The horrific loss of life in the war in Afghanistan should make it a major election issue. In this human catastrophe, tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have died since the war started in 2001. The war has also killed over 280 British soldiers, mostly young people, and over 1,400 other foreign troops.Last year it was estimated that the Afghan war had already cost people in Britain £12 billion - that's enough to build 23 new hospitals or employ 60,000 new teachers or 77,000 new nurses. And its future cost is projected to be at least £5 billion each year. This war is not being fought for the interests of ordinary Afghan people or for working-class people in Britain. It has not reduced, but increased, the threat of terrorist activity. The war is being waged for the power and prestige of imperialist powers in the west, especially the US. And, like other policies supported by the establishment parties, for the future profit of multinational corporations. Most parliamentary politicians' election slogan seems to be 'don't mention the war'. But 65% of people in a BBC opinion poll in Britain oppose the war - most people think it's unwinnable. Establishment politicians are trying to hide this bloodstained elephant in the living room. US President Obama has stepped up the war, thrusting 30,000 more US soldiers into the battle. He hopes for backing from other governments, but the war is making Afghanistan even less stable.
Afghan president Hamid Karzai 'won' last year's elections largely through fraud. Since then, his despised capitalist puppet regime has failed to take decisive action in a country where people still struggle to survive without access to clean water, electricity and other essential amenities. Karzai backs US action in areas held by the reactionary and repressive Taliban but Afghan people see the involvement of US and allied troops as akin to foreign occupation. So, caught between pressure from foreign governments to do their bidding, from regional leaders and warlords, and from the desperate mass of workers and poor people, Karzai even threatened to join the Taliban if the west keeps pressuring him to carry out reforms such as tackling corruption! The western powers are looking for alternatives to Karzai. But they cannot find non-corrupt alternatives who will be at their beck and call and help them salvage some stability from the war-torn country.
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, 16 April 2010
Monday, 5 April 2010
A decade of militaristic Labour aggression
For British politics, the defining moment of the last decade was not an election result or a policy announcement. It was February 15 2003, when over a million people marched through London to oppose the invasion of Iraq. It was the biggest demonstration in British history, but both Labour government and Tory opposition went ahead and launched a war without public support. This striking turn of events illustrates two key aspects of the last decade - a government pursuing a thoroughly militaristic agenda and a public resistant to going along with it. Tony Blair's attachment to militarism was a key characteristic of his premiership. The terrorists who murdered thousands in the World Trade Centre in 2001 hoped to provoke a war that would be seen as an assault on Islam. George Bush played right into their hands. Blair fell into line with sizeable but far from overwhelming public support for invading Afghanistan. While al-Qaida was known to be a loose network, the media spoke as if it were a global conspiracy. Bush and Blair announced the "war on terror." It didn't work. Attempts to secure public support for invading Iraq failed from the start, with few taken in by fictitious weapons of mass destruction. Blair's comments on Saddam's brutality were undermined by his friendship with Saudi despots. For the first time in living memory, British troops were sent into a war that was opposed by a majority of the population.
But militarism is about more than troop deployments. The government plans to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. The arms firm BAE Systems has enjoyed so much influence that former foreign secretary Robin Cook said that BAE's boss had "the key to the garden door at No 10." This twisted relationship reached its zenith in 2006, when Blair intervened to end a criminal investigation into allegedly corrupt BAE arms deals with Saudi Arabia. The incident was a staggering demonstration of the way that both militarism and capitalism distort democracy. Blair defended millionaire gunrunners, Saudi despots and Washington neocons while treating public opinion with contempt. With a few honourable exceptions, his militarism was enthusiastically supported by his ministers and the Tory opposition. By backing BAE, Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron showed their belief in furthering the financial interests of the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Taxpayer-funded subsidies for arms dealers reached around £850 million per year in the middle of the decade. Nor is war immune from the privatisation craze - military occupation has been outsourced, with contracts handed to mercenary companies whose soldiers in Iraq outnumbered British troops.
The privatisation of war has contributed to dramatic changes in the nature of armed conflict. Listening to certain commentators, you could get the impression that no such changes have taken place. Cheerleaders for militarism still talk as if war were a matter of defending nations from aggression with established armies. In reality, over 90 per cent of casualties in modern warfare are civilian. The vast majority of the decade's wars have been within, not between, countries. Their combatants have been resourced by multinational arms companies without national loyalties and have frequently included mercenaries. The changes to the nature of warfare are rarely acknowledged because they make the traditional arguments for militarism redundant. The horrific day in 2005 when terrorists blew up commuters in London has been used by politicians to justify all manner of policies. But no amount of battalions, tanks, Eurofighters or Trident missiles would have prevented such an attack. Bombs and bullets do not lead to compassion and understanding. Furthermore, it is clear that the biggest threat we face to our security is the danger of catastrophic climate chaos. The floodwaters will not stop at national borders or be repelled by a hail of bullets. While the government ploughs money into military "solutions," its supporters claim it would be "unrealistic" to do otherwise.
Given that the world now spends nearly $2,000 on military force for every dollar spent on conflict prevention, it is amazing that non-violent approaches are successful at all. Yet recent years have seen non-violent methods of conflict resolution used successfully in countries as diverse as Estonia, Guatemala and Mozambique; the relative lack of violence in Northern Ireland is surely one of the greatest successes of the decade. Non-violence has far less money and publicity than violence, but the British people have shown themselves able to see through the flimsy network of lies and reassurances used to justify militarism. Not only were most of the public opposed to the Iraq war but polls consistently show majorities against Trident and the occupation of Afghanistan. Last November it became clear that the government's gung-ho approach to war had massively mistaken the public mood when an independent poll revealed that 87 per cent of British adults believe the dead on all sides should be commemorated on Remembrance Day. The millions who marched in 2003 did not prevent the Iraq invasion, but they may have made Blair or Bush think twice about laying into Syria or North Korea. Many more people are now aware of the arms industry's influence within government. In 2008, campaigners achieved the closure of the Defence Export Services Organisation - the arms companies' lobbying unit within the MoD. Arms dealers were infuriated by its replacement with a slightly weaker, but still abhorrent, unit within UK Trade and Investment.
No longer can arms companies have it all their own way. NGOs have highlighted the true cost of Trident, resulting in a Cabinet split that means there is a real chance of Trident renewal not going ahead. With British soldiers still dying and killing in Afghanistan and other armed conflicts around the world rarely even making the British press, there is far, far more to do. Climate change and economic crises have gripped the world's attention. It is vital that we make the links between militarism, climate change and capitalism. This means not only co-ordinated campaigning but clearer messages. We must continue to expose the way that both war and climate change have delivered profit and power to the few, at the expense of the planet and its people. Militarism sustains its support by constantly telling us, despite the evidence, that people cannot achieve things alone, that we need powerful individuals employing men with guns to keep things under control. Gandhi suggested that one of the biggest threats to Indian freedom was the people's reluctance to trust themselves. There is always a tendency to fall back on trusting violence, governments, money, traditions or even activist heroes. The first step to challenging militarism is having the confidence simply to trust ourselves.
