Some Comments in the Light of the Afghanistan Withdrawal

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

I haven't written on Afghanistan for over ten years. In the light of President Biden's announced troop withdrawal, to coincide with the 20^th anniversary of the 9/11 Disaster, which led eventually to the direct Afghan invasion by G. W. Bush (as contrasted with the indirect invasion against the Soviets that began in 1979 under Carter/ Brzezinski), I thought that it would be the time to go back to a couple of items published back in 2009, just as Pres. Obama was taking office. But before that I thought that it would be useful to consider the events that began in in the 1970s that led directly to the Bush invasion which in turn led to the 20-year U.S. military involvement. (One cannot call the latter an "occupation," for the country is much too big for the number of troops the US ever at the most committed and is much too complex historically, politically, and linguistically [about 40 different languages are spoken] for an occupation ever to take place, without a truly enormous number of troops.)

The Graveyard of Empires

Before going further, we do have to visit the old saying about Afghanistan: "It is the graveyard of Empires." Alexander the Great was thwarted. Persia could never incorporate it, even though one of the major languages is very similar to the prime Persian (Iranian) language, Farsi. (At the beginning of the Taliban military expansion in the early 2000s Iran provided aid to U.S. forces, on its porous Eastern border with Afghanistan. This came to an end when the Bush Administration went full-bore against Iran with the "Axis of Evil" speech.)

The English came a cropper with the Retreat from Kabul of 1842. They had a few more tries, but never were able to take full control of the country. The Soviet Union never did try to make Afghanistan part of itself, but it was a major support for a left-wing government after the overthrow of the Afghan king in 1973. They then became trapped by a Zbigniew Brzezinski inspired right-wing counter-revolutionary force strongly assisted by the U.S. (see below), and were eventually driven out as well. In the summer of 2001, before 9/11, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney was negotiating with the Taliban for the rights to create a pipe-line for natural gas coming from Turkmenistan (on Afghanistan's Northwest frontier, it has huge natural gas supplies) through Afghanistan and on to Pakistan and (even) India. That project flopped, although construction was finally re-started in 2015. However, the U.S., leaving as well, now will have no direct role in its construction or operation. The "Graveyard of Empires" indeed.

As it happens, one of the reasons that it is the Graveyard of Empires is that Afghanistan is a very complex country and always has been. For example, it has about ten major languages (including English) and (as noted) about 40 minor ones. There are seven major ethnic groups (each with its own language) and many minor ones. It is also quite mountainous and has some unique borders (like the "prong" that extends into China in the northeast).

The Afghan/"Mujahedeen"/Soviet Battle of the 1980s

As can be seen, the history of Afghanistan is quite complex, even beyond the attempts of various imperial powers to take it over. But the modern history begins in 1973 when its most recent king was overthrown in a popular rebellion. That history is marked by the overthrow of two more "attempts at empire" --- not in the literal/historical sense, but in the international/political sense --- of course those of the Soviet Union and the United States.The Soviet Union had been giving aid to Afghanistan off and on since the early 1920s. (Afghanistan borders on several of the Central Asian nations --- e.g., Turkmenistan, Tajikstan, that had been part of the Russian Empire and under the Soviet Union were "Constituent Republics.") With the full takeover of the nation in 1978 by the left-wing People's Democratic Party (PDP) thrugh free elections, Soviet aid increased. So did the resistance to the leftists from various right-wing groupings, which were allowed to operate from sanctuaries in Pakistan by that government.

As an example of what was happening under PDP rule, consider the following (and also consider the quote from The New York Times columnist Bret Stephens with which I finish this column):

"Afghan Women under an Afghan Version of Socialism, 1978-92
"Marilyn Bechtel writes in the Peoples Weekly World:

" 'When the People's Democratic party (PDP) assumed power in 1978, they started to work for a more equitable distribution of economic and social resources. Among their goals were the continuing emancipation of women and girls from the age-old tribal bondage (a process begun under Zahir Shah [the last Afghan King, deposed 1973]), equal rights for minority nationalities, including the country's most oppressed group, the Hazara, and increasing access for ordinary people to education, medical care, decent housing, and sanitation.' "

The anti-PDP/Soviet war, which got underway in earnest in the 1980s, was not from the outset "Charlie Wilson's War" (although it came to be called that later, under Reagan. And of course, the story was eventually made into a quite successful movie.) Wilson was a Congressman who in the early 80's pushed hard to provide weaponry (such as the Stinger missiles so useful against Soviet helicopters) to the right-wing rebels, the "mujahedeen."

