babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Should The Left Call for Taliban Victory?
August 19, 2009 - 10:21am
Should the Left Call for Taliban Victory?
http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/18/should-the-left-call-for-taliban-v...
"Every US and NATO tank that the Taliban destroy, every Karzai appointed stooge they assassinate and every town or village they liberate is a victory for our side and a grievous blow to US imperialism--we would do well to remember that and to offer our solidarity and support for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan..?
No.
Well, I personally, and I think the left should, call for a Canadian and NATO defeat in Afghanistan.
But define "Taliban". From what I understand, it is a blanket term used by militaristic forces in society to dismiss the entire Afghan resistance as the work of some ultra-right thugs.
ETA: Also, define "left"
NO and NO.
The left, the broad left, should support the demands made by RAWA and Malalai Joya that Afghanistan be left to Afghanis to govern their own state and resolve their own issues.
I know an Afghan family that was forced from their home at gunpoint by the Taliban. They also told me how Taliban members would stuff people into a house, then drive a tank into the building. According to them the Taliban are "very bad people." Supporting the resistance against The West is one thing, but how could we support the Taliban?
What is the Taliban? I have seen a lot of reportage that suggests we are talking about a very diverse resistance movement, with varying views and goals, based in everything from religion to nationalism, or a mixture of both. How to come to terms with making a determination about something like this. Seems pretty pointless to me. What I do know is that I support resistance to occupation, and when it comes down to the coing toss between those who are defending their country from foreign occupation, and the occupier, I know what side I stand on, in principle, regardless of their.
Whateve evil may have been done in the name of the Taliban does not trump the evil of empire.
What a coincidence, I know an Afghan family too and they told me that lurid, made up tales of Taliban excesses were de rigeur for favourable decisions by the Canadian immigration personnel that processed them. Hope NATO nazis lose and Afghan resistance wins.
Al Q, isnt with immigration.
NATO Nazis? Very apt comparison.
And yeah, the Taliban are real sweethearts. Defenders of women's rights and Buddhist cultural heritage. Or any heritage not their own. Where's the beard police when you need them?
This is a senseless war that should end sooner than later. The US is actually funding the Taliban according to reports. This is nothing new for Uncle Sam. If we look back in history, Uncle Sam has funded, armed and abetted the enemy before in SE Asia with the Khmer Rouge. Only then the KR were still recognized by Reaganauts and Thatcherites as legitimate rulers of Kampuchea until late 1980's before revelation of the killing fields made it obvious to the world that the KR were criminals.
The US has an established history of working with criminal governments and installing brutal rightwing dictatatorships around the world. I dont think Afghanistan fits exactly that pattern, because in this instance Afghans are knowingly joining a criminal Taliban regime in order to both liberate their country as well as earn monthly paycheques. So they are more comparable to hired mercenaries than the usual leftwing revolutionaries. The organized political left in Afghaniistan was obliterated during the "civil war" from 1992 to 1996 after which the US-backed Taliban tookover government in Kabul from the mujahideen(some who are now in Karzai's government)
This is a war on terror "drama" as Malalai Joya describes it. There need to be transparent UN mediated peace talks as Tariq Ali, Jack Layton and some high profile UN officials and private commentators around the world have suggested. If the Taliban are going to win anyway regardless, then why not make the terms of negotiation for peace transparent to the world and especially for the sake of ordinary Afghans in the dark as to what the sticking points are for progress toward peace and foreign troop withdrawal are with off and on again backchannel talks occurring between western officials and the Taliban? Peace sooner than later translates to an end to the organized murder. I think the death toll among Afghans is rising, and that needs to stop asap.
What Frustrated Mess said.
I support FM and RAWA, too. Unfortunately the people orchestrating this "war on terror drama(Malalai Joya)" do not.
As far as we know, mullah Omar and Taliban leaders stated their terms for agreement with the US back in 2001 when the Taliban asked for proof that "al-Qa'eda" and bin Laden are responsible for perpetrating 9/11. The US has no proof, and all of the US and Taliban leaders know it. Therefore, what are the real terms of peace? There doesnt seem to be any. The US and NATO's intentions seem to be perpetual war with their former proxies in Afghanistan. The organized murder of Afghans and chaos in that country will not end until actual peace negotiations are forced on the principals in this "war on terror drama"(Malaia Joya, 2009)
Taliban are no more Afghani than Canadian forces are. Their leaders are from Pakistan, they are supported by Pakistan Intelligence service, and funded by Saudi Arabia. Opposing Canadian presence in Afghanistan should not be extended to support another group of foreign invaders.The Left could do better by supporting the progressive forces in Afghanistan, not anyone who is not European in appearence.
As for their atrocities, no need to refer to any tales. Their public record (which they are quite proud of) is sufficient.
Why does there have to be "peace talks" between imperialist power and their puppet government and the Afghan resistance, hosted by an organization which generally functions as a cover for imperialism? Any "peace talks" would likely result in simply trying to find a diplomatic solution for the imperialist powers to keep their influence but reduce their casualties - it would be as big of a joke as the Paris Peace Accords in Vietnam. Why not just an immediate withdrawal of the western occupying forces and allow Afghans to govern themselves?
