TIME TO FACE FACTS IN AFGHANISTAN
Toronto October 06, 2008
For those who savor historical irony, the Soviet Empire  collapsed in the years 1989-1991 because of an implosion of its economy brought on by a ruinous arms race with the United States and the heavy costs of occupying Afghanistan.
Seventeen years later came the turn of the world’s other great imperial power, the United States.  Lethally bloated by runaway debt, and burdened by 50% of the world’s military spending, the house of cards known as the US economy finally collapsed.
 
The doomsday news from New York and Washington has obscured most other world affairs.  This is unfortunate because for the first time there is a flicker – and I mean only a flicker – of light at the end of the Afghanistan tunnel. It may only be an oncoming truck bomb. 
 
The US-installed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, revealed last week he had  asked Saudi Arabia to broker peace talks with the alliance of tribal and political groups resisting Western occupation collectively known as Taliban.  Saudi Arabia had been one of the few nations to recognize the Taliban government and retains considerable influence in Afghanistan and remains a loyal friend of Pakistan.
 
Taliban leader Mullah Omar quickly rejected Karzai’s offer, and claimed the US was heading toward the same kind of catastrophic defeat in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union had met.  The ongoing financial panic in North America lent substance to his words. 
 
The US economy is in grave peril and its big three automakers may soon face bankruptcy.  In a crazy sidebar, as Wall Street and the US banking system faced meltdown,  the insouciant Pentagon just announced it would spend $300 million with American `contractors’ to spread pro-US propaganda in Iraq.   This remarkable idiocy notwithstanding, Washington could soon run out of money necessary to keep paying for operations in Iraq, and bribing Pakistan with $250-300 million a month to wage war against its own rebellious Pashtun tribespeople along the Afghanistan border.    
 
The able and forthright US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, urgently called for at least 10,000 more troops. US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are increasingly on the defensive, hard-pressed to defend vulnerable supply lines in spite of massive firepower and total control of the air. 
 
Attacks on US and NATO convoys are even beginning at the port of Karachi.  The prospect of the US spreading a war it can’t win in Afghanistan into Pakistan is military and political madness. 
 
Startlingly, Gen. McKiernan appeared to break with Bush administration policy by proposing political talks with Taliban and admitting the war had to be ended by diplomacy.  The military men know this war cannot be won on the battlefield. McKiernan’s predecessor told Congress that 400,000 US troops would be needed to pacify Afghanistan.  There are currently 80,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, many of them unwilling to enter combat.  
 
By sharp contrast, I recently asked Karl Rove, President Bush’s former senior advisor,  how the US could ever hope to win the war in Afghanistan.  His eyes dancing with imperial hubris, Rove brightly replied,  `More Predators(missile armed drones) and helicopters!  Then we’ll go into Pakistan.’  
 
Which reminded me of poet Hilaire Beloc’s wonderful line about 19th century British imperialism that I use in my new book, 'American Raj:’ `Whatever happens/we have got/the Maxim gun* /and they have not.’  
 
*Maxim gun – early machine gun
 
Though Karzai’s olive branch was rejected, the fact he made it public is very important.  By doing so, both he and Gen. McKiernan broke the simple-minded Western taboo against negotiations with Taliban and its allies. 
 
Let us remember that Taliban is not a `terrorist movement,’ as claimed by Western war propaganda, but was founded as an Islamic religious movement dedicated to fighting Communism and the drug trade.
 
Taliban received US funding until May 2001.  In fact, the CIA keep close contacts with Taliban, many of whose members were  US-backed mujahidin from the anti-Soviet war of the 1980s, for possible future use against the Communist regimes of Central Asia and against China.   The 9/11 attacks made CIA immediately cut its links to Taliban and burn the associated files.
 
In recent years, Western war propaganda has so demonized Taliban that few politicians have the courage to propose the obvious and inevitable: a negotiated settlement to this pointless seven-year war.  A noteworthy exception came last April when NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,  admitted the war could only be ended by negotiations, not military means.
 
