[Peace-discuss] urging the President not to send more troops to Afghanistan

Wed Oct 7 15:34:13 CDT 2009

"Invading armies have no rights, only responsibilities. Among them are
the responsibility to pay reparations for their crimes, and to hold the guilty 
[viz., those who directed the war] accountable. A crucial responsibility is to 
pay careful attention to the will of the victims." --Noam Chomsky

===

"Britain and the US should halt their 'surge' into Afghanistan, cease fire, 
withdraw to their bases, draw down troops and allow a national reconciliation 
process to take place. The future of the Afghan people must be determined 
according to the wishes of the Afghan people."

	What Do Afghans Want? Withdrawal -- But
	Not Too Fast -- and A Negotiated Peace
	By Milan Rai, October 7, 2009

In his major speech on Afghanistan on 4 September, British Prime Minister Gordon 
Brown emphasized Britain's self interest in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan: 
'We are in Afghanistan as a result of a hard-headed assessment of the terrorist 
threat facing Britain.' In this, he was only following the lead of US President 
Barack Obama, who launched his new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan at 
the end of March with the warning that: 'if the Afghan government falls to the 
Taliban - or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a 
base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can'.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the President often speak of the wishes of the 
Afghan people. But these wishes, so far as they can be known, ought to be at the 
centre of British policy.

What we know is that the majority of people in Afghanistan (77%) want an end to 
the airstrikes that have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan 
civilians. We also know that the majority of Afghans (64%) want a negotiated end 
to the conflict, and are willing to accept the creation of a coalition 
government including the Taliban leadership.

We also know that a majority of Afghans oppose the Obama surge that is 
increasing the number of foreign troops in the country. 73% of Afghans think 
that US-led forces in the country should either be decreased in number (44%) or 
'kept at the current level' (29%). Only 18% of Afghans favour an increase.

Fear of the Taliban

These are the results of a nationwide poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News 
(USA) and ARD (Germany), in which 1,534 Afghans were interviewed in all of the 
country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009.

The poll found enormous hostility to the Taliban. 82% of people said they would 
prefer the present government; only 4% favoured a Taliban government. 90% of 
people said they opposed Taliban fighters. The Taliban were seen as the biggest 
danger to the country by 58% of people; the United States was in fourth place 
with 8% (just ahead of 'local commanders' - a euphemism for US-backed warlords).

'Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?' 
The Taliban came top with 27%; al-Qa'eda/foreign jihadis were next with 22%. In 
third place were 'US/American forces/Bush/US government/America/NATO/ISAF 
forces' with 21%.

69% of people thought it was a good thing that the US-led forces had come to 
Aghanistan to bring down the Taliban. (Down from 88% in 2006.)

64% of Afghans thought (in January 2009) that 'The Taliban are the same as 
before', and had not grown more moderate.

Negotiate now

Despite all this, a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should 
negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold 
political offices if they agree to stop fighting'. However, Afghans favoured 
preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if 
the Taliban stop fighting'.

64% of British people also think 'America and Britain be willing to talk to the 
Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a peace deal'. (Sunday Times, 15 
March 2009)

Talks are only meaningful if the other side is willing to play their part. It 
seems, in the case of Afghanistan, that there is serious interest in a national 
reconciliation process on the part of the Taliban and the Karzai administration 
- but that these negotiations are being blocked by the United States and 
Britain, who are determined to achieve a military victory.

The Taliban position

The Taliban's current demands were set out in a New York Times article on 20 
May: 'The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign 
forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the 
country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced 
by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including 
those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers 
would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim 
nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack 
such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.'

A negotiator said the Taliban leaders also added two more conditions: an end to 
the drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas, and the release of some Taliban 
prisoners.

Taliban softening?

On 2 April, the Independent reported that preliminary talks between Afghan 
President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban seemed to have 'yielded a significant 
shift away from the Taliban's past obsession with repressive rules and 
punishments governing personal behaviour.'

It was said that the Taliban were now prepared to commit themselves to 
'refraining from banning girls' education, beating up taxi drivers for listening 
to Bollywood music, or measuring the length of mens' beards.'

Burqas would be 'strongly recommended' for women in public, but not be compulsory.