The "Taliban," the principal adversaries of the current Afghan government which the U.S. supports, are descended from a branch of the mujahedeen (who of course would not likely have amounted to much without that critical U.S. support in the 1980s-90s). It was that guerrilla war which eventually led to the abandonment of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, which is considered by many to be a major milestone on the final road that led to their defeat in the 75-Years War Against the Soviet Union.

"Charlie Wilson's War" was actually a made-up name, applied to it after the war had been well under way. As noted, after the final overthrow of the Afghan monarchy by the left-wing People's Democratic Party, the Soviet Union moved quickly to support the new government. But there was significant resistance to it in various parts of the country, especially along the border regions. By 1979, the Afghan government was requesting direct Soviet military aid, in progressively larger amounts.

It is very important to note that U.S. support for the anti-Soviet/Afghan Government resistance began during this time, before Reagan became President. It was recommended to President Carter by none other than Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (yes indeed, that's Mika's Dad) that the US intervene on the side of the rebels. He correctly predicted that if the rebellion were maintained, Afghanistan would eventually become the "Soviet Union's Viet Nam." As noted, that it did was a major factor in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.

When the support for the right-wing rebels was expanded under Reagan, the "Charlie Wilson's War" label became a convenient way to try to make sure that there was no apparent link between the Reaganite policy and Carter's (which were actually the same). Yes, the Republican determination not to give any credit for anything to any Democrat if at all possible does extend back that far.

Now let's go to 2009, and Afghanistan and U.S. Presidential politics. Back then I wrote that:

"One wonders what Dr. Brzezinski is advising Pres.-elect Obama to do about Afghanistan." [Yes 'Zbig,' the life-long anti-Soviet hard-liner, was back at the center of the action.] Let's hope that it is not to do what the Senator said he would do, during the campaign [expand the U.S. presence]. Otherwise, sure as shootin', Afghanistan will become Obama's Iraq. Within the past month, the Taliban have proposed peace talks with the NATO forces currently fighting in their country. [Sound familiar?] They offered up front, as part of a deal, to cut their ties to al-Qaeda. To be effective, such an agreement would have to enforceable, but that could likely be worked out.

"Such an agreement would surely make it much easier to come to an agreement with Pakistan for how to go about stabilizing their Northwest Frontier, an important objective for Obama. It is highly advisable that the President-elect moves in this direction just as soon as he firms up an agreement with the Iraqis for the complete withdrawal of American forces in that country. If he does not, and falls into the former 'Brzezinski Trap' in Afghanistan just as the Soviet Union did, the irony of such a happening would be the least of its long-term negative outcomes. [Remember, folks, this was written in 2009. As has been said, in a quote often attributed to Mark Twain, "History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes."]

"We hear that things are getting worse and worse in Afghanistan. A recent National Intelligence Estimate (AP/Yahoo! News, Oct. 9, 2008) concluded that it is heading on a 'downward spiral.' During the presidential campaign, President-elect Obama said on numerous occasions that he would 'send more troops' to Afghanistan and would 'do something about Pakistan.' Whether this was real, well thought-out policy or more of a cojones show for the crowd and the Republican Scream Machine we don't know."

And finally, here is what I wrote on the Killing of Osama bin Laden [again, the references are at the end of this column]

"Osama bin Laden was a very well-known figure. Among other things, he is thought to have been the mastermind behind the 9-11 Disaster (although he subsequently denied it). As is well-known, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Among other targets, it was thought that one was the capture of Osama bin Laden. However, for reasons that are still murky, that was never achieved, at least under Pres. G.W. Bush, although apparently there were one or more opportunities to do so. Pres. Obama did oversee the capture of Osama in 2011, which was done then for reasons that have never been made clear, followed by the killing of Osama."