But militarism is about more than troop deployments. The government plans to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. The arms firm BAE Systems has enjoyed so much influence that former foreign secretary Robin Cook said that BAE's boss had "the key to the garden door at No 10." This twisted relationship reached its zenith in 2006, when Blair intervened to end a criminal investigation into allegedly corrupt BAE arms deals with Saudi Arabia. The incident was a staggering demonstration of the way that both militarism and capitalism distort democracy. Blair defended millionaire gunrunners, Saudi despots and Washington neocons while treating public opinion with contempt. With a few honourable exceptions, his militarism was enthusiastically supported by his ministers and the Tory opposition. By backing BAE, Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron showed their belief in furthering the financial interests of the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Taxpayer-funded subsidies for arms dealers reached around £850 million per year in the middle of the decade. Nor is war immune from the privatisation craze - military occupation has been outsourced, with contracts handed to mercenary companies whose soldiers in Iraq outnumbered British troops.
The privatisation of war has contributed to dramatic changes in the nature of armed conflict. Listening to certain commentators, you could get the impression that no such changes have taken place. Cheerleaders for militarism still talk as if war were a matter of defending nations from aggression with established armies. In reality, over 90 per cent of casualties in modern warfare are civilian. The vast majority of the decade's wars have been within, not between, countries. Their combatants have been resourced by multinational arms companies without national loyalties and have frequently included mercenaries. The changes to the nature of warfare are rarely acknowledged because they make the traditional arguments for militarism redundant. The horrific day in 2005 when terrorists blew up commuters in London has been used by politicians to justify all manner of policies. But no amount of battalions, tanks, Eurofighters or Trident missiles would have prevented such an attack. Bombs and bullets do not lead to compassion and understanding. Furthermore, it is clear that the biggest threat we face to our security is the danger of catastrophic climate chaos. The floodwaters will not stop at national borders or be repelled by a hail of bullets. While the government ploughs money into military "solutions," its supporters claim it would be "unrealistic" to do otherwise.
Given that the world now spends nearly $2,000 on military force for every dollar spent on conflict prevention, it is amazing that non-violent approaches are successful at all. Yet recent years have seen non-violent methods of conflict resolution used successfully in countries as diverse as Estonia, Guatemala and Mozambique; the relative lack of violence in Northern Ireland is surely one of the greatest successes of the decade. Non-violence has far less money and publicity than violence, but the British people have shown themselves able to see through the flimsy network of lies and reassurances used to justify militarism. Not only were most of the public opposed to the Iraq war but polls consistently show majorities against Trident and the occupation of Afghanistan. Last November it became clear that the government's gung-ho approach to war had massively mistaken the public mood when an independent poll revealed that 87 per cent of British adults believe the dead on all sides should be commemorated on Remembrance Day. The millions who marched in 2003 did not prevent the Iraq invasion, but they may have made Blair or Bush think twice about laying into Syria or North Korea. Many more people are now aware of the arms industry's influence within government. In 2008, campaigners achieved the closure of the Defence Export Services Organisation - the arms companies' lobbying unit within the MoD. Arms dealers were infuriated by its replacement with a slightly weaker, but still abhorrent, unit within UK Trade and Investment.
No longer can arms companies have it all their own way. NGOs have highlighted the true cost of Trident, resulting in a Cabinet split that means there is a real chance of Trident renewal not going ahead. With British soldiers still dying and killing in Afghanistan and other armed conflicts around the world rarely even making the British press, there is far, far more to do. Climate change and economic crises have gripped the world's attention. It is vital that we make the links between militarism, climate change and capitalism. This means not only co-ordinated campaigning but clearer messages. We must continue to expose the way that both war and climate change have delivered profit and power to the few, at the expense of the planet and its people. Militarism sustains its support by constantly telling us, despite the evidence, that people cannot achieve things alone, that we need powerful individuals employing men with guns to keep things under control. Gandhi suggested that one of the biggest threats to Indian freedom was the people's reluctance to trust themselves. There is always a tendency to fall back on trusting violence, governments, money, traditions or even activist heroes. The first step to challenging militarism is having the confidence simply to trust ourselves.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Inside the mind of a terrorist
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow himself up on Northwest Airlines 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day has generated a stupendous amount of column inches and airtime in the US and British media. While the saturation-level coverage has focused on questions of "who," "what," "when," "where" and "how," it has categorically failed to ask the most important question of all - why? Those hoping that the new messiah of the United States would enlighten the ignorant masses were sorely disappointed when the Democratic president could only offer to "communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that ... the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress." Barack Obama then turned the floor over to his top counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, who made the blindingly obvious and technically true statement that "al-Qaida is an organisation that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents." As with much of Obama's foreign policy, his inability or unwillingness to articulate why the US is the target of so much terrorism has more in common with his universally reviled predecessor than many of his supporters would like to admit. Of course Bush was always far more crass and simplistic than the smooth Harvard graduate. "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world," the then commander-in-chief told the US on September 11 2001. Just in case anyone is turning their noses up at "those stupid Americans," we shouldn't forget that immediately after the July 7 2005 terrorist attacks in London, the BBC reported then home secretary Charles Clarke as saying that "those responsible for such attacks simply wanted to destroy democracy."
In contrast Michael Scheuer, the man who headed the CIA unit monitoring Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, argues Islamic terrorist attacks on the US have nothing "to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world." So who should we believe? To begin to answer this question, it seems pertinent to look at the reasons those actually carrying out the terrorism give for their actions. Although it has since disappeared down the memory hole, in 2004 bin Laden himself directly addressed Bush's claim that al-Qaida is motivated by a hatred of US freedom and democracy. "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden," the al-Qaida figurehead quipped before stating: "We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation." What about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind September 11 2001 and the man with the dubious honour of holding the world record for the number of times to undergo waterboarding - 183 times according to the US Justice Department. "By his own account KSM's [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favouring Israel," noted the official 9/11 Commission report. Back to Britain. Last September, the International Herald Tribune reported that the jury at the trial of the 2006 plot to blow up 10 transatlantic airliners were shown martyrdom videos prepared by several of the plotters. "A common theme was that they planned to wreak revenge on Britain and the United States for their interference in Muslim countries, especially the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq," reported the newspaper.
No doubt some readers will be uncomfortable with taking mass-murdering terrorists at their word. But what about testimony from the US government itself? In 2004 the Pentagon-appointed US Defence Science Board explained: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies." The board elaborated: "The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states." As someone paralysed in a 2004 attack by Saudi extremists, one presumes BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner has thought a little bit about this topic. In 2005 he told the Commons foreign affairs committee that "al-Qaida could not give a stuff about what Americans do in America. What they object to is Western military adventures in their heartland, whether it be Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever." Robert A Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, has written a whole book addressing this question. He concludes that "suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than the product of Islamic fundamentalism." Returning to the case of Abdulmutallab, a recent Associated Press story noted he was "not overtly extremist," however he "was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel's actions in Gaza." In addition Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula released a video after the attempted attack stating that it was in revenge for two joint US-Yemeni air raids on December 17, supposedly targeting al-Qaida operatives. Yes that's right, the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize personally ordered US air strikes in Yemen, killing 23 children and 17 women, according to local officials.