The Karzai government cannot extend its authority beyond Kabul because that would mean overthrowing the very same Uzbek and Tajik drug-dealing warlords and Communist chiefs that are its base of power. There is no real Afghan national army, just a bunch of unenthusiastic mercenaries who pretend to fight.  
 
The current war in Afghanistan is not really about al-Qaida and `terrorism,’ but about opening a secure corridor through Pashtun tribal territory to export the oil and gas riches of the Caspian Basin of Central Asia  to the West.  The US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are essentially pipeline protection troops fighting off the hostile natives..   
 
Both Barack Obama and John McCain are wrong about Afghanistan.  It is not a `good’ fight against `terrorism,’ but a classic, 19th-century colonial war to advance Western geopolitical power into resource-rich Central Asia.  The Pashtun Afghans who live there are ready to fight for another 100 years.  The Western powers certainly are not.
 
As that great American founding father Benjamin Franklin said, `there is no good war, and no bad peace.’   Time for the West to face reality in Afghanistan.
Shazam
Monday, October 06, 2008 12:29 PM
The blunt statement from Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith - "We're not going to win this war" - came just days after a leaked diplomatic cable hinted that the British ambassador in Kabul has a similarly dark forecast. The brigadier suggested that a negotiated settlement will be necessary.

Speaking to The Sunday Times, Brig. Carleton-Smith said a "decisive military victory" is not feasible and that NATO should lower its expectations about the outcome of the war. "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."

Only Harper and Bush say "No" to negotiations, implying the eradication of an enemy is the only way to win a war. Genocide Mr. Harper? I not surprised by the attitude of this headstrong bully - he and Bush are cut from the same zealot clothe.
Ivica Zrinski
Monday, October 06, 2008 12:53 PM
I wonder if Russia will come to the aid of the US after the melt-down. The US sent billions of dollars to Moscow in the early 90's after imperial Russia broake apart. This was just after the USSR military forces were forced to leave Afghanistan after a decade of fighting with absolutely no gain.

Do our leaders think that the lessons of history do not apply to them? I propose that our leaders begin to do what is best for the many instead of what is good for the few, namely big business and special interest groups.
Truthseeker
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:17 PM
Russia's broke itself, how could it send AID to the U.S.A. Ironically it was the U.S.A who bankrupted Russia. Also the U.S sent AID to Boris Yestlin its new stooge, who allowed Pro Anglo American zionist Oligrarchs to literally own Russia. Putin Jailed all those oligarchs hence the recent bad blood.
Market Socialist
Monday, October 06, 2008 2:41 PM
Much has been made of Canada'sinvolvment in Afghanistan and how Mr. Harper is i lock step with Mr. Bush. This, however, negates the fact that it was Jean Chretien, Liberal PM, that got us into Afghanistan. In fact Canada' version of the Patriot Act was passed quicker by us than by the US. Mr. Harper has promised a 2011 widthdrawl date from Afghanistian, I hope that he keeps his word.
Shazam
Monday, October 06, 2008 3:40 PM
Canada has a Patriot Act?
ar123
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:20 PM
True, Jean Chretien did send troops to Afghanistan; possibly under extreme pressure from GWB. It is important to remember that they were the Provincial Reconstruction Team [PRT] with NO COMBAT ROLE. Paul Martin succumbed to Bush pressure & changed their mandate to combat -its been downhill for Canada since.
Canada's Patriot Act equivalent only passed as it had a 5 year sunset clause on suspension of habeas corpus.
Harper is willing to follow GWB to the gates of hell if required, to demonstrate his loyalty.
Rampart
Monday, October 06, 2008 3:04 PM
There is no real Afghan national army, just a bunch of unenthusiastic mercenaries who pretend to fight.

Please watch this video of Afghan army training.

www.shrunklink.com/bcfg

These guys are going to be great fighters! I just know it!

