Victory (for a crooked, corrupt and discredited government)

Author: Special report by Patrick Cockburn

From Mr Karzai’s point of view he won through at the end and showed that
nobody is strong enough to get rid of him. For the US President, Barack
Obama, the election has no silver lining. It has left him poised to send
tens of thousands more US troops to fight a war in defence of one of the
world’s most crooked, corrupt and discredited governments. “It is not
that the Taliban is so strong, but the government is so weak,” was a
common saying among Afghans before the election. This will be even truer in
future.

The US and its allies may now push for a national unity government between Mr
Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, his main rival for the presidency. This might
look good on paper, or at least better than the alternative of Mr Karzai
ruling alone. But enforced unity between men who detest each other will
institutionalise divisions. Its value will largely be in terms of propaganda
for external consumption.

On 4 November 2008, when Mr Obama won the US election, he must have believed
he had been right to take a soft line on Iraq and a hard one on Afghanistan.
The former looked much the more dangerous place. Just 12 months later he is
discovering that the reverse is true and Afghanistan is the biggest foreign
policy problem facing the US. It is a more dangerous place for the US and
its allies than Iraq ever was.

In Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, the government was democratically elected by a
huge majority in 2005. There was a savage civil war because the fifth of the
population, who are Sunni Arabs, did not accept that victory. The Shia did
not relish US occupation, but they were prepared to co-operate with it while
they took power. Only the Kurds were long-term US allies.

In Iraq the state was previously strong and can be made strong again. Above
all the Iraqi government had money. Its oil revenues were $62bn (£38bn) last
year. The Afghan government has in the past had limited authority outside
the cities and it has no money apart from foreign aid handouts.

Another important difference between the two countries is geography. Iraq is
flat outside Kurdistan and the great majority live in cities and towns on
the Tigris and Euphrates. It is not good terrain for guerrilla fighters in
contrast to Afghanistan with its high mountains, broken hills and isolated
villages.

The Taliban have been able to use safe havens in the Pashtun belt of
north-west Pakistan. These areas are now under attack from US drones and the
Pakistani army. But the suicide bombers who killed 35 people in Rawalpindi
and maimed at least seven in Lahore yesterday showed that the cost to
Pakistan of attacking an insurgency firmly rooted in its Pashtun community
will be high.

One of the few benefits of the Afghan election might be a more realistic
understanding in the US and Europe ? particularly in Britain ? of the
mechanics of Afghan politics. These were eloquently summarised in his
resignation letter to the US State Department by Matthew Hoh, the senior
American civilian representative in Zabul province. He was previously a US
Marine officer in Iraq. Mr Hoh makes the important point that the US has
joined one side in what is effectively a 35-year-long civil war in
Afghanistan. He sees this as being between the urban, educated, secular,
modern Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional
Pashtun.

“The US and Nato presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages,
as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of
non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which
the insurgency is justified,” concludes Mr Hoh. “I have observed
that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the
Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes
imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.”

Mr Hoh’s observations are confirmed by opinion polls in Afghanistan. The
majority of Afghans do not want more foreign troops. They think their
arrival will mean more dead Afghans. The areas where the Taliban is most
acceptable is where US and allied planes and artillery have killed
civilians. The idea that the US Army is going to turn into a glorified Peace
Corps is romantic and unrealistic.

Washington and London should really wonder after Afghanistan’s farcical
election if their political and military investment in the country is worth
it. Their policy of propping up and strengthening the central government
looks more ludicrous than before. There is something sickening when British
troops had their legs blown off securing polling stations where Afghans
could vote, when the British-supported government in Kabul was busily
fabricating the vote so the presence or absence of polling booths was
entirely irrelevant.

The US and Britain have joined somebody else’s civil war. It is not one that
the Taliban are likely to win, because they rely on the Pashtun community
which makes up only 42 per cent of the population. By the same token they
are not likely to lose either. American troop reinforcements would give the
anti-Taliban forces control over more of the country but would also
intensify the war. The context of greater US involvement will be, thanks to
the election, a weaker Karzai government so Americans, not Afghans, will
take the vital political and military decisions. To Afghans this means the
foreign presence will look even more like an imperial occupation.

View full article here


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ezine Article Board

Author:

This author has published 5773 articles so far.

Comments are closed