The enigmatic US novelist Thomas Pynchon once wrote: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." So far the "wrong questions" asked by politicians and the mainstream media have led to the implementation of "the most significant changes to airport security since 2006," according to the Guardian. "Increased pat-down searches, more sniffer dogs in terminals and a step-up in hand luggage inspections" along with "the introduction of body scanners" has been the British government's knee-jerk response to Abdulmutallab's attempted attack. The problem is that these are technical answers to something that desperately requires a political solution. In fact, by ignoring the inconvenient question of "why," the chances are that we are actually making future terrorist attacks on the US and Britain more likely. This is not to suggest that British foreign policy should be decided by the actions of a small group of murderous Islamic extremists. Rather it should radically change because it is immoral, hypocritical and has directly caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, many of them in the Islamic world. Put simply, reversing US and British backing for Israel, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and ending our Machiavellian support for undemocratic Arab regimes is the right and moral thing to do. A welcome by-product of implementing these sane and humane policies would be a decrease in the hatred directed against the US and British in the Islamic world - and therefore a significantly reduced terrorist threat.
In contrast Michael Scheuer, the man who headed the CIA unit monitoring Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, argues Islamic terrorist attacks on the US have nothing "to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world." So who should we believe? To begin to answer this question, it seems pertinent to look at the reasons those actually carrying out the terrorism give for their actions. Although it has since disappeared down the memory hole, in 2004 bin Laden himself directly addressed Bush's claim that al-Qaida is motivated by a hatred of US freedom and democracy. "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden," the al-Qaida figurehead quipped before stating: "We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation." What about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind September 11 2001 and the man with the dubious honour of holding the world record for the number of times to undergo waterboarding - 183 times according to the US Justice Department. "By his own account KSM's [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favouring Israel," noted the official 9/11 Commission report. Back to Britain. Last September, the International Herald Tribune reported that the jury at the trial of the 2006 plot to blow up 10 transatlantic airliners were shown martyrdom videos prepared by several of the plotters. "A common theme was that they planned to wreak revenge on Britain and the United States for their interference in Muslim countries, especially the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq," reported the newspaper.
No doubt some readers will be uncomfortable with taking mass-murdering terrorists at their word. But what about testimony from the US government itself? In 2004 the Pentagon-appointed US Defence Science Board explained: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies." The board elaborated: "The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states." As someone paralysed in a 2004 attack by Saudi extremists, one presumes BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner has thought a little bit about this topic. In 2005 he told the Commons foreign affairs committee that "al-Qaida could not give a stuff about what Americans do in America. What they object to is Western military adventures in their heartland, whether it be Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever." Robert A Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, has written a whole book addressing this question. He concludes that "suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than the product of Islamic fundamentalism." Returning to the case of Abdulmutallab, a recent Associated Press story noted he was "not overtly extremist," however he "was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel's actions in Gaza." In addition Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula released a video after the attempted attack stating that it was in revenge for two joint US-Yemeni air raids on December 17, supposedly targeting al-Qaida operatives. Yes that's right, the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize personally ordered US air strikes in Yemen, killing 23 children and 17 women, according to local officials.
The enigmatic US novelist Thomas Pynchon once wrote: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." So far the "wrong questions" asked by politicians and the mainstream media have led to the implementation of "the most significant changes to airport security since 2006," according to the Guardian. "Increased pat-down searches, more sniffer dogs in terminals and a step-up in hand luggage inspections" along with "the introduction of body scanners" has been the British government's knee-jerk response to Abdulmutallab's attempted attack. The problem is that these are technical answers to something that desperately requires a political solution. In fact, by ignoring the inconvenient question of "why," the chances are that we are actually making future terrorist attacks on the US and Britain more likely. This is not to suggest that British foreign policy should be decided by the actions of a small group of murderous Islamic extremists. Rather it should radically change because it is immoral, hypocritical and has directly caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, many of them in the Islamic world. Put simply, reversing US and British backing for Israel, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and ending our Machiavellian support for undemocratic Arab regimes is the right and moral thing to do. A welcome by-product of implementing these sane and humane policies would be a decrease in the hatred directed against the US and British in the Islamic world - and therefore a significantly reduced terrorist threat.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Betrayed: PTSD casualties of war
With over 250 UK servicemen and women tragically dead on Afghan soil since 2001, generals, politicians and tabloid editors regularly weep crocodile tears for the 'fallen heroes' - but they say much less about the damage suffered by the survivors. Ex-soldier Danny Fitzsimons, 29 and from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, is on trial in Baghdad accused of the murder in August 2009 of two other security guards, Paul McGuigan and Darren Hoare, in a drunken brawl. His trial was due to start in November 2009 but was postponed because of a bomb attack on the court. He has been held in what his solicitor describes as a 'dungeon' and faces death by hanging if convicted. His family are calling for his return to face trial in the UK where he can receive appropriate care and would not face the death penalty if convicted. They are supported in this by their Labour MP Jim Dobbin and prisoners' rights organisation Reprieve. Danny's solicitor John Tipple has seen at first hand how justice in Iraq is subject to bribery and intimidation and it is hard to see how Danny could obtain a fair trial in Baghdad.
Danny joined the Royal Fusiliers at 16, and was sent on his first tour shortly after his 18th birthday. On his first tour, to the former Yugoslavia, Danny experienced some extremely disturbing events - the discovery of mass graves, and finding the dismembered body of a young boy who had previously delivered bread to the troops. He left the army and like many ex-soldiers turned to work as a private security contractor in Iraq, where he witnessed further traumatic events, including the death of a close friend burned alive inside a truck hit by an IED. Danny was diagnosed as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in January 2004, while still in the army. Assessments by consultant psychiatrists in May 2008 and June 2009 reported that the symptoms had worsened. In May 2008 he was told that PTSD was: "having an impact on his day to day life and he used drugs and alcohol to combat that and escape from those experiences." Despite this, in August 2009, Danny was hired by ArmorGroup and sent out to Iraq without undergoing a full medical assessment. Within 36 hours of his arrival, the incident took place in which two colleagues died and an Iraqi was injured. ArmorGroup is now part of global security company G4S. G4S has so far tried to wash its hands of Danny with a one-off payment of $75,000 towards his legal fees. But a capital trial and the situation in Iraq mean that a proper defence would cost up to $1.8 million.
Danny Fitzsimons has been treated appallingly by G4S. But there are also major questions for the Ministry of Defence in this case, and the many other cases where service personnel are diagnosed with PTSD. What support or counselling did Danny receive while in the army, or for his resettlement when he left the army at such an early stage in his career? What psychiatric support is available for serving soldiers to deal with PTSD? What counselling or other support is available for soldiers leaving the army to ensure they return to civilian life and are not re-cycled into the violent world of private security? The charity Combat Stress has seen a 66% increase in referrals since 2005 and is currently supporting 316 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars suffering from PTSD. It was recently revealed that a quarter of the homeless are ex-squaddies. 10% of the male prison population consists of ex-service personnel - hardly surprising given that the psychological trauma of war-time experiences, plus the culture of drinking and drug-taking when off-duty, bring many ex-squaddies into conflict with the law. Danny's trial opened on 20 January but was adjourned for psychiatric reports. It was to resume on 18 February but his family are still pressing for the government to arrange a 'prisoner transfer' to a UK jail.
G4S is the second largest private employer in the world, with over 500,000 employees, 40,000 of them in the Middle East. In 2008 G4S had a turnover of £5.943 billion and saw its profits rise by 22%. Its board of directors includes Sir Paul (now Lord) Condon, who was commissioner of the Metropolitan Police between 1993 and 2000. Since 2008 John Reid, formerly home and defence secretary, has acted as a consultant to G4S. G4S runs immigration reporting, detention and removal centres and executes repatriation of asylum seekers to their homeland, in some cases to renewed persecution and death. It provides bodyguards for staff in Iraq and Afghanistan. It operates prisons and secure training centres in the UK, provides police 'support' duties, rail security and is likely to be a contractor for the Department for Work and Pensions Flexible New Deal Phase 2. But what it does not do is provide justice & support for those who need it most.
Danny joined the Royal Fusiliers at 16, and was sent on his first tour shortly after his 18th birthday. On his first tour, to the former Yugoslavia, Danny experienced some extremely disturbing events - the discovery of mass graves, and finding the dismembered body of a young boy who had previously delivered bread to the troops. He left the army and like many ex-soldiers turned to work as a private security contractor in Iraq, where he witnessed further traumatic events, including the death of a close friend burned alive inside a truck hit by an IED. Danny was diagnosed as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in January 2004, while still in the army. Assessments by consultant psychiatrists in May 2008 and June 2009 reported that the symptoms had worsened. In May 2008 he was told that PTSD was: "having an impact on his day to day life and he used drugs and alcohol to combat that and escape from those experiences." Despite this, in August 2009, Danny was hired by ArmorGroup and sent out to Iraq without undergoing a full medical assessment. Within 36 hours of his arrival, the incident took place in which two colleagues died and an Iraqi was injured. ArmorGroup is now part of global security company G4S. G4S has so far tried to wash its hands of Danny with a one-off payment of $75,000 towards his legal fees. But a capital trial and the situation in Iraq mean that a proper defence would cost up to $1.8 million.
Danny Fitzsimons has been treated appallingly by G4S. But there are also major questions for the Ministry of Defence in this case, and the many other cases where service personnel are diagnosed with PTSD. What support or counselling did Danny receive while in the army, or for his resettlement when he left the army at such an early stage in his career? What psychiatric support is available for serving soldiers to deal with PTSD? What counselling or other support is available for soldiers leaving the army to ensure they return to civilian life and are not re-cycled into the violent world of private security? The charity Combat Stress has seen a 66% increase in referrals since 2005 and is currently supporting 316 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars suffering from PTSD. It was recently revealed that a quarter of the homeless are ex-squaddies. 10% of the male prison population consists of ex-service personnel - hardly surprising given that the psychological trauma of war-time experiences, plus the culture of drinking and drug-taking when off-duty, bring many ex-squaddies into conflict with the law. Danny's trial opened on 20 January but was adjourned for psychiatric reports. It was to resume on 18 February but his family are still pressing for the government to arrange a 'prisoner transfer' to a UK jail.
G4S is the second largest private employer in the world, with over 500,000 employees, 40,000 of them in the Middle East. In 2008 G4S had a turnover of £5.943 billion and saw its profits rise by 22%. Its board of directors includes Sir Paul (now Lord) Condon, who was commissioner of the Metropolitan Police between 1993 and 2000. Since 2008 John Reid, formerly home and defence secretary, has acted as a consultant to G4S. G4S runs immigration reporting, detention and removal centres and executes repatriation of asylum seekers to their homeland, in some cases to renewed persecution and death. It provides bodyguards for staff in Iraq and Afghanistan. It operates prisons and secure training centres in the UK, provides police 'support' duties, rail security and is likely to be a contractor for the Department for Work and Pensions Flexible New Deal Phase 2. But what it does not do is provide justice & support for those who need it most.
Friday, 1 January 2010
Afghanistan: Obama’s war
"I WOULD say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan… We’ll know it when we see it", said Richard Holbrooke, US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Jim McGovern, Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts put it another way: "I have this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that we’re getting sucked into an endless war here". Whatever way you put it the eight-year war in Afghanistan is a nightmare. The death toll of Afghani people has already topped 1,000 last year. Forty-four US soldiers died in July, 45 in August – more than any other months in the war to date – while 79 British troops have died in 2009 up to 16 September. What are these people dying for? That is the question being asked with ever greater urgency. US president, Barack Obama, seemed sure during his election campaign. In contrast to George W Bush’s needless "war of choice" in Iraq, he said, Afghanistan is "a necessary war": to destroy al-Qaeda, make the US safe, bring democracy, fight against corruption, promote women’s rights and stamp out opium production. He promised to increase troop numbers to 68,000 this year – all but 4,000 are in place. There are now 100,000 US and Nato troops there – 9,000 from Britain.
What was called a presidential election took place on 20 August. The extent of the rigging and violence was breathtaking. In president Hamid Karzai’s home province, Kandahar, where his younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, chairs the provincial council, over 350,000 votes were recorded. Western officials estimate that only 25,000 people actually voted. Around 800 fake polling stations were set up by supporters of Karzai, who also took over a further 800 legitimate polling centres to stuff the boxes with votes. For what it’s worth, the preliminary totals gave Karzai just over three million votes (54.6%), with second placed Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, on 1.6 million (27.8%). Just after the election, Britain’s ambassador to Afghanistan hailed the vote as "a bad day for the Taliban and a good day for the people of Afghanistan". Obama called it the most important event in Afghanistan this year. He may be right, of course, but not for the reasons he meant. The massive vote rigging and growing public scepticism have compelled the UN-sponsored Electoral Complaints Commission, which has to ratify the result, to order a recount of 10% of the vote. If a recount brings Karzai’s total down to 50% or below this would trigger a run-off between him and Abdullah. Phillippe Morillon, head of the EU observer team, said that 1.5 million votes (27%) were suspect – 1.1 million for Karzai, 300,000 for Abdullah, the rest for other candidates.
Recounting could months; with winter settled, a second round could be delayed until April 2010, leaving the prospect of months of increased political volatility and uncertainty. It would further undermine the case made by the Obama, Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy administrations for the military intervention. Effectively, the election authorities have a month to sort something out: call a destabilising, divisive (and rigged) run-off, stitch up a deal between Karzai and Abdullah, or announce that Karzai won after all. Whatever happens will be dirty politics, with the western powers up to their necks in the filth. Karzai was installed as president by the US in 2001. He won the inaugural presidential election in 2004 and was feted the world over. He now resides in a palatial fortress in the centre of Kabul, presiding over what The Economist calls the "spread of narco-corruption". He keeps some scary company. General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the Uzbek warlord, arrived back in Afghanistan a week before the election to back Karzai. It is said that he was responsible for killing 2,000 Taliban prisoners of war in 2001 and executed people by crushing them under bulldozers.
Karzai did deals with Marshal Mohammad Fahim, a Tajik warlord heavily implicated in drug trafficking, and Abdul Karim Khalili and Mohammad Mohaqeq, two Haraza warlords. Ironically, Karzai’s campaign adviser was Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Islamist who welcomed Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan in 1996! The election has exposed the Afghan political system as completely rotten. What none of the heads of states with troops in Afghanistan are prepared to admit – from their comfortable offices and homes – is that the presence of foreign armies is the main source of tension and conflict. The systematic use of air power to minimise Nato casualties exacerbates this because it causes massive Afghani civilian deaths. US and Nato supremo, General Stanley McChrystal, says this strategy has changed. A few days after making that claim, however, a US air raid against two fuel tankers taken by the Taliban – called in by German forces – led to 125 deaths, the majority of them civilians. A UN official asked the pointed question: "One day you are building a bridge and the next day you call in an airstrike that kills civilians. What kind of message does that send?"
