[Peace-discuss] "What About Afghanistan?"

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Democrats' enthusiasm for the war in Afghanistan ("Afpak," as they prefer) 
needs to be exposed and condemned.  It began as a war of aggression, 
unsanctioned by the UN.  In 2001 the USG rejected the attempts by the government 
of Afghanistan to negotiate about Osama bin Laden, because it wanted to kill 
people in the wake of 9/11 (and pursue its general policy of control of the 
Middle East).

"There is no 'honorable solution' to a war of aggression -- the 'supreme 
international crime' that differs from other war crimes in that it encompasses 
all the evil that follows, in the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal ... We can 
only seek the least awful solution. In doing so, we should bear in mind some 
fundamental principles, among them, that aggressors have no rights, only 
responsibilities.  The responsibilities are to pay enormous reparations for the 
harm they have caused, to hold the criminals responsible accountable, and to pay 
close attention to the wishes of the victims." (Noam Chomsky, writing 
specifically about Iraq, but of course the point generalizes.)

Reparations will hardly be forthcoming for the harm we've done Afghanistan; the 
criminals responsible -- the leaders of the Bush administration -- will probably 
escape scot-free; but the "wishes of the victims" in Afghanistan can now hardly 
be in doubt: the immediate and complete withdrawal of the US and NATO.  (Perhaps 
only those in the comprador regime that the US installed will disagree -- and 
perhaps not all of them.)

Two acute analyses appeared today from informed observers, one left-liberal and 
the other radical.  They come to remarkably similar conclusions.  (Note that the 
discussion is being carried on in the British, not the US, press.)

First, Anatol Lieven, writing in the Financial Times, observes "every plan that 
the west makes should be formulated with eventual and complete withdrawal in 
mind. We need to start serious negotiations with the Taliban leadership now ... 
Any hope either of a settlement, or of containing an Afghan civil war after the 
west's withdrawal, also depends critically on Afghanistan's neighbours. Iran and 
Pakistan in the first instance, Russia, India and China in the next should be 
fully involved in all plans for Afghanistan's future, their vital interests in 
the country recognised and diplomatic attention devoted to trying to forge a 
regional consensus. We must avoid actions in Afghanistan that destabilise and 
alienate those neighbours -- such as the US air strike across the border that 
has just killed 11 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan will be critical to 
Afghanistan's stability long after the west has left the region."

Next, Tariq Ali, in the Guardian: "There are at least two routes out of the 
Khyber impasse. The first and the worst would be to Balkanise the country ... 
The second alternative would require a withdrawal of all US/Nato forces, either 
preceded or followed by a regional pact to guarantee Afghan stability for the 
next ten years. Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia could guarantee and support a 
functioning national government, pledged to preserving the ethnic and religious 
diversity of Afghanistan and creating a space in which all its citizens can 
breathe, think and eat every day. It would need a serious social and economic 
plan to rebuild the country and provide the basic necessities for its people..."

Which brings us back to US reparations.  But of course the involvement of 
Afghanistan's neighbors is precisely what the US doesn't want (except on US 
terms): it violates the fundamental US policy, which will be continued by the 
incoming US administration, whether Republican or Democrat -- that the US must 
remain in control of the Middle East.

What is required is a major movement in this country that understands the 
connections of the US wars in the Middle East.  Obama, for example, said a year 
ago that "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won. The 
first step must be to ... take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan."

And in pursuit of that goal, Obama said that he would be prepared to order U.S. 
troops into Pakistan unilaterally if the Pakistani government failed to act on 
its own, and that he would shift the US military focus to Afghanistan and 
Pakistan.  As Ali and Lieven argue, that is directly the wrong solution. --CGE


Robert Naiman wrote:
> The unchallenged assumption that Afghanistan is "the good war" stifles
> debate necessary to reform policy. We need something like an
> "Afghanistan Study Group" to introduce the idea that public debate is
> permitted.
> 
>   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/what-about-afghanistan_b_106318.html
> 
>   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/10/144357/966/473/533462
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss