The Guardian Criticizes Moves to Halt Endless War

Ending the 20 year military intervention in Afghanistan is clearly something that should be universally celebrated by anyone who is not part of the military industrial complex. So why does Simon Tisdall write in the Guardian that Catastrophe stalks Afghanistan as the US and UK dash for the exit?

Military retreats from Afghanistan are problematic, as the British (1842) and the Red Army (1989) discovered to their cost. The cliffs of the Khyber Pass feature many memorials and plaques to departing or defeated foreign forces. The 2021 Afghan withdrawal is less fraught – the US is not yet retreating under fire. But the march to the exit has nonetheless turned into an undignified sprint.

One would think that foreign powers would learn the lesson and not invade Afghanistan in the first place. Oo, it’s ‘undignified’ to withdraw. What a critique. When you’ve spent twenty years occupying a country and made no progress, you need to try something different.

Most Americans will welcome this accelerated end to an unpopular war. Yet it spells catastrophe for Afghans who pinned their hopes and their country’s future on western support in fighting Taliban and Islamist terrorism and who believed the nation-building promises made by George W Bush and others.

The Afghans needed to use the time that ‘peacekeeping’ forces were deployed in their country to build a lasting peace. When peacekeepers stay for too long, they move from being a crutch to actually crippling the country they are occupying. After WMDs turned out to be a lie, why would anyone believe W?

Fighting is currently spreading like a bushfire from district to district. There is no peace deal in place, no power-sharing, no intra-Afghan ceasefire, and growing fear of nationwide conflagration – and yet still the Americans are leaving.

Maybe fighting is needed before peace can be established. How long are the American’s expected to stay? Forever?

Two questions are unavoidable: after expending so much blood and treasure, what of lasting import was achieved? And what on earth will happen next?

Nothing was achieved. For the Americans, next, less taxpayers money will be wasted on achieving nothing.

When US president Joe Biden set a withdrawal deadline of 11 September, exactly 20 years after the al-Qaida attacks that triggered America’s intervention, the Pentagon decided to get out as soon as possible. UK and other Nato allies are following suit. It’s now expected all foreign forces, plus 17,000 mostly American contractors, will be gone by mid-July.

Good.

The outlook for the vast majority of Afghans who do not espouse extreme religious views and misogynistic feudal dogmas is simply terrifying. Civilian casualties rose 29% in January to March, compared with 2020. Government figures recorded 4,375 terrorism-related deaths in May, up from 1,645 in April.

Civil war is ugly. The terrorists in this case are the Taliban, who the Americans supported during the Soviet occupation of the country.

Among last month’s civilian victims were 50 schoolgirls from a Shia Hazara neighbourhood in Kabul, deliberately targeted by Sunni militants. Aid workers, polio vaccinators, and journalists, especially women, are also singled out. The terrorists’ agenda of hate is only too clear.

I never thought I’d see a column in the Guardian calling out radical Islam. Why don’t you say this about the terrorists in Europe?

The western-trained Afghan national army is struggling. Short of ammunition and supplies, 26 bases reportedly surrendered to the Taliban last month. An elite special forces commando was wiped out last week in Faryab province. The ANA’s one big advantage – air power – is evaporating as foreign technical and logistical back-up melts away.

Without the Americans, the balance of power that kept the two sides warring for 20 years is broken. Though in the short term, this will lead to terrible suffering, in the long term, hopefully it will lead to an end to the civil war.

Suggestions that the US will in future send combat aircraft and armed drones from neighbouring countries to support Afghan ground forces were dismissed last week. Gen Frank McKenzie, head of US Central Command, warned that even if Kabul were on the brink of falling, any post-withdrawal air strikes would be limited to countering terror plots that threatened the US “homeland”.

The only morally forgivable air strikes are those that are done in defence of a threat.

Such unusual restraint reflects the Pentagon’s inability to find alternative bases within reasonable striking distance. Pakistan, which covertly backs the Taliban and fell out with the US in 2011, does not want the Americans back.

Why would they?

Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which previously hosted US troops and spies, are unlikely to do so again – for fear of offending Russia. Iran is out of the question.

The US has made enemies of everyone in the region.

Lack of a credible post-withdrawal security plan is matched by the absence of an agreed political path ahead. Talks in Doha between the Taliban and the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani have achieved little. Demands that Taliban leaders guarantee civil rights and girls’ education have not been met.

Again, as long as the Afghan government was being propped up by the Americans, they failed to reach such an agreement. Is it surprising that now, when they no longer have the strength that they were loaned for 20 years, the Taliban aren’t agreeing to their demands?

US insistence that the Taliban refuse safe haven to al-Qaida and the Afghan iteration of Islamic State has also been ignored. On the contrary, senior Afghan officials say, these Sunni groups are working together. The Taliban’s aim? Total victory.

Why would the Taliban give a shit what the Americans, their enemies, want?

The CIA’s fear that Afghanistan could again become a regional terror hub is shared by China and India. Beijing has offered investment and vaccines, seeking another link in its belt and road imperial masterplan. China’s nightmare is that Afghan-based jihadists will join forces with persecuted Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Maybe not persecuting Muslims would be the right approach?

Escalating violence in Afghanistan could destabilise the region, add hunger and displacement to existing problems of Covid, drought and climate change, create new refugee surges, destroy the quest for equal rights and justice for war crimes, and betray the sacrifices of western and Afghan soldiers. Yet it is now a very real prospect.

The fact that western soldiers were forced to make sacrifices in the first palace is a bigger betrayal. Yes, bad shit is going to go down in the short term. What is the alternative? Staying there forever?

Western politicians, including in the UK (which is withdrawing aid as well as troops), shield their eyes. They don’t want to see, let alone discuss, what’s about to happen. Nato last week pledged future security force training and funding and said it would “continue to stand” with Afghanistan. Stand back, more like.

The “NA” in Nato stands for North Atlantic. The purpose of Nato was to act as a balance against the Soviet Union. It’s unclear why it still needs to exist, but even if it does, why is it involved in a country that’s no where near any Nato country?

Catastrophe stalks the Afghan people. Nato claims a “new chapter” is beginning. That’s true, but it’s a cause for fear, not pride. The US and partners achieved little in terms of permanent progress, and even that meagre legacy is now threatened. Robert Gates, defence secretary under Bush and Barack Obama, pleads: “The situation will doubtless worsen when US troops are gone … We cannot turn our backs.” But his is a lonely voice.

A cause for fear of what? Less money for Raytheon? I’m glad war monger Gates is lonely.

What to do? I’ve been writing about Afghanistan for more than 30 years. I’ve reported from the country and personally witnessed its poverty and pain. I don’t know the answer. Who does? But scurrying off home, regardless of consequences, is certainly not it.

You have had 20 years to find the answer with the American occupation and failed. Maybe “scurrying off home” is exactly what needs to be done. Clearly being an occupied country didn’t alleviate the poverty and pain, or the fighting. Yes, it will get worse, at least for a while, but maybe your cure is worse, in the long term, than the disease.

About jimbelton

I'm a software developer, and a writer of both fiction and non-fiction, and I blog about movies, books, and philosophy. My interest in religious philosophy and the search for the truth inspires much of my writing.
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Guardian Criticizes Moves to Halt Endless War

  1. Thanks, Jim, for a brilliant spotlight on reality.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s