The political establishment and mass media deal in simplistic caricatures. The right-wing commentator, Nicholas Kristof, is basically correct when he points out: "Some Taliban are hardcore ideologues, but many join the fight because friends or elders suggest it, because they are avenging the deaths of relatives in previous fighting, because it’s a way to earn money, or because they want to expel the infidels from their land – particularly because the foreigners haven’t brought the roads, bridges and irrigation projects that had been anticipated". In other words, it is not the simple good-versus-evil formula rammed down our throats. In contrast to the rampant corruption of the regime, Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the US joint chiefs of staff, even wrote that, despite its brutality, the Taliban "allow people to file formal complaints against local Talib leaders". Time is running out for Obama with 61% saying the conflict is going badly and 51% that the war is not worth fighting – up to 70% among Democrats. Increasingly, Obama has to rely on backing from the Republicans, dangerous when he faces such strong opposition over his healthcare plans and economic policy.
In Britain, Eric Joyce resigned as parliamentary private secretary to Bob Ainsworth, defence secretary, on 3 September, saying that he could no longer justify the growing casualties by saying the war helps prevent terrorism. Even this staunch New Labour loyalist could stomach the lie no longer. There is mounting anger at the rising death toll of young soldiers, at the neglect of injured soldiers and their struggle for financial assistance, as well as the substandard equipment they are sent into battle with. And for what? To prop up a completely corrupt regime. As for the people of Afghanistan, they are caught between the Nato occupation, Taliban insurgents, warlords and drug-trafficking gangsters, in one of the world’s poorest countries, almost two-thirds of which is too dangerous for aid agencies to reach. It would be naïve to believe that the withdrawal of troops would immediately bring peace to Afghanistan. But they have to be pulled out. They are foreign fighters in occupation. The more troops that are sent in – the logic of Obama’s position and the demand of McChrystal – the greater the resistance. By all the criteria set by Obama, Afghanistan is a failure. Al-Qaeda has not been destroyed. It has moved to Pakistan, a potentially greater source of instability in the region. Corruption and drug trafficking is endemic, funding the Taliban as well as many in and around Karzai’s palace. Women’s rights are crushed by all the warlords, Islamists and insurgent forces.
Afghanistan has been ripped apart by 30 years of war and intervention by major world powers. US-backed mujaheddin fighting against Russian forces became the Taliban regime. Today, we are eight years into the Nato occupation. Given that terrible legacy, developing a free, united country is a long-term goal, a dream even. Tragically, the people of Afghanistan – and the troops sent there, too – are living in a nightmare conjured up by capitalism. We must do all we can to hasten the withdrawal of troops and make links with the workers and poor of Afghanistan, struggling in socialist solidarity to rid the region of imperialist intervention.
What was called a presidential election took place on 20 August. The extent of the rigging and violence was breathtaking. In president Hamid Karzai’s home province, Kandahar, where his younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, chairs the provincial council, over 350,000 votes were recorded. Western officials estimate that only 25,000 people actually voted. Around 800 fake polling stations were set up by supporters of Karzai, who also took over a further 800 legitimate polling centres to stuff the boxes with votes. For what it’s worth, the preliminary totals gave Karzai just over three million votes (54.6%), with second placed Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, on 1.6 million (27.8%). Just after the election, Britain’s ambassador to Afghanistan hailed the vote as "a bad day for the Taliban and a good day for the people of Afghanistan". Obama called it the most important event in Afghanistan this year. He may be right, of course, but not for the reasons he meant. The massive vote rigging and growing public scepticism have compelled the UN-sponsored Electoral Complaints Commission, which has to ratify the result, to order a recount of 10% of the vote. If a recount brings Karzai’s total down to 50% or below this would trigger a run-off between him and Abdullah. Phillippe Morillon, head of the EU observer team, said that 1.5 million votes (27%) were suspect – 1.1 million for Karzai, 300,000 for Abdullah, the rest for other candidates.
Recounting could months; with winter settled, a second round could be delayed until April 2010, leaving the prospect of months of increased political volatility and uncertainty. It would further undermine the case made by the Obama, Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy administrations for the military intervention. Effectively, the election authorities have a month to sort something out: call a destabilising, divisive (and rigged) run-off, stitch up a deal between Karzai and Abdullah, or announce that Karzai won after all. Whatever happens will be dirty politics, with the western powers up to their necks in the filth. Karzai was installed as president by the US in 2001. He won the inaugural presidential election in 2004 and was feted the world over. He now resides in a palatial fortress in the centre of Kabul, presiding over what The Economist calls the "spread of narco-corruption". He keeps some scary company. General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the Uzbek warlord, arrived back in Afghanistan a week before the election to back Karzai. It is said that he was responsible for killing 2,000 Taliban prisoners of war in 2001 and executed people by crushing them under bulldozers.
Karzai did deals with Marshal Mohammad Fahim, a Tajik warlord heavily implicated in drug trafficking, and Abdul Karim Khalili and Mohammad Mohaqeq, two Haraza warlords. Ironically, Karzai’s campaign adviser was Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Islamist who welcomed Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan in 1996! The election has exposed the Afghan political system as completely rotten. What none of the heads of states with troops in Afghanistan are prepared to admit – from their comfortable offices and homes – is that the presence of foreign armies is the main source of tension and conflict. The systematic use of air power to minimise Nato casualties exacerbates this because it causes massive Afghani civilian deaths. US and Nato supremo, General Stanley McChrystal, says this strategy has changed. A few days after making that claim, however, a US air raid against two fuel tankers taken by the Taliban – called in by German forces – led to 125 deaths, the majority of them civilians. A UN official asked the pointed question: "One day you are building a bridge and the next day you call in an airstrike that kills civilians. What kind of message does that send?"
The political establishment and mass media deal in simplistic caricatures. The right-wing commentator, Nicholas Kristof, is basically correct when he points out: "Some Taliban are hardcore ideologues, but many join the fight because friends or elders suggest it, because they are avenging the deaths of relatives in previous fighting, because it’s a way to earn money, or because they want to expel the infidels from their land – particularly because the foreigners haven’t brought the roads, bridges and irrigation projects that had been anticipated". In other words, it is not the simple good-versus-evil formula rammed down our throats. In contrast to the rampant corruption of the regime, Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the US joint chiefs of staff, even wrote that, despite its brutality, the Taliban "allow people to file formal complaints against local Talib leaders". Time is running out for Obama with 61% saying the conflict is going badly and 51% that the war is not worth fighting – up to 70% among Democrats. Increasingly, Obama has to rely on backing from the Republicans, dangerous when he faces such strong opposition over his healthcare plans and economic policy.
In Britain, Eric Joyce resigned as parliamentary private secretary to Bob Ainsworth, defence secretary, on 3 September, saying that he could no longer justify the growing casualties by saying the war helps prevent terrorism. Even this staunch New Labour loyalist could stomach the lie no longer. There is mounting anger at the rising death toll of young soldiers, at the neglect of injured soldiers and their struggle for financial assistance, as well as the substandard equipment they are sent into battle with. And for what? To prop up a completely corrupt regime. As for the people of Afghanistan, they are caught between the Nato occupation, Taliban insurgents, warlords and drug-trafficking gangsters, in one of the world’s poorest countries, almost two-thirds of which is too dangerous for aid agencies to reach. It would be naïve to believe that the withdrawal of troops would immediately bring peace to Afghanistan. But they have to be pulled out. They are foreign fighters in occupation. The more troops that are sent in – the logic of Obama’s position and the demand of McChrystal – the greater the resistance. By all the criteria set by Obama, Afghanistan is a failure. Al-Qaeda has not been destroyed. It has moved to Pakistan, a potentially greater source of instability in the region. Corruption and drug trafficking is endemic, funding the Taliban as well as many in and around Karzai’s palace. Women’s rights are crushed by all the warlords, Islamists and insurgent forces.