And Margolis, this second video is for you specially. I know you will enjoy since you know us Pathans well. One can see what will become of NATO and US in Afghanistan.

www.shrunklink.com/bcff
westslope
Monday, October 06, 2008 3:34 PM
I just listened to your excellent interview with Bill Good of CKNW radio here in Vancouver, British Columbia.

I agree strongly with your analysis. I would simpy add that declining oil prices contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It also appears that bin Laden and his merry band of low-budget box-cutter terrorists have won in their objective of economically destroying the USA. The USA and her allies allowed this lamentable state of affairs to happen.

The one bright light on the horizon is that the prospects for solving the Palestinian-Israeli impasse seem better now than at that any time in the recent past. Israel could ultimately benefit considerably from secure access to Syrian oil and natural gas.
Shazam
Monday, October 06, 2008 3:45 PM
Westslop, I appreciate your optimism re: Israel-Palestine but the fundamentalists who control Israel via their proportionate voting system will never swap land for peace, regardless of the ethics, morals, karma, or international law. Possession is 9/10ths of their law. It is the Zionist fundamentalists who are stinking up the mideast. Yet we only hear about the need to crack down on Mulsim extremists whose rage is fueled by Israeli control of the US and the Zionist fundamentalists' control of Isreal. I hope you are correct to have such optimism.
Gazing
Monday, October 06, 2008 6:45 PM
Hi Westslop and Shazam it thought this might be of some interest to you

http://www.brasstacks.pk/research.aspx
westslope
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:28 PM
Shazam,

Optimism is difficult, believe me. Another factor that weighs on this conflict is the role of digital technology and web-based news transmission. North American diaspora Jews are finding it increasingly difficult to control the flow of news and anlysis to North Americans.

In addition, Israel did lose the battle for Gaza, and Hamas cannot be wiped off the face of the earth. At some point, Israel must seriously negotiate with Hamas. Furthermore, Hezbollah is much more sophisticated, politically and militarily, than it has been in the past.

Perhaps of just passing curiosity, but during the last Intifada II, many highly educated, talented Israeli Jews emmigrated to Canada and set up shop. From a modern, sophisticated economic welfare perspective, the Israelis are the big losers in the on-going occupation and conflict based on an 'opportunity cost' perspective. It seems that increasingly large numbers of the Israeli elite are coming to that recognition.
Shazam
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:09 AM
For a real life lesson in Zionist Settler politics, see Jonathan Cooke's articles at:

http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0336.htm#Top
and
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0337.htm#Top
jimreed
Monday, October 06, 2008 7:53 PM
Is there any basis for the rumour floating around that Abdul Salim Zaeef and others shared an iftar meal with the Saudi King?
Wes
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:37 AM
Although I agree that morally the entire war is unjust, I would like to point out some issues here.

The Taliban are not a bunch of groups caught under one umbrella, there are many militia's (that's how many "governors" were selected for office). As well there is not 80,000 troops in Afghanistan. Check the NATO web site. Similarly Karzai has been trying to get the Taliban to the table for over three years now and in some cases they have come, but always they have bargained in bad faith as demonstrated in Helmend two and a half years ago (with the Brits).

As for the regions resources i don't think it is as cut and dry as this article claims. The strategic value is in a pipe line route to supply natural gas to exploding consumer populations in Pakistan and India. The original deal was actually made with the Taliban, inked in the U.S some time in the late 90's. As for Pakistan; Saudi Arabia is not a loyal friend to them. Saudi Arabia is the defacto leader and figure head of the Muslim world. Karzai asking for their help is being humble trying to use some of Saudi Arabia's moral authority.

As for 400,000 being the popular number to throw around, the same was said for Iraq. Now that forces are being drawn down in that neck of the woods it would appear that the "analysts" were wrong. As is the case in Afghanistan, the U.S commander asked for five brigades (roughly 25,000) not almost half of a million. That is not to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are not very expensive and long resource intensive operations, but it is apples to oranges comparing it to the failed Soviet invasion.

