Reprinted from the July 18, 2002 issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
IS PENTAGON STRATEGY FOR
AFGHANISTAN UNRAVELING?
By John Catalinotto
Since the U.S. attack that killed at least 48 Afghan civilians and wounded
117 others July 1, two more events in Kabul have reflected
the unraveling of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
On July 3, the first anti-U.S. protest took place in Kabul,
the Afghan capital, since the occupation. Some 200 people, many of them women
wearing traditional garb, marched through the streets, halting traffic, to ask
the U.S. to stop killing civilians.
On July 6, Vice President and Public Works Minister Haji Abdul Qadir was
assassinated by gunfire in broad daylight in downtown Kabul.
Qadir was the only high official in the Afghan government besides President
Mohammad Karzai who is from the Pashtun part of the population. Karzai has
already asked for help from the occupation forces to track down Qadir's
killers.
Both events are signs of growing instability in already unstable Afghanistan. They have weakened the Karzai government--a U.S.
puppet regime--and aroused growing anger against the U.S.
role in the country.
They have also sparked a discussion among U.S.
"Afghanistan experts" over Washington's policies in the region that recalls the discussion that took place
when the U.S. began bombing last October in an attempt to overthrow
Taliban rule. At that time analysts and journalists raised the specter of an Afghanistan "quagmire" similar to the problems the USSR
faced when its military attempted to support a pro-socialist regime in Kabul
from 1980 to 1989.
But the Taliban ran an unpopular regime and was dependent on support from Pakistan.
Once that country deserted them, the Taliban quickly collapsed before a
U.S.-backed onslaught by other reactionary Afghan forces led by the Northern Alliance. It looked like an easy U.S.
victory.
But that was only the first phase. Since that time the U.S. has
been unable to establish a stable government in Kabul
that can run the country. It has also failed to capture the leaders of either
the Taliban or of Al Qaeda, which was supposed to be the object of U.S.
aggression against Afghanistan.
In the meantime U.S.
bombings--much of them conducted from high altitude--have killed close to 4,000
Afghan civilians along with four Canadian soldiers hit by error.
KABUL PROTEST A WARNING
The Kabul protest was a relatively mild warning to Washington. "We condemn terrorism," an organizer said outside the UN
compound. "We are not against the Americans, but it doesn't mean they
should drop bombs on residents, happy ceremonies and sanctuaries instead of
military targets. The U.S. should get through to its officers that this kind of
incident could destroy relations and the trust between the two nations."
Others were not so friendly. Jan Mohammed Khan, the governor of Oruzgan
province, where the civilians were killed, demanded that the U.S.
military hand over the "spies" who had provided the information that
led to the air attack on the village of Kakrak.
"If Americans don't stop killing civilians, there will be a holy war
against them in my province. ... This has to stop, or people will fight
Americans just like they did Russians [in the 1980s]." Khan was himself
appointed by the U.S.-backed regime in Kabul.
Descriptions of the U.S.-caused terror show why this sentiment is growing.
A farmer, Abdul Bari, while comforting his heavily bandaged 6-year-old
nephew Ghulam, told the media: "Fifteen people from my home are dead. My
wife, my brother, everyone is dead. We don't know why the Americans hate
us."
What makes the U.S. actions even more galling is the public attitude of
the Pentagon. First U.S. officials denied a massacre took place. Then they
said they had no evidence that so many people were killed. And they said that
ground fire from the village was threatening U.S.
forces in the area.
Finally they admitted that U.S. fire killed civilians but said that an Afghan had
misinformed them as to who was in the area.
The combination of the growing mass anger and the failure of the central
government to gel has reawakened critiques of U.S.
policy. A July 7 Washington Post article reports some of the misgivings of U.S.
military and foreign policy experts.
THINK TANKS DEBATE POLICY
Robert Templer, Asia program director for the International Crisis Group,
said: "There are extraordinary levels of discontent among the Pashtuns.
It's hard to see a long-lasting peace based upon the political arrangements
that exist in Kabul at the moment." Qadir's assassination won't help
those relations.
Templer has suggested the U.S. government stop chasing Al Qaeda and Taliban forces
and instead help solve other problems. "I don't think the Taliban and Al Qaeda
will be much of a problem in the future, but everyone else [in Afghanistan] might be," he said.
Another voice was Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan
who helped organize reactionary forces against the progressive Afghan
government of 1978-1992 and the Soviet
Union. Bearden said the Bush
administration should stop bombing. "We're at a point where we have to
decide what we're up to there."
The United States could still lose the war in Afghanistan, Bearden warned, "if the Pashtuns decide that we're the enemy, or
an occupying force."
What Bearden didn't say was that the U.S.
is indeed an occupying power. And if U.S. troops keep
killing Afghan civilians, more and more of the population will begin to consider
them enemies.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed.
For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-on@wwpublish.com. Unsubscribe
wwnews-off@wwpublish.com. Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------