Afghanistan has been ripped apart by 30 years of war and intervention by major world powers. US-backed mujaheddin fighting against Russian forces became the Taliban regime. Today, we are eight years into the Nato occupation. Given that terrible legacy, developing a free, united country is a long-term goal, a dream even. Tragically, the people of Afghanistan – and the troops sent there, too – are living in a nightmare conjured up by capitalism. We must do all we can to hasten the withdrawal of troops and make links with the workers and poor of Afghanistan, struggling in socialist solidarity to rid the region of imperialist intervention.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Pakistan's terror war faultline
The “war on terror” has devastated Iraq and Afghanistan, and is destabilising a number of other countries. The war has spiralled to create dreadful conflicts in Yemen and Somalia, and intensified tensions across the world. But the country now most threatened by the war is Pakistan. The US has stepped up its interventions in Pakistan, with almost 50 drone bombings in the north western border region with Afghanistan killing over 400 people in the last year; this in turn has created anger and a mounting crisis for the government. Faced with growing anger in Britain at the bloody war in Afghanistan, prime minister Gordon Brown last month chose to put the blame for its failures on Pakistan. “I believe that after eight years, we should have been able to do more, with all the Pakistani forces working together with the rest of the world,” he said. “We’ve got to ask ourselves why, eight years after 11 September, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama bin Laden, nobody’s been able to get close to Zawahiri, the number two in Al Qaida.”
The speech caused consternation in Pakistan, not least because the question should really be levelled at the Nato countries that have occupied Afghanistan since 2001. But Pakistan’s rulers were also annoyed as they have signed up to the war, by engaging in a brutal offensive against the people the West regards as “terrorists”. In October this year, at the behest of Britain and the US, the Pakistani army launched a major offensive in South Waziristan, a mountainous tribal region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. More than 30,000 troops are fighting fierce battles with groups loosely united under the banner of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan – the so-called Pakistani Taliban. Support for these Islamists has grown as anger at the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the economic crisis, has risen. The Taliban have fought the government, the US and in some cases wealthy landlords.
Army mortars and shells bombard the villages on a daily basis, while US drone bombs fall on unsuspecting civilians and fighters with almost mundane regularity. Gordon Brown and US president Barack Obama’s demand that Pakistan does more to fight the Taliban supposes that “terror” is the main enemy of the people. It is not - for the vast majority of Pakistanis, the main enemy is hunger. The country is ranked 144th out of 175 in the United Nations’ human development index. Outside of Africa, only Yemen and Haiti score lower. More than 50 million people, around a third of Pakistan’s population, live in absolute poverty. And with the refugee crisis now spiralling out of control as a result of the military offensive, things are set to get much worse. According to the United Nations, more than a quarter of million people have fled the fighting in Waziristan.
They joined the 1.9 million that remain displaced after being forced to desert their homes during the military offensive in the Swat Valley earlier this year. The government has closed the areas surrounding the conflict in Waziristan to journalists, meaning there are few reports of this human tragedy. The West’s attempts to use slogans of freedom and democracy to justify the extension of the “war on terror” into Pakistan are looking increasingly hollow. The government of president Asif Ali Zardari, which bowed to US pressure to order Pakistani forces to bomb their own citizens, is already completely discredited less than two years into its rule. The country is on the brink of economic collapse and has asked the International Monetary Fund to help it avert a balance of payments crisis. Food and energy shortages, escalating fuel prices and a sinking currency are hitting the poor.
Millions face the ravages of unemployment. But Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party does not care about the poor. Elite figures are mired in corruption. Zardari owns property throughout the world, including Britain, where he paid £4.35 million for an estate in 1995. It is little wonder then that a recent wave of bombings that have targeted government and military institutions have not elicited much public sympathy with the victims. “The government is in tatters,” says Karachi-based socialist Riaz Ahmed. “It is barricaded in their headquarters. The imposing structures where the government ‘rules’ from are now the prisons of a bygone power.” Riaz says that the government has responded to the growing sense of crisis by attempting to create a “false polarisation” between itself and the Taliban. It hopes that repeated terror attacks in the cities will push the people into its arms. “Whenever the government is attacked in its military or police torture headquarters, the next day a city centre is bombed,” he says. “It seems designed to appear as though the war between the Taliban and the military is in fact a war between the Taliban and the Pakistani people. The resulting condemnation of the Taliban then becomes an act of endorsing the US-led wars in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan.”
As part of its campaign to enlist public support for the war against the Taliban, Pakistan’s rulers are increasingly prepared to do deals with militias that have blood on their hands. Government ministers are known to have obtained weapons for the armed wing of the MQM party that controls Karachi – despite the fact that it uses them for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. These are same thugs who gunned down the democracy movement that rose against the dictatorship of General Musharraf in 2008. The supporters of the “war on terror” ignore these actions by their allies. There are few signs that the military campaign in Waziristan is winning. The population there owes little loyalty to the Pakistani state, having rarely seen any economic or social benefits from being part of it. Instead, the US and Pakistani barrage of bombs is likely to drive the fiercely independent tribal people into the arms of the very Taliban fighters that the West wants targeted.
Ordinary Pakistani soldiers, who almost universally come from poor peasant backgrounds, are unlikely to be happy about being ordered to kill other poor Pakistani peasants. The growing worries are causing divisions in the Pakistani ruling class. Some sections of the army are dismayed at the assault on “Islamic fighters” who have proved so useful to the military regimes that have run Pakistan for most of its 62-year history. They envisage a situation where the tribes that played a central role in the Mujahadeen struggle against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s could again have their uses – especially if Nato were to be defeated on the other side of the border. The combination of the extension of the “war on terror” into Pakistan with the growing economic crisis is fuelling tensions – including demands for secession by oppressed nations that never accepted their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. If the military campaign in Waziristan went badly, there are some who predict that the whole country could begin to crack. Were this to happen, the West would have to accept the lion’s share of responsibility. In its bid to shore up the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, a country of 30 million, it will have brought an all-out civil war to a country of some 175 million.
The speech caused consternation in Pakistan, not least because the question should really be levelled at the Nato countries that have occupied Afghanistan since 2001. But Pakistan’s rulers were also annoyed as they have signed up to the war, by engaging in a brutal offensive against the people the West regards as “terrorists”. In October this year, at the behest of Britain and the US, the Pakistani army launched a major offensive in South Waziristan, a mountainous tribal region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. More than 30,000 troops are fighting fierce battles with groups loosely united under the banner of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan – the so-called Pakistani Taliban. Support for these Islamists has grown as anger at the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the economic crisis, has risen. The Taliban have fought the government, the US and in some cases wealthy landlords.
