Just about everybody knows what the US & UK are up to in Iraq. Yet, maddeningly, folks seem to have forgotten about Afghanistan. The slaughter there has never stopped; and, the excuse for this foreign invasion is no less flimsy! Additionally, the 'progressive' & 'democratic' ruling classes of Germany, France, Canada, & others are thoroughly involved in this massive crime. On the up side, similar to Iraq, the imperialists & their fundamentalist Northern Alliance puppets are having a tough time achieving their goals. Of course, this up side isn't much consolation given that the only sizeable armed resistance to them is the fundamentalist former puppets of the imperialists the Taliban. Anyway, please read more details of the situation below. Never forget, never forgive!
Afghanistan: Why the Nato escalation?
28 April 2008. A World to Win News Service. Afghanistan was at the top of the agenda at the early April Nato summit meeting in Bucharest, Rumania. The host country and France agreed to send more forces to Afghanistan, to serve in the combat areas. Nato already has about 37,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 14,000 from the U.S. and 7,700 from Britain. The U.S. also has 11,000 more soldiers operating outside the Nato mission. In addition, Washington has announced that it will deploy more than 3,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this year.
After floating the idea some time ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy formally announced at the summit that he will send what he called “several hundred” fresh forces to the south of Afghanistan to reinforce the occupation in that region. France has already 1,500 troops in Afghanistan, but they are mainly stationed around Kabul and have not been directly involved in the war zone areas in the south and east of Afghanistan. The real numbers could amount to many times more than a “few hundred”, since France intends to send a battalion, which normally would mean 1,000 soldiers. In parliament Sarkozy was accused of deliberately downplaying this move, since it is even more unpopular than he is, and he is the least popular president in recent French history. Even more than the number of troops involved, what is significant is their deployment to a combat area and possibly combat operations against the Taleban. This issue of direct participation in the war has been a hot topic and an issue of tension between the U.S. and other Nato countries, including France, until now, and in particular Germany.
Yet, while the Bush government touted France’s decision as a sign of victory, unity and the Nato countries’ “commitment” to the “reconstruction” and “security” of Afghanistan, it was not even close to this claim. Of course it is not in the nature of these imperialist bloodsuckers to care about a real reconstruction of Afghanistan, a reconstruction that would benefit the people, but this move was not even a positive sign from the point of view of their own imperialist interests. It was a sign that they are further than ever from achieving their aims in Afghanistan and that their strategy is not succeeding.
It is an important development that Paris has reversed its long-standing and strongly held policy and agreed to deploy troops to the war zone, and this will have military and political consequences for France, but this doesn’t indicate any enthusiastic “commitment”, even by Nato standards (compared, say, to much smaller Holland and Canada). It is not yet clear whether this is a first step forward on France’s part or a gesture with no future. In addition, Germany, Italy and Spain are continuing to keep their troops out of the war zones. It is noteworthy that a year ago Italy and Spain agreed to send their forces into the hot zones if desperately needed, but they have not come through. Considering this, as well as the broader challenges the Nato occupiers are facing in Afghanistan, this summit result cannot be considered a success by any standard, certainly not for those who have been waging a broad and vigorous campaign to bring about an escalation in the number of Nato troops involved in combat.
This campaign was launched by the Bush White House, with the support of the British and Dutch governments. Canada threatened to pull out its forces if other Nato countries did not send more troops into battle. These desperate calls were the outcome of the political and military situation in Afghanistan in the last few years and in particular the Taleban’s growing strength over the course of the last year.
Contrary to the Iraq war, which from the beginning faced massive opposition within the Western countries, and turned into a disaster for the occupiers early on, the Afghanistan war was supposed to be a “good war” for the U.S. and its allies. The Western imperialist rulers even had the support of a section of the intellectuals, in a much bigger way than for the Iraq invasion. Initially the U.S. was confident of success and so preferred to leave a big share of the occupation to its junior partners while it dealt with the bigger challenge it faced in Iraq. As a result, Washington allowed the British to reduce their forces in Iraq in order to assume more responsibility in Afghanistan. And that was what they did.
With the encouragement of the U.S. and the UK Nato took over the leadership of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), the invasion troops whose mission is to hold Kabul, and then took on responsibility for the security mission in the whole country during the 2005 parliamentary elections. The idea was to move away, slightly, from the Bush doctrine of “the coalition of the willing”, which turned out to essentially mean American unilateral action seconded only by the UK and a few other of its most servile allies, and more broadly draw other imperialist countries into sharing the burden by giving more responsibility to Nato. For the U.S, the point was to forge and consolidate a military contingent that could act as a reserve force for American interventions and occupations. However some European countries saw this as a way to (again, slightly) counter American “unilateralism”, or at least take a more active part in occupations and interventions without putting their troops formally under the direct command of the U.S., even though the U.S. remains the undisputed boss of Nato. So most of the more powerful members welcomed this new mission for Nato.
