CPD: End the Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan
[As a number of signatories to this Campaign for Peace and Democracy statement are DSA members and friends, we repost part of it here. - Ed.]
We Call for the United States to End Its Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan! A Statement from the Campaign for Peace and Democracy – October, 2009
This may be a turning point for the expanding U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a time when speaking out clearly and unambiguously against war can make a crucial difference. Today we see signs all too reminiscent of the step-by-step deepening of the U.S. commitment to the war in Vietnam in the 1960’s. In response, we declare ourselves firmly against military escalation in the region and for the withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan now. We also call for an end to drone attacks in both countries.
There are currently 108,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. President Obama has authorized increasing U.S. forces by 21,000, which will mean more than 68,000 U.S. troops by the end of 2009. In view of the war’s growing unpopularity, Obama may very well abandon troop escalation. Reportedly, some in the Administration even recommended reducing U.S. forces and focusing more on strikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But even a scaled-back military presence constitutes an illegitimate occupation, one that wreaks havoc on the lives of innocent civilians and can only strengthen the Taliban and terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda.
To read the rest and see the list of signatories, click here: http://www.cpdweb.org/stmts/1014/stmt.shtml
“But even a scaled-back military presence constitutes an illegitimate occupation, one that wreaks havoc on the lives of innocent civilians and can only strengthen the Taliban and terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda.”
I would have to question this. According to most estimates there are a maximum of 100 core Al-Qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan with no ability to target the West and no bases, they are mostly launching small bombs and IDE attacks from isolated underground cells. Considering the pre-invasion strength of Al-Qaeda in Afganistan I would hardly say that the US occupation or the fairly significant civilian deaths in airstrikes have done much to bolster Al Qaeda. The Taliban of course aren’t a homogeneous entity, but among the liberal-left there is this narrative that the Taliban are experiencing “widening support” in the face of drone attacks and discontent with NATO occupation. This is objectively false. They remain marginalized, weak and only have a mass base in a few locales. Recent national opinion polling in Afghanistan state that only 4% want the Taliban back, 58% say the Taliban are the biggest danger to Afghanistan, 90% say they are opposed to the Taliban and 84% say that the Taliban are weak or non-existent in their own areas. There are arguments to make against the occupation, but this isn’t one of them.
Also, 69 percent of Afghanis approve of the toppling of the Taliban by NATO forces. How do the signatories view the majority of the Afghan people? As stooges for world imperialism? Are they “orientalists”? What of our sister organizations within Afghan society that are refusing to call for an immediate withdrawal?
Within the diverse Afghan resistance there is an Islamist core and their allies in Al-Qaeda that would undoubtedly be bolstered greatly by an immediate withdrawal, which would represent the reactionaries’ triumph against yet another global superpower and the force of modern imperialism itself. Do the signatories really want what they say they want? Or do they want a timetabled withdrawal of foreign forces, to encourage progressive change within the Afghan government and for an increased influx in material aid to the Afghan government (including military aid) and NGOs in order to stabilize the country, rebuild and expand infrastructure and prevent the return of Islamists to power. I’m not sure what I think, but I know that the situation at this historical juncture are far more complicated than anti-war forces are willing to admit. I think we need a more coherent understanding of world imperialism in the 21st century and the profoundly reactionary, anti-hegemonic resistance it’s encountering in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s natural to want to put this in the same imperialist, anti-imperialist dichotomy and “pick a side,” like either extreme of the liberal-left, but I think this is a serious mistake.
I also have to shake my head at the obligatory Vietnam comparison.
This is one of the many reasons that I’m completely disgusted with the decision to give Obama the Nobel Peace prize. How obscene.
I think you’re getting a bit too worked up about this, Bhaskar. The statement calls for a stop to military escalation, withdrawal of U.S. forces, an end to drone attacks in both countries, regional negotations, and more humanitarian aid. Sure, I suppose you could nitpick at this or that point, but on the whole this sounds good to me.
Well I’m criticizing the call for withdrawal, which is a pretty fundamental point.
OK, but even when people call for withdrawal “now” they usually don’t expect the withdrawal to happen this afternoon. Yeah, perhaps they could have explained a bit more as to what they mean by “now” and whether or not they’d want some sort of timetable for withdrawal and how long it should take, but the basic thrust of this is correct, as far as I can tell.
As usual, Bhaskar, your comments are well thought-out. Afghanistan is an incredibly complex war. I vehemently oppose escalation, but I also do not think immediate withdrawal is the answer. While Karzai is a U.S. puppet who controls little outside of Kabul, a large portion of Afghan society itself wants ISAF forces to stay, at least in part. I think ultimately the solution is to train Afghan security forces so they can maintain order in their own country. I would also like to see the U.S., EU, etc. increase civilian aid to build democratic institutions and move the Afghan economy away from opium production.
And Jake-absolutely! Though I prefer the word “absurd” to “obscene”-a minor semantic difference, but just my personal preference.
Bhaskar, I understand your sentiments and agree an immediate withdrawal isn’t possible, but it’s not like the Afghanistan people are happy with the U.S. Army there either: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/09/obama-nobel-prize-reaction
And not to seem snarky, but where’d your statistics come from?
Bhaskar, what would such a NATO “victory” look like? What would it entail? Does NATO even know? NATO has already been in Afghanistan for 8 years, and little has improved. Should we give them another 8 in order to achieve “conditions for withdrawal?” Any sensible assessment of the situation that I have seen makes clear that sending additional troops would do little to end the conflict and stabilize the country. If we don’t stand for withdrawal within the near future, then we’re essentially supporting further open-ended warfare as the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. That is indeed an odd position for a radical to be in.
Andrew Bacevich had a pretty good piece in the Boston Globe recently on Afghanistan. It’s worth reading: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/11/afghanistan___the_proxy_war/
For the record, I agree with Chris.
I agree with the others: I can understand having some negociations with the Afghanistan/Pakistan and even Taliban representives before pulling out,but any hope of the war solving anything has pretty much bottomed out.
I’m not as well informed as I should be on the war in Afghanistan. But it seems to me determining the right policy to support, we have to take two factors into consideration:
1. What do the Afghani people want?
2. What is the best policy in regards to dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism.
While I’m probably not as informed as everyone else, it seems to me like the second point is almost always ignored. Shouldn’t we take that more into account when talking about subjects like war or national security the threat of terrorism? Will a withdrawal increase the threat of terrorism?
Hi Don, good to see you comment here! The potential for terrorist attacks against Americans should not be taken lightly (as a New Yorker, this fear is always lurking in the back of my mind). But at the same time, since one can’t really say with any certainty that a military withdrawal from Afghanistan would definitely result in increased terrorist plots against American civilians formulated in that country, we shouldn’t be scared into thinking that withdrawal automatically equals dead American civilians. Besides, couldn’t Islamic terrorist attacks against American civilians already be plotted in a number of other countries around the world? By that logic, we should just go ahead and invade and occupy the rest of the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as northern Africa for good measure.
I would agree that withdrawal wouldn’t increase the odds of another terrorist attack (might even decrease them).