Army mortars and shells bombard the villages on a daily basis, while US drone bombs fall on unsuspecting civilians and fighters with almost mundane regularity. Gordon Brown and US president Barack Obama’s demand that Pakistan does more to fight the Taliban supposes that “terror” is the main enemy of the people. It is not - for the vast majority of Pakistanis, the main enemy is hunger. The country is ranked 144th out of 175 in the United Nations’ human development index. Outside of Africa, only Yemen and Haiti score lower. More than 50 million people, around a third of Pakistan’s population, live in absolute poverty. And with the refugee crisis now spiralling out of control as a result of the military offensive, things are set to get much worse. According to the United Nations, more than a quarter of million people have fled the fighting in Waziristan.
They joined the 1.9 million that remain displaced after being forced to desert their homes during the military offensive in the Swat Valley earlier this year. The government has closed the areas surrounding the conflict in Waziristan to journalists, meaning there are few reports of this human tragedy. The West’s attempts to use slogans of freedom and democracy to justify the extension of the “war on terror” into Pakistan are looking increasingly hollow. The government of president Asif Ali Zardari, which bowed to US pressure to order Pakistani forces to bomb their own citizens, is already completely discredited less than two years into its rule. The country is on the brink of economic collapse and has asked the International Monetary Fund to help it avert a balance of payments crisis. Food and energy shortages, escalating fuel prices and a sinking currency are hitting the poor.
Millions face the ravages of unemployment. But Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party does not care about the poor. Elite figures are mired in corruption. Zardari owns property throughout the world, including Britain, where he paid £4.35 million for an estate in 1995. It is little wonder then that a recent wave of bombings that have targeted government and military institutions have not elicited much public sympathy with the victims. “The government is in tatters,” says Karachi-based socialist Riaz Ahmed. “It is barricaded in their headquarters. The imposing structures where the government ‘rules’ from are now the prisons of a bygone power.” Riaz says that the government has responded to the growing sense of crisis by attempting to create a “false polarisation” between itself and the Taliban. It hopes that repeated terror attacks in the cities will push the people into its arms. “Whenever the government is attacked in its military or police torture headquarters, the next day a city centre is bombed,” he says. “It seems designed to appear as though the war between the Taliban and the military is in fact a war between the Taliban and the Pakistani people. The resulting condemnation of the Taliban then becomes an act of endorsing the US-led wars in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan.”
As part of its campaign to enlist public support for the war against the Taliban, Pakistan’s rulers are increasingly prepared to do deals with militias that have blood on their hands. Government ministers are known to have obtained weapons for the armed wing of the MQM party that controls Karachi – despite the fact that it uses them for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. These are same thugs who gunned down the democracy movement that rose against the dictatorship of General Musharraf in 2008. The supporters of the “war on terror” ignore these actions by their allies. There are few signs that the military campaign in Waziristan is winning. The population there owes little loyalty to the Pakistani state, having rarely seen any economic or social benefits from being part of it. Instead, the US and Pakistani barrage of bombs is likely to drive the fiercely independent tribal people into the arms of the very Taliban fighters that the West wants targeted.
Ordinary Pakistani soldiers, who almost universally come from poor peasant backgrounds, are unlikely to be happy about being ordered to kill other poor Pakistani peasants. The growing worries are causing divisions in the Pakistani ruling class. Some sections of the army are dismayed at the assault on “Islamic fighters” who have proved so useful to the military regimes that have run Pakistan for most of its 62-year history. They envisage a situation where the tribes that played a central role in the Mujahadeen struggle against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s could again have their uses – especially if Nato were to be defeated on the other side of the border. The combination of the extension of the “war on terror” into Pakistan with the growing economic crisis is fuelling tensions – including demands for secession by oppressed nations that never accepted their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. If the military campaign in Waziristan went badly, there are some who predict that the whole country could begin to crack. Were this to happen, the West would have to accept the lion’s share of responsibility. In its bid to shore up the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, a country of 30 million, it will have brought an all-out civil war to a country of some 175 million.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Afghanistan Nightmare Must End
Every time you turn on the news there seems to be one more British casualty in Afghanistan. By the time you read this article the death toll of British troops will have exceeded 100 this year. This war has gone on now for 8 years, longer than the Second World War and the Vietnam War. It has been overshadowed by the war in neighbouring Iraq, but has now become the centre of attention. Nothing quite captures the attention like the prospect of a humiliating defeat. Kim Howells, a leading government supporter, has broken ranks to call for British troops to be brought home. This reflects the growing public anger against the war. In Britain, more than 70% believe the troops should be withdrawn within a year. 35% believe the soldiers should be withdrawn immediately. In March, Obama declared the fight a ‘war of necessity’ and dispatched an extra 20,000 troops. This has been followed by a ‘rethink’ and a further ‘review’. The shambles over the Afghan elections has served to compound the problem. Rather than ‘democracy’, we have corruption, bribery and staggering levels of fraud. The farce of the second round, which failed to take place, followed by the inauguration of Karzai for another presidential term, has piled added pressure on the imperialists.
The American stooge, Karzai, had invited a group of warlords, drug dealers and other mafia undesirables into his government to help ‘win’ his election. One of these, General Dostum, the Uzbek commander, is accused by human rights groups of allowing 2,000 Taliban suspects to suffocate to death in cargo containers. Karzai was favoured by the Americans because of his links with the CIA in the struggle against the Russians. In one of the poorest countries in the world, Esquire, the style magazine, once rated him as among the world’s best-dressed men. His power was based on nepotism and patronage, backed up by Western cash. Karzai’s brothers, exploiting their links to government, have amassed fortunes while the Afghan people are left to live in misery and hunger. His younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, wields so much power in Kandahar province that he has earned the nickname “the King of the South”. He is also on the pay roll of the CIA. However, drug money, based on the biggest crop of opium in the world, serves to fuel corruption as well as the Taliban.
This situation explains the millions of abstentions in the first presidential vote. This was not simply due to the activities of the Taliban, but the widespread disillusionment with government corruption and paralysis. The Karzai government, holed up in a tight security compound, has little support outside of Kabul as the Taliban gain ever more adherents. With the growing violence in Pakistan, there is a serious prospect of ‘Talibanisation’ of the entire region. Neighbouring Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan face desolation, turmoil and calamity. The intervention of the imperialists has not brought stability to the region, let alone ‘democracy’, but has created a whirlwind. They are propping up corrupt, but ‘friendly’ regimes, beginning with Karzai in Kabul, as part of their neo-colonialist policy. However, since major NATO military operations started in Afghanistan in 2006, support for the insurgency has grown. They are engaged in a war that they can never win. The situation is becoming worse and worse by the day. General Stanley McChrystal has requested 40,000 extra US troops, scaled down from an original 80,000, representing ‘one last desperate heave’. The US ambassador to Afghanistan, however, has urged the Administration to maintain troop levels at their current level. Obama is still dithering, a consequence of the deep mess they are in. The recent speeches by Brown and Miliband are a desperate attempt to shore up waning public opinion for this deeply unpopular war.
It is a war that can never deliver social and economic progress to the Afghan people. That was never the intention. The war was originally intended to extend the might and influence of US imperialism throughout the region based on military “shock and awe”. While NATO provides the cover, the war is conducted by the Americans and to a lesser extent by the British. However, they have reached a complete impasse. That explains their splits and paralysis. The labour movement must demand the immediate withdrawal of imperialist troops from Afghanistan. The imperialist powers, who invaded Afghanistan for their own interests, can never solve the problems of the Afghan people. They must be free to decide their own future. However, the barbarism that has been unleashed through the region will never find a solution on the basis of capitalism, feudalism or fundamentalism. Only on the basis of a Socialist Federation of South Asia, including a Socialist Afghanistan, can the horrors of war, hunger, disease and poverty be swept away.