One has to keep in mind that the Soviets were an undisciplined conscript army full of corruption, second rate equipment and third rate soldiers. The Soviets were used to flying around shooting unarmed or barely armed Afghans in the desert. Once the Afghans were armed the Soviets fell apart. Conversely the western forces currently operating in Afghanistan are well trained volunteer armies. Although Margolis is right with regards to the caveats in place with some contingents, NATO is not being pushed around.

It is no secret that the NATO end state is short of total victory because it is next to impossible. The current aim is to contain the insurgency and leave when the Afghans are able to fight on their own with a reasonable civil and governmental infrastructure.
Vierotchka
Thursday, October 09, 2008 6:32 AM
Actually, the Taliban refused the pipeline deal - they were told "either you accept a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs". It is because of this refusal that the Afghan war was planned in June 2001 for mid-October 2001 at the latest. The US army was already largely in place for the invasion before 9/11. We were lied to about Afghanistan just as we were lied to about Iraq.
akbar
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:51 PM
Get Out Of Afghanistan

Once there may have been a mission
Maybe even a humanitarian position
But now it’s blind leading the blind
And that certainly is no vision

Good intentions- we may even mean well
From our actions it’s hard to tell
With good intentions the saying goes
Is paved the road to hell

We have lost all moral ground
Our arguments are no longer sound
All that needs to be done now
Is a face saving exit be found

The Afghan nation is bleeding
Their poor people are pleading
For God’s sake stop this insanity
Towards doom why are we speeding?

There may be some good in what we do
But the killings the gore comes through
The mission we hail is doomed to fail
The world understands why don’t you?

On pretext of humanitarian aid
The villages and towns we raid
Civilians die, casualties are sky high
What heavy price we have paid

Our lofty goals of development
Have caused a great detriment
One hand builds, the other destroys
The action often belies the intent

We know neither their language nor culture
Not having learnt from the past, ignore the future
Though grandiose aim, our guns kill and maim
For us this just another third world adventure

So let us get out of Afghanistan
As fast as we possibly can
Not tomorrow but today we must
Stop all this killing now man
ar123
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:38 PM
Akbar, thanks for your poignant expression in verse. Bravo!
I'd just like to add another piece to it written over a century ago:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!"

--- The Young British Soldier, RUDYARD KIPLING
anarchris
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:04 PM
hey eric the nato site says 50,000 in Afghanistan and your article says 80, 000. could you clarify why the difference? thanks
oldfan1
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:10 PM
hey anachris, could you please clarify how the difference in numbers would matter to this discussion or enhance your understanding of the issues involving Afghanistan. I am presuming ofcourse that their is an earnest desire on your part.
rayyan
Thursday, October 09, 2008 6:10 AM
I'd like to disagree about one thing with Mr. Margolis.What brought the USSR down
was not the costly arms race with the US or the War against
the Afghani Mujahideen.The person who is responsible for
dismanteling the Soviet Empire was Mikhail Gorbachev who
supported "glasnost" and "perestroyka".Freedom of expression led
to the diffrent natinalities of the Soviet Union demanding independence and
secession..The Red Army didn't intervene to crush these voices..In China
When "Pro-Democracy Agents" tried to demonstrate ,they had the Chinese Tanks
in their faces( in Tianinmin Square).This act preseved China which is
destined to become the main rival to the US or as the neo-cons would like to
coin it :the chief "peer competetor"..


Economic difficulties don't generally cause Emipres to disintegrate.Why didn't Red China
break up during the difficult years and famines of the "Great leap forward" or the
"Cultural Revolution"?Why didn't the US fall down
during the 1929 "Great Depression"?

Also during the Yeltsin "democratic" Presidency ,the mainly Russian Jewish
Oligarchs literally robbed the Country turning the majority of Russians into Paupers
and the Slavic women into "white sex slaves"..During the times of the Soviet Union ,the Russians
didn't enjoy expensive luxeries but had top free eductional facilities
and generally good - and totally free - health sevices..


Ronald Reagan's SDI(Star Wars) was a hoax.The US was never able of providing
a defensive shield against thousands of Soviet Thermo Nuclear warheads..