Then in July 2006 Nato moved into the combat area and took command of the war zone in the southern region of Afghanistan, while the equally hot eastern region of the country remained the responsibility of the “coalition” forces under direct U.S. command. The UK stepped up the number of its troops in Afghanistan to more than 7,000, and, acting through Nato, took the lead in Helmand province, one of the Taleban strongholds in the southwest. Canada increased its troop strength to 2,500 and took responsibility for the Kandahar area. The Netherlands also moved into the combat area. However some European countries, such as Germany, France and a few others resisted sending their forces to the war zones.
As the situation grew worse, including both oppression and violence on the part of the occupiers and their government and the general corruption produced by their rule, the people of Afghanistan become more aware of the nature and brutality of the occupier forces and the aims and goals they are pursuing. As the Taleban became stronger and the war spread to many regions and escalated, the number of occupation troops killed and injured increased. According to Nato figures, there were 9,000 attacks on Western and Afghan puppet government troops in 2007, a 30 percent increase. At the same time, according to the US -led “coalition”, it carried out 3,500 air strikes during the year, 20 times the level of two years earlier. The number of civilians killed by the occupation forces reached a record high. In 2007 alone, the war claimed 6,500 Afghan lives. This war not only failed to eradicate the Taleban, as Bush and Blair claimed it would quickly do; it has spread and multiplied them. This situation has led to growing frustration among the occupation powers and heightened the tensions between them.
Especially over the last year the U.S., British and other imperialists have been waging a campaign to convince or pressure the other Nato countries to take part in combat. There has been an alarmist tone to reports from imperialist circles, including the military, parliamentary and certain humanitarian agencies, highlighting the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taleban and the real possibility that, as they like to put it “Afghanistan could become a failed state.” Such reports do reflect reality, and at the same time they are also part of an effort to mobilize public opinion for more intervention.
But this situation has given rise to divisions among the imperialist countries that surfaced when the U.S. demanded that Germany, whose forces are in the relatively stable north, send combat troops and helicopters to the war zones. The German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, sent an “unusually stern” request to Berlin. Germany’s defence secretary, Franz Josef Jung, replied, “I believe our focus should continue to be in the north.” German chancellor Angela Merkel made clear that the limited mandate was “not up for discussion”. (The Guardian, 2 February 2008)
Sending forces to the combat zones was not the only issue in this rising tension. The methods and tactics used in the fighting have also become a major source of angry controversy among the occupation powers.
“Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, told the Los Angeles Times, ‘I’m worried we have some military forces that don’t know how to do counterinsurgency operations… Most of the European forces, Nato forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap,’ a reference to the German region where a Soviet land invasion of western Europe was regarded as most likely.” (The Guardian, 16 January 2008)
This provoked an angry reaction from some of the countries involved in the fighting, including the Dutch general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who is the secretary general of Nato. The Dutch defence ministry summoned the U.S. ambassador to explain Gates’ remarks.
As background to this row, there have been long simmering differences between the UK and the U.S. regarding the tactics used in this war. British military commanders have accused the U.S. of “heavy-handed tactics”, including excessive aerial bombing – which regularly leads to civilian casualties. When the British suggested a plan to support local militia and civil defence forces in the south, American military commanders rejected it. U.S. general Dan McNeill, commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, said that the plan could fuel the insurgency. These differences seem to run deep and to be related to even more basic issues, although they are still somewhat obscure. Recent events provide some stark evidence of this: the arrest of two British diplomats in Afghanistan for allegedly negotiating with Taleban forces, and the rejection of Lord Paddy Ashdown for the post of UN special envoy to Afghanistan, who was unofficially said to be too strong a personality for the job. Both acts were supposedly carried out by the Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai, but there has been no indication that the U.S. was displeased with these measures taken by the man they put in power.
As the saying goes, when things go wrong thieves fall out.
The Taleban’s new found ability to step up the war in 2007 was a big shock to many people. Throughout the last year Taleban carried out around 140 suicide attacks all over Afghanistan, and gained the control of at least four districts (velsewali) in the south, according to a January report by the BBC Persian service. In the past year alone approximately 800 police were killed, in addition to the heavy causalities suffered by the puppet army and the occupiers. Also the number of attacks against the Afghan army, mainly carried out by the Taleban, was several times higher than in previous years.