The American stooge, Karzai, had invited a group of warlords, drug dealers and other mafia undesirables into his government to help ‘win’ his election. One of these, General Dostum, the Uzbek commander, is accused by human rights groups of allowing 2,000 Taliban suspects to suffocate to death in cargo containers. Karzai was favoured by the Americans because of his links with the CIA in the struggle against the Russians. In one of the poorest countries in the world, Esquire, the style magazine, once rated him as among the world’s best-dressed men. His power was based on nepotism and patronage, backed up by Western cash. Karzai’s brothers, exploiting their links to government, have amassed fortunes while the Afghan people are left to live in misery and hunger. His younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, wields so much power in Kandahar province that he has earned the nickname “the King of the South”. He is also on the pay roll of the CIA. However, drug money, based on the biggest crop of opium in the world, serves to fuel corruption as well as the Taliban.
This situation explains the millions of abstentions in the first presidential vote. This was not simply due to the activities of the Taliban, but the widespread disillusionment with government corruption and paralysis. The Karzai government, holed up in a tight security compound, has little support outside of Kabul as the Taliban gain ever more adherents. With the growing violence in Pakistan, there is a serious prospect of ‘Talibanisation’ of the entire region. Neighbouring Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan face desolation, turmoil and calamity. The intervention of the imperialists has not brought stability to the region, let alone ‘democracy’, but has created a whirlwind. They are propping up corrupt, but ‘friendly’ regimes, beginning with Karzai in Kabul, as part of their neo-colonialist policy. However, since major NATO military operations started in Afghanistan in 2006, support for the insurgency has grown. They are engaged in a war that they can never win. The situation is becoming worse and worse by the day. General Stanley McChrystal has requested 40,000 extra US troops, scaled down from an original 80,000, representing ‘one last desperate heave’. The US ambassador to Afghanistan, however, has urged the Administration to maintain troop levels at their current level. Obama is still dithering, a consequence of the deep mess they are in. The recent speeches by Brown and Miliband are a desperate attempt to shore up waning public opinion for this deeply unpopular war.
It is a war that can never deliver social and economic progress to the Afghan people. That was never the intention. The war was originally intended to extend the might and influence of US imperialism throughout the region based on military “shock and awe”. While NATO provides the cover, the war is conducted by the Americans and to a lesser extent by the British. However, they have reached a complete impasse. That explains their splits and paralysis. The labour movement must demand the immediate withdrawal of imperialist troops from Afghanistan. The imperialist powers, who invaded Afghanistan for their own interests, can never solve the problems of the Afghan people. They must be free to decide their own future. However, the barbarism that has been unleashed through the region will never find a solution on the basis of capitalism, feudalism or fundamentalism. Only on the basis of a Socialist Federation of South Asia, including a Socialist Afghanistan, can the horrors of war, hunger, disease and poverty be swept away.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
US Afghan surge shows the deepening crisis
Barack Obama’s new troop surge to Afghanistan is a desperate attempt to get out of the crisis Nato troops are in. Obama is to announce that around 30,000 more troops will be sent to Afghanistan, starting with the deployment of 9,000 marines to Helmand next month. Hopes that the president might represent a break from George Bush’s aggressive imperialist policies lie in tatters. Troop numbers committed to Afghanistan have doubled under Obama—the total with the new commitment will stand at over 100,000. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently revealed the spiralling financial costs of the war: “It’s a million dollars a troop for a year. That’s in addition to what we already spend in Afghanistan and Pakistan... It’s very, very, very expensive.”
But what are Nato’s aims? Gordon Brown has talked a lot about training the Afghan military and police to take over from occupying troops. And Obama says that the troop surge is part of a district-by-district handover plan. Everyone seems keen to avoid direct mention of “exit strategy”. But the reality of the situation should be staring the US, Britain and their military commanders in the face. The more troops that have been ploughed into the Afghan conflict, the more bloody and violent it has become. Tens of thousands of Afghans have been killed or displaced since the war began. And 99 British soldiers and 299 US troops have died this year alone. Not only has little been achieved in territorial gains, but the initial, much-vaunted aim of finding Osama Bin Laden was quietly dropped. Brown has now put Bin Laden back on the agenda with his attacks on Pakistan’s government.
Brown said last week, “We’ve got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September 11, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama Bin Laden, nobody’s been able to get close to Zawahiri, the number two in Al Qaida.” Brown has, of course, been part of the expansion of war in Afghanistan that has pushed the conflict over the border and created massive instability in Pakistan. Yet he had the cheek to say, “We will want to see more evidence of Pakistan action, not just troops in South Waziristan but the whole of the government machine taking action.” But the problem with Nato’s strategy is not just a military one. A political crisis in Afghanistan, and the damage done to Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s reputation after the election scandal earlier this year, has made the pretence of progress and stability harder for leaders to sell.
The US is now considering creating a “high representative” in Kabul that can go over Karzai’s head and will entrench US control - and Brown and Obama have said that aid packages will bypass Karzai’s central government and instead be channeled at a local level to avoid corruption. The crisis and splits at the top of the US and British political and military establishments are proof of the disaster of the Afghan war. Some countries such as Germany and France are refusing to commit more troops, and Canada and others are already following withdrawal plans. The US and Britain look ever more isolated in a war which is unwinnable. And instead of a confident move by world leaders, this latest troop surge has a distinct whiff of desperation.
But what are Nato’s aims? Gordon Brown has talked a lot about training the Afghan military and police to take over from occupying troops. And Obama says that the troop surge is part of a district-by-district handover plan. Everyone seems keen to avoid direct mention of “exit strategy”. But the reality of the situation should be staring the US, Britain and their military commanders in the face. The more troops that have been ploughed into the Afghan conflict, the more bloody and violent it has become. Tens of thousands of Afghans have been killed or displaced since the war began. And 99 British soldiers and 299 US troops have died this year alone. Not only has little been achieved in territorial gains, but the initial, much-vaunted aim of finding Osama Bin Laden was quietly dropped. Brown has now put Bin Laden back on the agenda with his attacks on Pakistan’s government.
Brown said last week, “We’ve got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September 11, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama Bin Laden, nobody’s been able to get close to Zawahiri, the number two in Al Qaida.” Brown has, of course, been part of the expansion of war in Afghanistan that has pushed the conflict over the border and created massive instability in Pakistan. Yet he had the cheek to say, “We will want to see more evidence of Pakistan action, not just troops in South Waziristan but the whole of the government machine taking action.” But the problem with Nato’s strategy is not just a military one. A political crisis in Afghanistan, and the damage done to Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s reputation after the election scandal earlier this year, has made the pretence of progress and stability harder for leaders to sell.
The US is now considering creating a “high representative” in Kabul that can go over Karzai’s head and will entrench US control - and Brown and Obama have said that aid packages will bypass Karzai’s central government and instead be channeled at a local level to avoid corruption. The crisis and splits at the top of the US and British political and military establishments are proof of the disaster of the Afghan war. Some countries such as Germany and France are refusing to commit more troops, and Canada and others are already following withdrawal plans. The US and Britain look ever more isolated in a war which is unwinnable. And instead of a confident move by world leaders, this latest troop surge has a distinct whiff of desperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