Moreover,it turned out that the Soviet Union had one of the biggest energy reseves(Caspian,Central
Asia,Siberia) at a time when Western Scholars knew very well about the
"hubbard Oil peak" and the Scarcity of Oil Reseves in the world..(Today,if Russia turns off the Natural
Gas tap,the Germans would freeze..Imagine the Clout of the Soviet Emire had the Vast Oil
reserves of Central Asia and the Caspian remained in their hands)

Had someone like Andropov or Stalin been in place of Gorbacheve ,the Soviet Union
and the Warsaw Pact would surely have been still alive and kicking..
Vierotchka
Thursday, October 09, 2008 6:37 AM
Good point about the Cold War. Nobody won or lost it. This video of Jack Matlock lays it out succinctly and accurately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ0gHKV3ONo
Peggy Mason
Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:00 AM
Fantastic article. The only thing missing is reference to Kai Eide, the UN envoy to Afghanistan and his call for a “political surge” to restore stability to the insurgency-wracked nation through negotiation and dialogue rather than military operations. Speaking with reporters in Kabul, Mr Eide said: “We all know that we cannot win [this conflict] militarily. It has to be won through political means – and that means political engagement. “Then comes a question: with whom do you engage? My general answer is that if you want to have relevant results, you must speak to those who are relevant. If you want to have results that matter, you must speak to those who matter.” (excerpt from UN news release of October 6th)

Steve
Friday, October 10, 2008 12:06 PM
Two things come to mind. First, regarding the Maxim gun, it is ironic how so many times advances in weapons technology are promoted and sold on the basis of saving lives. This was Gattling's hope, that his gun would so horrify everyone that war would become unthinkable. One has to wonder what he would make of the rotary cannon mounted in the nose of the A10 Warhog.

Then there's the matter of war itself. Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, said it quite succinctly -- war is a racket. All the blather about promoting democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is just a smoke screen to disguise the real intention, which is to corner the oil and thus control the world.

If the United States succeeds in bankrupting itself on these fools errands at least the errands will be stopped. Wouldn't it be so much better accomplished without the bankruptcy? Greed is such a strong motivator...
Kevin Sager
Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:04 AM
I wish liberals weren't brainwashed with this notion that Afghanistan is the "Good War," a noble crusade they think they can win, as opposed to Iraq, which is the "Bad War."

Also, I like this new format, can't wait to read the older columns fron the early 90's and 80's.
Rampart
Saturday, October 11, 2008 3:56 PM
Eric's older stuff can be found here:

http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

Up to the end of 2000 at least.
admin.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:35 AM
Apologies to all! We are in the process of downloading ALL of Eric's past articles onto this site. Will be completed shortly! thank you...
Harmony
Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Bush started this war, not the "Liberals"! Liberals wanted to be part of a peacekeeping UN force. It was the Conservatives who have turned the Canadian involvement into mostly a war effort, doing the bidding of the US. The Cons are only dedicating 68 people to peacekeeping in Afghanistan! This is NOT what the Liberals intended. And remember, it was Harper who denounced Canada ("I'm ashamed of my country!") when he tried to convince the Liberal Chretien government to go to war in Iraq. The Liberals refused, to their great credit.

HARPER = WARMONGER Vote strategically to get Harper out at voteforenvironment.ca
Jonathan
Thursday, October 16, 2008 1:53 PM
Harmony has a point. But when the US military conquers a country and proceeds to set up a client government, and then asks its allies to send troops, what do you think that mission could possibly involve? What could "peacekeeping" mean in that circumstance? At the very best, if Chretien was still Canadian PM, the Canadian troops would be deployed in northern Afghanistan, away from most of the resistance forces, along with the Germans and other Europeans who did not dare refuse the US but had the good sense to fandangle their way off the front-line. A marginal improvement over the present situation? In the short term yes, but as the resistance forces become stronger throughout all of Afghanistan sooner or later the Canadians' role would be exposed as that of the Imperial auxiliary troops they always were.
There are currently 28 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category