By Kenneth J. Theisen
Remember Afghanistan? The Bush regime used to brag about the “success”
there in the so-called “war on terrorism.” But success in Afghanistan
seems to be illusory for U.S. Imperialism. Similar to Bush’s
declaration of “mission accomplished” in reference to Iraq in 2003,
Bush’s recurring claims of “progress” in Afghanistan belie the
difficulties facing the U.S. there.
There are approximately 31,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with
thousands of more NATO troops also on the ground. Between now and
November this year about 3,500 additional U.S. Marines will be deployed
to Afghanistan. But look for a further increase in troop levels. On
Friday, April 4th Secretary of War Robert Gates told reporters that the
Bush regime intends to send more combat troops to Afghanistan in 2009
in an escalation of the war there. He made this revelation while flying
to Oman from a NATO summit.
Gates said that President Bush had pledged the troop increase to other allied leaders at the NATO summit this week. The Bush regime has been pressing other NATO countries to increase their troop levels in Afghanistan and apparently Bush believes that this announcement will increase pressure to do so. In at least one instance it worked. Bush praised France at the summit after French leaders announced that they will send about 700 hundred more combat troops to Afghanistan this year.
Democrat complicity
Since the Bush administration is scheduled to leave office in January of 2009 how can it pledge to increase troop levels when it will no longer be in power? Gates had an answer, ”The question arises, you know, how could he say that about 2009? And ” — all I would say is that I believe this — “, I believe that this is one area where there is very broad bipartisan support in the United States for being successful. And I think that no matter who is elected president, they will want to be successful in Afghanistan. So I think this was a pretty safe thing for him to say.”
The two remaining Democratic candidates would seem to agree. Senator Barack Obama seems to view Afghanistan as the right war. On March 15, 2007 on the Today Show he said, “Unfortunately, we’ve become so focused on the situation in Iraq, that I think we have ended up being distracted, particularly in Afghanistan”if you look at what’s happening in Afghanistan now, you are seeing the Taliban resurgent, you are seeing al-Qaida strengthen itself. We have not followed through on the good starts we made in Afghanistan, partly because we took so many resources out and put them in Iraq. I think it is very important for us to begin a planned redeployment from Iraq, including targeting Afghanistan.” On August 13, 2007 at a campaign stop in New Hampshire Obama stated, “We’ve got to get the job done there [Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.” On the campaign trail Obama has consistently emphasized his belief that more effort has to be devoted to “winning” in Afghanistan.
And where does Hillary stand on “winning” the war in Afghanistan? On April 1, 2008 she stated, “the NATO summit must yield tangible benefits for success on the forgotten front line in Afghanistan. Today, we lack a coherent diplomatic strategy and an integrated political, economic, and military plan to prevail. NATO must play its proper role in Afghanistan. Individual nations should move to eliminate restrictions they have placed on their forces operating in Afghanistan. Countries unable to contribute more forces should increase assistance to Afghanistan.” On her campaign website on March 6, 2008 it was written, “Today, Hillary pledged to make Afghanistan her highest security priority after Iraq, and outlined her agenda for winning the war in Afghanistan” As President she will”be prepared to send additional American troops to Afghanistan as part of a stronger, larger NATO effort.” Gates appears to have judged correctly that even the Democratic candidates want “success” in Afghanistan.
[I will not address McSame’s views on Afghanistan here other than mentioning that as far back as 2005 he said he was committed to a “strategic partnership that we believe must endure for many, many years. Not only because of our appreciation of Afghanistan, but also we believe there will be vital national security interests in this region for a long time.” McCain also called for the establishment of permanent military bases in Afghanistan.]
More, More, & More
While Gates did not specify any actual numbers, the current U.S. senior commander in Afghanistan, General Dan McNeill has specified that he needs at least three more brigades or about 7,500 to 10,000 additional troops. McNeil is scheduled to be replaced soon by General David McKiernan who appears to be onboard as to the escalation of the war. On April 3rd, McKiernan appeared before Congress stating that he requires additional combat and aviation forces, more intelligence and surveillance capabilities, and more training forces.
In a virtual admission that the U.S. is in trouble in Afghanistan, earlier this week the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, stated that there are not enough troops there to ensure any advances by U.S. forces can be held. While the U.S. with it superior fire power can win battles, it is unable to “hold ground” afterward. According to Mullen, ”We’ve had significant impact there, but we don’t have enough forces there to hold in what is a classic counterinsurgency.” In other words, the opposing forces retreat in the face of overwhelming firepower and then return when the U.S. forces withdraw. This is increasingly clear in Southern Afghanistan, a stronghold of the Taliban. Taliban forces actually rule in many areas and the Afghanistan puppet forces can not move in these areas without U.S. support.
U.S. “Winning” in Afghanistan is Against the Interests of the People world
It is clear that the Bush regime is intent on achieving “success” and “winning” in Afghanistan. So are Obama and Clinton. But success and a win for U.S. imperialism is not in the interests of the people of Afghanistan or the world. The U.S. did not invade Afghanistan to bring freedom and democracy to the Afghan people. It certainly was not about freeing women from the oppressive yoke of the Taliban. The years since the invasion in 2001 have not brought freedom, democracy or equal rights for women to the Afghan people. They have brought death, destruction, and untold misery to this war-torn nation. Women are still at the bottom of society. Drug warlords rule in much of the countryside. The people are in the midst of a war between the reactionary forces of U.S. imperialism and its allies and the reactionary forces of the Taliban and its allies. No good will come from a U.S. victory, except for the U.S. imperialists. Ending this war is in the interests of the people, but do not expect it to happen with Bush, Hillary, or Barack as president.
Ken Theisen is a veteran activist of movements opposing
U.S. imperialism, its wars and domination of countries throughout the world,
and an advocate against domestic violence in the San Francisco Bay
Area.