Some Final (current) Thoughts

Many questions arise. Why was Osama not returned to the United States to stand trial, in open court, for organizing and then leading from afar the 9/11 Disaster? Bush could have had him. Did Bush not want to kill him because of his father's connections to Osama's father through the Carlyle Group? Further, remember that somewhere between 18 and 24 members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the United States during the three-day national "no-fly" period following the 9/11 Disaster, interestingly enough before they could be questioned by the FBI. Why did that happen?

One can speculate that no one wanted bin Laden openly testifying in a U.S. court, with the possibility that he might reveal some very embarrassing details about the support he and his fellow mujahedeen had received from the U.S. during the Intervention against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Obama had no family-tie compunctions about killing Osama, and for sure he had the same reasons for making sure that he never turned up in a U.S. court. Such questions will likely never be answered, but it is useful to note them as the day for the U.S. withdrawal approaches, symbolically September 11, 2021.

Postscripts

1. On April 21, 2021, The New York Times' Tom Friedman had an extensive column on a trip he made to Afghanistan with then Senator Joe Biden, then-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, in 2002. He concluded the column thusly:

"So that was Joe Biden's and my introduction to Afghanistan. When I interviewed him last December, a month after his election as president, we got talking informally about the Middle East and he asked if I remembered our trip to Afghanistan and all the craziness at the end. I never forgot it, I told him. Clearly, neither had he. Our nation's effort there was worth a try; our soldiers and diplomats were trying to make it better, but it was never clear that they knew how or had enough Afghan partners. Yes, maybe leaving will make it worse, but our staying wasn't really helping. Our leaving may be a short-term disaster, and in the longer run, who knows, maybe Afghanistan will find balance on its own, like Vietnam. Or not. I don't know. I am as humbled and ambivalent about it today as I was 20 years ago, and I am sure that Biden is too."

Yes indeed. The Graveyard of Empires.

2. On April 20, 2021, The New York Times' Bret Stephens posted a column entitled "Abandoning Afghanistan Is a Historic Mistake." In it he noted:

"I once boarded a flight from Dubai to Kabul alongside a team of Afghan soccer players teenage girls in red uniforms, chatting and laughing much as they might have anywhere else in the world. I thought of those players again after President Biden announced plans for America's complete military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

"I hope they have the means to get out before the Taliban take over again, as sooner or later will most likely happen.

"The United States did not go into Afghanistan after 9/11 to improve the status of women. We did so anyway. Millions of girls, whom the Taliban had forbidden to get any kind of education, went to school. Some of them not nearly enough, but impressive considering where they started from and the challenges they faced became doctors, entrepreneurs, members of Parliament. A few got to watch their daughters play soccer under the protective shield of Pax Americana.

"Those women are now being abandoned. So is every Afghan who struggled to make the country a more humane, hospitable, ethnically and socially tolerant place some by taking immense personal risks to help U.S. troops, diplomats and aid workers do their jobs. As George Packer writes in The Atlantic, there are some 17,000 such Afghans waiting for the wheels of U.S. bureaucracy to turn so they can get their visas."

Well, Mr. Stephens, that, given the quote above from the People's Weekly World, puts you right into the league with the progressive Afghan government of the 1970s, which Pres. Carter and NSA Brzezinski decided had to be forcibly removed. Yes that was done in order "to give the Soviet Union [the Afghans' ally at the time] their Viet Nam." In the course of which, of course, forces [e.g., the Taliban] that among other things, eliminate any rights for women, were significantly strengthened (and now are the main opposition to what's left of the Afghan central government). It was that deadly decision, which, of course, led to the deadly 20 years of the attempted U.S. occupation, which now leads to the deadly situation which the U.S. will be leaving behind (in my view, sadly, but correctly): once again a nation that has been the historical graveyard of so many Empires, but much more importantly, for so many more Afghanis.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This column is based in part on (much) earlier columns of mine: Click Here; http://blog.buzzflash.com/jonas/173

(Article changed on Apr 23, 2021 at 9:27 AM EDT)

(Article changed on Apr 24, 2021 at 6:23 PM EDT)