The Taliban's wider political demands appear to have also softened considerably 
since 2007, when they demanded 'control of 10 southern provinces, a timetable 
for withdrawal of foreign troops, and the release of all Taliban prisoners 
within six months'. (Guardian, 15 October 2007)

Withdrawal

The Taliban 18-month withdrawal schedule fits in with Afghan opinion. In the 
BBC/ABC/ARD poll, 21% of Afghans said US-led forces should leave immediately; 
16% said between 6 months and a year from now; and 14% within two years.

So 51% of Afghans want withdrawal within two years.

In May 2007, the upper house of the Afghan parliament voted for a military 
ceasefire and negotiations with the Taliban, and for a date to be set for the 
withdrawal of foreign troops. (AP, 10 May 2007)

A staged withdrawal also fits in with British opinion. In a Guardian/BBC 
Newsnight poll, published on 13 July, 42% of voters wanted British troops 
withdrawn immediately; and a further 14% wanted withdrawal "by the end of the 
year" (ie within five months). (36% of people said they should "stay until they 
are no longer needed".)

A Times poll published on 22 July showed that two-thirds of those polled 
believed that British troops should be withdrawn either now (34%) or (33%) 
'within the next year or so' (ie within 12 months).

So that's 56% wanting withdrawal within months, and 67% wanting withdrawal 
within a year.

A staged withdrawal also fits in with US public opinion. In a New York Times/CBS 
News poll, 55% of voters said US troops should be withdrawn within two years 
(31% said within one year). (24 September)

Replacement forces

The BBC/ABC/ARD poll showed that 63% of Afghans supported the presence of US 
troops in Afghanistan (but 77% wanted an end to airstrikes). Only 8% supported 
the presence of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

It seems that Afghans want an international presence in the country to prevent 
rule by the Taliban, who they fear and detest. That international presence ought 
to be supplied by independent forces uninvolved in the US-led invasion and 
occupation, and controlled by the UN General Assembly (rather than the 
US-dominated Security Council).

Conclusion

It is impossible to take the Taliban's position at face value - particularly on 
social controls - but there seems to be no alternative to a genuine negotiated 
solution to the Afghan conflict, in line with Afghan public opinion, Afghan 
parliamentary opinion, and British public opinion.

Britain and the US should halt their 'surge' into Afghanistan, ceasefire, 
withdraw to their bases, draw down troops and allow a national reconciliation 
process to take place. The future of the Afghan people must be determined 
according to the wishes of the Afghan people.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4005

--- On Wed Oct 7 2009 Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote

I rarely use litmus tests or interest myself in purity.  I just think we can 
call for withdrawal yesterday - and reparations - to make the point that by 
rights these things should happen.  When we get to the negotiations ;-) we can 
compromise a bit.

But it also depends on our immediate objective.  We could also focus on 
reminding folks of the vote on "orderly and rapid" withdrawal in a public way - 
as well as other similar votes around the country - and Tim Johnson's statement 
election night that the American people wouldn't tolerate much more - and how 
long ago that was.

--- On Wed, 10/7/09, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know if you meant to do this, but I wouldn't set "immediate
withdrawal" as a litmus test for purity.

The Taliban have called for an 18th month timetable for the withdrawal
of foreign troops.

When we asked Champaign-Urbana voters to support withdrawal from Iraq,
I think the formulation was "orderly and rapid."

 > --- On Wed, Oct 7 2009, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
 >
 > The point is, we can write in favor of complete and immediate withdrawal. 
And > we can organize a rally around that. Are we still doing those "Public 
Square" > comments?
 >
 > --- On Wed, 10/7/09, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
 >
 >     The Suffocatingly Narrow Afghanistan 'Debate'
 >     by Glenn Greenwald
 >
 > Washington Post, September 21, 2009:
 >
 >    "McChrystal's assessment, in the view of two senior administration
 > officials, is just 'one input' in the White House's decision-making process.
 > The president, another senior administration official said, 'has embarked on a
 > very, very serious review of all options.'"
 >
 > Associated Press, October 5, 2009:
 >
 >    "The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is not considering
 > a strategy for Afghanistan that would withdraw U.S. troops from the eroding
 > war there."
 >
 > Apparently, "all options" does not mean "all options."  As usual for American
 > wars, examining "all options" means everything other than "ending the war"...
 >
 >     Complete article at
 >     http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/07-8
 >     Published on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 by Salon.com