, but the shortest answer is that they were not defeated but did not
achieve their initial goals either. They certainly encountered obstacles and
were unable to overcome most of them.
The imperialists
attempted to overcome these problems by allocating more money and troops. At the
same time they limited their goals and had to reveal the real nature of their
occupation to the ordinary masses in Afghanistan, to the world and back home and
drop the fake promises under which they had concealed their war of aggression,
such as liberating women, reconstructing the county and so on. Not only did they
not get rid of the Taliban, they added another fundamentalist and corrupt
government, not to mention the twelve years of atrocities by the occupiers that
the people of Afghanistan will never forget.
To look at it
from another angle, the U.S. has not abandoned or diluted the main goal it was
seeking to achieve: to set up a bastion in this region that is so strategically
important for American global dominance. But first of all this goal has already
exacted a very high price. Secondly, even if the U.S. were to succeed, this
victory might not be stable because of the complexity of the contradictions in
the region. In fact, the interaction of so many contradictions in this region
that has caught the U.S. and its allies by surprise are what has made this
region very unstable for most of the last two centuries.
The occupation of
Afghanistan and the functioning of the occupiers gave rise to an intense
contradiction between the people and the imperialists that will continue in the
years ahead with the presence of the U.S. forces, and given the masses'
discontent both politically and economically that is a big source of potential
instability. But there are also other contradictions, including the
contradictions between the various imperialists and regional powers. Russia,
China, India, Pakistan, Iran and others will continue to manoeuvre and cause
problems for the U.S. The contradiction between the U.S. and the Taliban is
another source of instability. There is also the contradiction between the U.S.
and its appointed government that is not helpful for the U.S. imperialists.
The U.S. war in
Afghanistan is not a thing of the past, and opposition to the occupation of
Afghanistan should not be either.
- end item
No comments:
Post a Comment