Musa Ghala was the biggest town in the north of Helmand to fall to the Taleban. Though they later lost it, they kept control of three other districts in the same province throughout the year. During 2007 Taleban activities spread to the western provinces of Afghanistan. The Taleban were able to seize several districts in Farah province, although they could not hold them for long.
At the same time the Afghanistan people experienced one of their worst years in terms of security. They were caught in a crossfire between the occupiers and the Taleban, and as a result, hundreds if not thousands were killed. A great many were killed by the air bombardment of the U.S.-led coalition forces and also by Nato forces.
Taleban have increasingly adopted the tactics used by Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, suicide attacks or planting mines and even bombs on roadsides. The point is that the military tactics of both sides are reactionary because their goals are reactionary. Neither side has any interest in sparing the lives of ordinary people.
At the same time corruption within the puppet regime has increasingly disillusioned the people about any possibility of improvement of their situation. Opium and heroin production have broken all records. The occupation forces and regime officials blame the Taleban for this increase. It is true that the Taleban are benefiting from it, but various reports indicate the involvement of high governmental officials in the production, distribution and exportation of drugs too, including Hamid Karzai’s own brother, Wali Ahmad Karzai. He is well known as the largest heroin and arms smuggler in the region, a position he enjoys thanks to his relationship to the president.
The Afghanistan war turned out to be a disaster for the people. However, the occupiers will not pull out of the country for that reason. On the contrary, they are preparing for what they call a “long-term commitment”. While some of the junior partners find it difficult to cope with the newly worsening situation, the U.S. has no choice but to continue the war for years or decades ahead – unless the people drive them all out. For the U.S., the occupation of Afghanistan is not an isolated effort. It plays an important part of its strategy for the greater Middle East and to some extent Central Asia. For the U.S., victory or at least a relative control over Afghanistan is crucial as it vigorously seeks to materialise its threats against Iran. Its war in Afghanistan is also increasingly intertwined with the situation in Pakistan, home to 2.4 million Afghani refugees. Continuing U.S. support for President Pervez Musharraf is very much related to the expressed desire of American military commanders in Afghanistan to mount larger scale military operations on both sides of the border, targeting Pakistani as well as Afghani forces.
In addition, the Bush regime has performed a near miracle, reviving the prostrate forces of a Taleban who had earned the bitter hatred of millions of Afghanis. Now the U.S. has little choice but to deal with the consequences of its own acts. Contrary to the lies of the Bush regime, the Taleban (and their allies in Al-Qaeda), on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran (and its Shia fundamentalist allies in other countries) on the other, have neither much ideological affinity nor a common project, and in fact have been and remain enemies to the death. Still the U.S.’s efforts to stamp out anti-U.S. Islamic fundamentalism by waging war on the people have given that religious trend a great gift and allowed it to increasingly claim the banner of opposition to the U.S. This is driving a spiral that is both enormously dangerous in terms of the “war without end” the Bush regime once proudly promised and a nightmare for the people in Afghanistan and elsewhere – in fact, everywhere.
These factors are why the U.S. is adding 3,000 more American soldiers – badly needed in Iraq – to the 25,000 they already have in Afghanistan, in addition to escalating its pressure on the other Nato powers to supply more cannon fodder as well. Counting all of these forces, the approximately 5,000 men (all soldiers, but some not in uniform) of the so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams and a similar number of foreign mercenaries employed by so-called “security contractors”, the total number of imperialist troops in Afghanistan today is about 65,000 – nearly three times the number they started with.
The other Nato imperialists have their own imperialist interests to consider and will not necessarily follow the U.S. strategy. Further, as the war unfolds, more people in the occupiers’ home countries are becoming aware of the goals of the imperialists and the disastrous outcome of this war for the people of Afghanistan and the people of the world as a whole. It is widely recognized that there is very little public support in Canada, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Poland, etc., for the war their country’s troops are waging (leaving aside here the question of public opinion in the U.S., fighting two wars). So far this fact has not been transformed into the kind of active factor that could help transform the equation.
The withdrawal of all the foreign forces from Afghanistan and stopping all military and political intervention by the imperialists and other reactionary powers in the region is the first step toward a solution for the people of Afghanistan. That is what the people in Afghanistan want and also what people around the world need.
Langgan:
Catat Ulasan (Atom)
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan