[Marxism] Afghanistan: Not a 'good war'

[Eli Stephens <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A PSL editorial: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11305

On Oct. 7, 2001, the Bush administration began its murderous bombing
of Afghanistan, dropping 5,000-pound bombs on nearly every major town
and city in the country. The Taliban quickly retreated from their seat
of power in Kabul to the countryside, where they have put up steady and
ever-growing resistance to U.S. and NATO ground troops. 
Seven-and-a-half years later, the U.S. military has in Afghanistan
yet another quagmire. They are faced with two choices: to commit more
troops and expand the occupation of Afghanistan or to seek a deal with
elements of the resistance. The latter option—which is the Pentagon’s
current pacification strategy in Iraq—would be perceived widely as a
defeat for U.S. imperialism, and would fail to produce a client regime
in Kabul. This option has been officially taken off the table, and only
a few dissident ruling class voices dare advocate for it. 

Instead, the U.S. ruling class has rallied around a plan to
intensify the warfare in Afghanistan. They are hoping for a decisive
blow to destroy and demoralize the Afghani resistance, and then impose
their will through "diplomatic" means. In reality, it is the same
strategy that Israel just tried—unsuccessfully—in Gaza.
On the campaign trail, Obama heavily promoted a plan to draw troops
away from Iraq and send an additional two combat brigades, about 7,000
troops, into Afghanistan. Now the proposed number has quadrupled, a
"surge" equaling Bush’s 2007 "surge" in Iraq. Undoubtedly, the Pentagon
is hoping to utilize Obama’s popularity—among liberal forces in
particular—to reinvigorate support for the war on Afghanistan. Indeed,
Obama and the Democratic Party establishment have gone to great lengths
to cast it as the "good war" to protect the United States from
terrorism.
But the war on Afghanistan is nothing but a cruel manipulation of
those who lost their lives in the World Trade Center. The
neoconservatives in the Bush administration saw in it an opportunity to
forcibly reconfigure Central Asia—an area of tremendous wealth in
natural resources and a key strategic point for some of the world’s
most important oil pipelines. The Democrats supported Bush every step
of the way.
In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the war-mongers
in Washington promoted a patriotic fervor to isolate anti-war critics.
In that difficult climate, the traditional "peace" organizations sat on
their hands with nothing to say. Only the ANSWER Coalition emerged as a
political force willing to organize against the phony "war on terror,"
mobilizing an anti-war protest of 25,000 in Washington, DC just two
weeks after the World Trade Center attacks. 
United for Peace and Justice—which emerged to counter ANSWER’s
popularity in the early days of the anti-Iraq war movement—has shied
away from any issues that would signal a definitive break from the
Democratic establishment. It is for this reason that the UFPJ
leadership opposes the Palestinian right to return and have long
refused to call for an immediate end to the occupation of Afghanistan.
They instead urged a "surge in diplomacy" to "press for a multilateral
regional effort at stabilization" and "prevent an escalation" of the
war. In calling for a vague "rapid withdrawal" in the future—without
defining "rapid"—they repeatedly mimicked the deceptive phrases of the
ruling class.
The Dec. 12-14, 2008, UFPJ convention supposedly passed a resolution
to finally embrace the slogan of immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Yet a month later, the UFPJ website states, "Whatever our views on the
U.S. military in Afghanistan, an escalation will mean more casualties."
This ambiguity—leaving the door wide open to the possibility that the
U.S. occupation has a constructive role to play in Afghanistan—is not
accidental. Just this month, the Communist Party-USA, a leading
organization in UFPJ that has backed every Democratic presidential
candidate in the last 60 years, wrote, "We must continue to support
diplomacy [in Afghanistan] as well as discuss real international
intervention in their country’s on-going battle with religious
fundamentalists."
No, this is precisely what we must not do. It is not up to the U.S.
anti-war movement to decide the political destiny of an occupied
people. The Taliban is a reactionary religious-political grouping that
came to power in the mid-1990s following the 13-year CIA-sponsored war
to overthrow the socialist government set up in Afghanistan’s 1978
revolution. But the struggle there must be waged by the Afghan people
on Afghan soil. Our responsibility here is large, but simple: to demand
an immediate end to the occupation. All talk of "international
intervention" or combating "fundamentalists" obscures the real aims of
the war, plays into imperialist propaganda, and is a violation of the
Afghan people’s basic right to self-determination. Clearly, it is again
up to the anti-imperialist forces to confront the mythology of the
Afghanistan war. On March 21, we will march on the Pentagon and take up
that challenge.



_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu