Want to know what our grand strategy is for winning Afghanistan? Here is what NATO is saying.

[IndianaGreen]

In a nutshell, the grand strategy is to break up the country into individual cantons run by local warlords, the same warlords accused of narcotrafficking and human rights abuses, particularly against women. This is the outcome we are being asked to support. This is the outcome our troops are being ordered to fight for.

Europe backs Afghanistan strategy aimed at “regionalization”

27 November 2009

The US and its allies are planning a massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan. In a television address next Tuesday, delivered from the West Point military academy, US president Barack Obama will announce his plans to increase the current American military contingent of 68,000 by an estimated additional 30,000 soldiers.

The NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen is at the same time seeking to drum up an additional 10,000 soldiers from European countries. There is every indication that he will get what he wants. Despite increasing economic and political tensions with the US, the European powers are completely behind the war in Afghanistan. Having supported the war from the start, European powers would suffer the consequences alongside the US of any Vietnam-style debacle.

According to the new German defense secretary, Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, the United States and its allies are condemned “to success” in Afghanistan. The deployment is “a litmus test, not only for the transatlantic alliance, but for the entire west,” he has said.

The decision by president Obama was preceded by fierce disputes within the American leadership and NATO. The result is not only a substantial increase in troops, but also a new strategy, the precise implications of which are being played down with the term “regionalization”.

During his inaugural visit to Washington, Guttenberg said it was necessary to put aside “the romantic idea of democratization of the whole country along the lines of the western model” and instead “transfer control of individual provinces step by step to the Afghan security forces.”

<snip>

The new strategy of “regionalization” is aimed at dividing Afghanistan into individual cantons—in a similar manner to what took place in Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia. Up to now the US-NATO occupation supported the government of Hamid Karzai and sold the process to the public as “democratization”. However, occupation forces are moving increasingly to hand over power directly to regional warlords and their militias—on the assumption that such regional forces will follow the orders of their imperial masters. As soon as there is no more danger in a specific province, Guttenberg declared, then the international troops should be withdrawn from that area.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n27.shtml

[Turbineguy]

1. This strategy is probably better

than the Reagan cut-and-run strategy of before. This country needs time and support to evolve into a proper civilized country. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was left to fester with the result that the Taliban could take over.

This warlord feudal society is at best a temporary situation. But since putting in a bunch of corrupt assholes hasn't seemed to work, we may as well try this. It's a system with a history and divides the country and therefore the problems into more manageable pieces.

If I were one of those warlords, I'd set up my region where women would be free to pursue education and a more modern way of life and enjoy equal rights.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The only time women were free in Afghanistan was under the Marxist government the US toppled

Some background is in order, read the following comments regarding Obama's Afghan surge posted by a CommonDreams reader:

mcoyote November 24th, 2009 8:53 am

Oh... but, but ,but it is the rights of women that Obama cares about.

In 1978 the Afghan government of Mohammed Daoud Khan moved against the leading Afghan opposition political party, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). A leader of the party, Mir Akbar Khyber, was murdered and most of the leadership of the party were arrested during his funeral (reportedly at the instigation of the CIA). In response, the remainder of the PDPA staged an uprising which won power in April of 1978. The party immediately published a series of reforms which echoed the failed attempts at reform in Afghanistan going all the way back to the overthrow of the "reformist King", Amanullah Khan, in 1929.

Within days, the CIA began to organize and fund the reactionary and Islamist "opposition forces" in the countryside of Afghanistan, who had already been the fundamental barriers to reform for over a century. This was 2 years BEFORE the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski has openly bragged that the purpose of the U.S. operations was to FORCE Soviet intervention.

The issues on which the CIA organized were the PDPA's Land Reform and the elimination of debts in the countryside (both of which attacked the power of the rural "warlords"), religious freedom (or the elimination of Sharia Law), and, most important of all, the granting of equal rights for women (which had also been central to the overthrow of Amanullah in 1929).

For the first time in Afghan history, a woman - Dr. Anahita Ratebzad, had become a member of the ruling Revolutionary Council. Less than one month after the uprising, Ratebzad wrote a famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."

In response, the CIA distributed leaflets throughout Afghanistan with Dr. Ratebzhad's face displayed prominently on them.

Obama must not have any sense of irony and his "moral high ground" sits lower than the Marianas Trench. The Taliban was created out of whole cloth by the U.S., hatred of women's rights and religious freedom were the pillars of that creation, and the hand wringing now, concerning those "poor Afghan women", is light years beyond hypocrisy.

SIMPLE FACT- US INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN IS ILLEGAL

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because the attacks on September 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/24

[Turbineguy]

4. This goes to the central problem posed

by the aggressive Soviet government looking to export their revolution. Anything termed "communist" was bad. It was a doctrine that dominated US policy for most of the 20th Century.

Thanks for that background.

[theoldman]

6. I suggest you read "The Graveyard of Empires".

It's a long read but the most education book on the subject of Afghanistan.

[boppers]

21. Good reminders.

Hard left (no beards allowed!) met hard right (must grow beard!).

Afghans got fucked in the process, and have suffered ever since.

[ShortnFiery]

3. The thought that we are remaining in Afghanistan to keep either ...

the American or Afghani People SAFER is BULLSHIT on it's very surface.

We're injecting ourselves into the middle of a civil war and propping up a corrupt government (Karzai) that is only in control of the heavily populated centers, i.e., called "targets" to the native tribal peoples we term the *evildoer* Taliban.

To remain is FOLLY but to increase combat troop strength is "a recipe for disaster" for ALL PEOPLES save for a very small percentage of the world community 1% who thrive off of the weapons of death and destruction as well as never-ending war. Everyone else will suffer greatly and/or die.

ENOUGH! If AMERICANS refuse to send their sons and daughters into the meat-grinder that is the MIC, we CAN gut the horrifically high defense spending and refocus on our DOMESTIC crises? :grr:

[avaistheone1]

5. Great post. Telling chart

I would like to add this one.




U.S. Budget Priorities

http://notmypriorities.org/


This chart represents the U.S. discretionary budget - for last year. It does not include the bailout or the massive increase Congress voted overwhelmingly to give the Pentagon for this year.



Military spending is eating up and taking over this country like it did the old Soviet Union. Our priorities are becoming a cross of the old Soviets some third-world banana republic.

I can stand to see Obama taking us down this same destructive path both for the world and for us here in the states.

[Aramchek]

7. what's Kucinich's Afghan strategy?

oh, I forgot, he doesn't have one.

[Forkboy]

20. And that changes anything about the OP how?

Oh, I forgot, it doesn't.

[avaistheone1]

23. I am confident

it will be a better one than what we will hear on Tuesday.

[dgibby]

8. Thanks.

Your posts are very educational. Thanks for taking the time to give us the background info. I'm learning a lot from you.


K&R

[HamdenRice]

9. Looks like WSWS disease is spreading

Sad. Terminal brain disorder. Next phase is believing stuff in World Weekly News and the Onion is real also.

[johnaries]

10. Yes, it is sad. When people hold preconcieved opinions

they will turn to any "source" that seems to validate their opinion, no matter what the source is.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Had you read it, the WSWS quotes the Frankfurter Neue Presse on the new strategy in Afghan

The Frankfurter Neue Presse commented on the new strategy in Afghanistan as follows: “Afghanistan is a tribal and clan society, in which clan leaders determine which presidential candidates should be selected by his subjects. Whoever has the support of sufficient clan leaders wins the election.” The newspaper then quotes the British general Paul Newton, who in an utterly cynical fashion summed up the new war strategy by declaring one should pack “bags of gold” in order to buy the co-operation of regional rulers.

Hamid Karzai, the puppet of the occupying powers, had also only been able to hold on to power by purchasing the favors of the most important regional clan leaders. While the occupation powers are publicly calling upon Karzai to proceed against corruption and favoritism, they have now adopted a strategy aimed at co-operation with the most corrupt elements in Afghanistan.

The Taliban, the vilification of which has so far played an important role in US-NATO propaganda justifying the war, is also included in such co-operation. According to newspaper reports, the US government has already established contact with “moderate Taliban” elements in Afghanistan. According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, the chief mediator for these contacts is the Saudi royal family.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n27.shtml

[HamdenRice]

27. There is no reason to believe that any quote WSWS publishes is correct

They make stuff up all the time. They're basically about as reliable as World Weekly News.

World Weekly News publishes direct quotes from Bat Boy. That doesn't mean they're accurate.

[avaistheone1]

22. The WSWS has some fine articles.

Is your problem that is it not produced by Halliburton, or Walmart?

[LooseWilly]

25. Would you care to provide a "factual"/"textual" analysis to back that assertion up?

I'd say the final four paragraphs seem to have a "World Socialist" interpretive slant, but the rest seems to be realistic journalism.

It all seems to mesh quite nicely with the details provided in a Wiki History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan , as well as the Northern Alliance Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance ... In particular, the part of the Northern Alliance Wiki:

The UIF was composed of roughly five of the factions of mujahideen fighters. Iran and Turkey considered there to be seven factions in total. These groups were:

Islamic Movement of Afghanistan - Harakat-i-Islami-yi Afghanistan - Shia, led by Ayatollah Muhammad Asif Muhsini.

Islamic Party of Afghanistan - Jamiat-I Islami-yi Afghanistan - Made up of mainly Persian-speaking Tajiks, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani. In later years as the capital was lost and the situation was largely military, Rabbani had little influence compared to Defence Ministers Ahmed Shah Massoud and Mohammed Fahim, who were also members of the Party.

Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan - Ittihad-I Islami Bara-yi Azadi - Pashtun, led by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf.

Islamic Unity Party of Afghanistan - Hizb-I Wahdat-I Islami-yi Afghanistan - Made up of Shia Hazaras, once led by the martyred Abdul Ali Mazari and later by Mohammed Mohaqiq and Karim Khalili, supported by Iran.

National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan - Junbish-I Milli-yi Afghanistan - Made up of Uzbeks and former communists, led by Abdul Rashid Dostum, supported by Turkey.

seems to support the idea of the regionalism as history of Afghanistan... and would seem to be a "rational" basis for a starting point for a regionalistic approach to building stability in the country, in reaction to a perceived lack of legitimacy of a Karzai-led central government.

Presumably, the "descendants" of these factions, as well as regional leaders in the South, will be the "regional" leaders that will be turned to in the new "Confederacy" tribalistic approach to securing stability in Afghanistan.

In terms of Afghan historical context, it might well be an innovative and realistic approach to securing stability.

Ironically, though, all the lofty goals of modernization, women's rights, etc. that are talked about as goals for Afghanistan... were actually coming to fruition under the communist rule- until the US decided to fund and incite the fundamentalists in order to fuck with the Soviets. Reading that bit of history makes me suddenly feel just a little more dirty to be an American. I think I need another drink...

[johnaries]

11. How do you get "local warlords" from "Afghan Security Forces"?

The fact that the goal is to "transfer control" completely contradicts your statement that the power is to remain in the hands of the existing warlords.

And considering that Afghanistan is already highly regionalized and always has been, this sounds like the only viable plan of action.

[IndianaGreen]

14. The only viable security forces are the ones controlled by the warlords

so when the Pentagon refers to Afghan security forces, they either refer to the ragtag group under Karzai's control, or the better equipped warlords' militias.

[johnaries]

17. That's a pretty shaky assumption. Can you back that up?

Do you have any evidence that they are talking about local warlord militias instead of national forces? I would assume they are talking about the same forces they have been training, not local militias. Otherwise, they would have been training the local militias, instead.

[IndianaGreen]

19. You really don't have a clue as to what is going on in Afghanistan, do you?

I suggest you pay more attention to the British press, particularly recent reports of what the British military and diplomats have had to say about Afghanistan recently.

I strongly suggest that, rather relying on MSM or the equally misleading White House, that you find out what the Afghans are saying. I particularly recommend the speeches and writings of Malalai Joya, a champion of women's rights in Afghanistan.

Here is a recent speech:

Eight years ago, the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan under the banner of women's rights. Today, the situation for women--half of the population of the country--is hell in most of the provinces. Killing a woman is as easy as killing a horse. A few days before I come here, in Sar-e Pol province in the north of Afghanistan, a 5-year-old girl was kidnapped and killed. The rape of women and kidnapping and acid attacks--all of this violence is increasing rapidly, even at historical levels. And all of these crimes are happening in the name of democracy, women's rights and human rights.

I'm saying that as long as these warlords are in power along with these occupation forces, there is no hope to make positive changes in the lives of the men and women of my country.

It's not only women who are suffering. If I talked only about conditions for women, it would be all morning, but I wouldn't even be finished. All of this shocking news that the media never even gives to the people around the world. Women don't even have a human life.

But today, women and men don't have liberation. Millions of Afghans suffer from injustice, insecurity, corruption, joblessness, etc. Your government says that it sent troops there so that girls can go to school, but according to official figures from the government, more than 600 schools have been closed. When the girls go to school, they throw acid on their faces.

I think education is important--very important in my country. I always say that it's the key to our emancipation. But security is more important than food and water. They keep the situation dangerous like this so they can stay longer in Afghanistan because of their strategy and policies.

To know more about the deep tragedy of Afghanistan, during these eight years, they changed my country to the capital of the center of drug trade.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/03/no-nation-can-liberate-another

[RepublicanElephant]

12. k&r nt

[FarLeftFist]

15. If we're going to commit to this shit then....

That may be one of the better strategies I've heard so far. These tribal communities have no desire to become a democracy, and forcing them to do so is pathetic, the least we can do at this point is put it in their hands and let them start their own revolution. Or we can leave.

[BeFree]

16. Finally a strategy that may work

...and an exit plan. 8 f'n years and this is the first good idea heard.

[David Zephyr]

18. Well, these fools must now downsize the definition of victory to declare it.

Since Afghanistan is already a regionalized, war-lord run piece of terrain, the only question I have is then why don't we declare our "victory" and leave?

The answer: too many people are making too much money and are too invested in the whole circus to stop it.

Meanwhile, Americans are living in their cars and in tents and eating cat food.

Tune in Tuesday Night: President Obama will address the nation on what's important in his mind: Afghanistan. Not jobs for American citizens.

I've forgotten, does being a soldier count as being employed now? Maybe that's Obama's job creation program.

[avaistheone1]

24. When Gulf War 1 started James Baker was interviewed and slipped that the war was a jobs program.

I saw the original news story on tv once, and then it was scrubbed.

Deja vu - here we go again.

[jeanpalmer]

26. This is a litmus test for the entire West?

What a bunch of fkn idiots!

Have the Viet Cong landed at Long Beach yet?