Obama, Afghanistan & American Imperialism
More US troops have been killed in Afghanistan
than Iraq in the past several months. The Imperialist
Obama will intensify his call for shifting the
"war on terror" to Afghanistan, including the invasion
of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province
US Out of Afghanistan! [Source]
Nine US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan this week in a major attack attributed to the Taliban.
More US troops have been killed in Afghanistan than Iraq in the past several months.
We can expect as a result that the Democrats and their Presidential candidate Obama will intensify their calls for shifting the "war on terror" to Afghanistan, where it should never have been abandoned for the invasion of Iraq.
We will hear talk of attacking Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, even calls for invasion, I suspect.
Given the support for Obama by a significant sector of the anti-war movement, confusion about how to respond is sure to be noticeable.
In order to have some clarity on the question, a little research is necessary. For example, what about that Afghan-Pakistani border? Where did it come from?
Per usual for this part of the world, we find that the British had a hand in setting up the Durand Line, which separates Afghanistan and Pakistan's borders.
This border crosses the territory of the Pashtun people, some 42 million of them, a population much bigger than that of Iraq.
The Durand Line was declared invalid by the 1949 Afghan Loya Jirga, but has been given legitimacy by court rulings upholding colonial divisions of territories across the globe.
There has been and still is a movement for a Pashtunistan nation.
So when we hear stories from the corporate press about the Taliban violating borders, let's keep the above in mind.
And when we hear denunciations of the Taliban, universally supposed to be the devils incarnate and sponsors of Al Qaeda, let's remember that for the Pashtun people, it is very likely that repelling the foreign invaders, whether from the US, Afghan, or Pakistani government, is a far likelier motivator for war than the religious theories of a particular Islamic sect.
More US troops in Afghanistan will change nothing. There is not going to be any solution in the lands of the Pashtun coming from foreign occupiers.
Given the Pashtun code of honor, that demands retribution for unjust attacks, US escalation will only see increased resistance in response.
As we have just seen in the deaths of nine Americans.
The demand of the anti-war movement for Afghanistan should be no different than Iraq. US Out!
Obama Will Expand America's Imperial Reach [Source]
You know the old saying, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”? That axiom can be applied to occupation; no matter what we may call it, an occupation by any other name is still an occupation, still an act of imperialist domination of another country.
That’s why I’ve never understood the logic of so-called “progressives” in the Democratic Party who claim to want to end the occupation of Iraq so that we can send more troops to bolster the occupation of Afghanistan.
I suppose that’s part of looking strong on national security. If you won’t support the occupation of one country, you’ve got to be twice as supportive of the occupation of another.
That’s exactly what Barack Obama is suggesting. In an op-ed for The New York Times, Obama says he wants to withdraw combat troops from Iraq - which, by the way, would not end the occupation - so that the United States can send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan:
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven.In other words, Obama wants to turn Afghanistan into the new Iraq. Rather than continuing to fight Bush’s war, he wants Obama’s war in Afghanistan. And that’s exactly what he’ll get.Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.
We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.
I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
The history of European imperialism teaches us one important lesson about empire: the people under occupation don’t like it. The reason al-Qaeda exists in Iraq is the invasion and occupation.
It gave al-Qaeda room to breathe, because Iraqis suffering under the occupation began looking for someone, anyone, even al-Qaeda, who could help them resist the occupation of their land.
If Obama really wants to undermine the Taliban, increased American presence in Afghanistan isn’t the way to do it. He will never undermine the Taliban with bombs and guns.
Every child killed, every mother who cries, every father who wants revenge is another asset to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Continuing our occupation there, let alone strengthening it, will only create the same kind of breathing room for our enemies that we created by invading and occupying Iraq.
It will drive ordinary Afghanis into the ranks of al-Qaeda. It is completely counterproductive, if our true goal is stopping the spread of terrorism rather than imposing our imperial will on the world.
It’s nonsense. It’s ending a war to make another war more violent. It has no relationship to the peace movement that has consistently called for an end to the Iraqi occupation.
And, I might add, Obama is not really talking about ending the Iraq War. Juan Cole (Informed Comment) points out that Obama would keep residual forces in Mesopotamia, which is still a continuation of the occupation.
It’s time for progressives to repudiate this false peacemaking and insist upon true and lasting peace.