What sanizadeh said. For the past several years I've been following babble, and felt defensive when my views have been attacked. This thread shows me the absurdidties that rigid ideologues will go to. If that is insulting I'm sorry, but the mind set which would lead someone to support such viscious bastards because they are the enemy of your enemy is amiss. You put your ideology before your humanity.
Ah! But the US extended terms for peace to the NVA, and the NVA published the Americans' peace offer. Nixon and Kissinger felt that the NVA were trying to embarrass them. The whole world knew then that the US was not serious about negotiating peace, and Nixon's public support at home began plummeting.The doctor and madman then escalated the bombing on Hanoi as well as the secret saturation bombings ofneighboring Cambodia. The last thing the US and NATO gangsters want are their terms for peace revealing to the world in this "war on terror drama." The Taliban have already made some of their terms for peace known publicly, which is for the US to provide proof to the world that bin Laden and the Islamic wing of the CIA, "al-Qa'eda" are responsible for perpetrating 9/11 terror in NYC and plane hijackings elsewhere. What's strange in this instance is that the Taliban realize by now that no proof or evidence in any legal sense will be produced. Tariq Ali said last year:
I think most people who have commented have answered No to the thread question. So, you may be knocking down a bit of a strawman, Banjo.
As a "rigid ideologue", I take exception to Banjo's post. Clearly, it is just more evidence that rigid ideologues and supporters of the ISO are no longer welcome on babble because their positions and those of their organizations are challenged and discussed openly.
(the above was sarcasm)
Do you not see the irony in saying that "Afghanistan's sovereigntly will not be respected by great game players" and calling for a "regional solution involving Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia."
I don't think a "regional solution" is necessary - the solution would be to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans, and that solution only requires one country - Afghanistan.
Also, I don't think we need an "exit strategy", apart from the question of how many planeloads will it take to pack up and leave. "Exit strategy" implies a diplomatic measure to keep imperialist interests safe after a military pullout.
Your solution is not actually a solution. It's a wait and see attitude which NATO and the Taliban are doing now and will continue to do for some time at the expense of ordinary Afghans, Pakistanis and the death toll. The principals in this "war on terror drama" don't want outside intervention or meddling in their affairs either while they step up the killing to a frenzied pace.
Regional solution sounds fine, but why including Russia in it? Russia is not in that region at all. Afghanistan borders Tajikstan and Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, China and Pakistan.
These are the countries alleged to be funding and feeding "the resistance" with violence from drug trafficking among other things spilling over borders into their countries. The Pakistani ISI, a long time extension of the American CIA, still controls the Taliban as well as "al-Qa'eda" and other militant groups. It's believed that Pakistan's elite still have designs on Afghanistan for "strategic depth" It's complicated, and what is needed is a regional solution as mentioned by Tariq Ali and others who know and understand the issues. But essentially, Russia, Iran, China etc don't want NATO in their backyard, and theyre using Afghanistan for their own strategic manouvering against NATO trying to expand its military presence Eastward. What we're seeing in Afghanistan is part of larger regional and even "geostrategic" issues of sovereignty.
Some here seem to forget that atrocity stories were used as part of the pretext for invasion, and certainly continue to be used for the need to "stay the course" and win the war.
Not just this invasion - all of them.
That's why it's not for us to decide who is leading the resistance, who the Taliban are, or whether all factions are innocent and charitable. Our duty is to oppose the invasion - in the first place, our own invaders - and wish success to the resistance as a whole. Afghans will figure out who will govern and how once we and our paid puppet warlords are gone.
Once upon a time I listened with disbelief when right wingers said the left was primarily driven by anti Americanism.
Then latter day Babble happened.
Listen carefully. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. If you really want the war in Afghanistan to end, then you should push for whatever terms and conditions that will end it quickest and forget this absolutist unilateral withdrawal crap.
The Taliban never did anything to the people of Afghanistan.
It's not Taliban bombs that are killing Afghan people it's NATO.
Their assassin's. I don't even believe the Tliban use IEDs, let alone those IED's killing people. I think thats bombs on the NATO rucks blowing up because their made cheaply. NATO blames the taliban when their trucks blow up.
I hope so. I was just astounded that anyone would support them. The Socialist Worker sees them as "merely an expression of class resistance," similar to Liberation theology in Latin America. Maybe they got in the habit of supporting them when the Taliban were fighting the Soviets.
Most of today's Taliban were being orphaned during America's 1980's proxy war, which was an anticommunist jehad against against the Soviets and Soviet-backed PDPA government to cleanse Central Asia of secular socialism. And then those orphans and Muslims from other countries went to school for indoctrination in religious fundamentalism and guerilla warfare/terrorism in US and Saudi funded madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the late 1980's and 90's. They are the same US and Saudi funded madrassas which produced "al-Qa'eda" and some of the superstars of 9/11 terror. And some of those people were working for the US CIA and military simultaneously in the years and months leading up to 9/11.
The Americans and Brits have mentioned wanting to talk and negotiate with the so called reasonable Taliban, and that they should sever all ties with al-Qa'eda terrorists including OBL. These are lies, and the Taliban know they are lies and probably have no reason to trust the US and NATO officials who have met with Taliban officials in the hotels of Lahore and Islamabad regularly according to Tariq Ali.
The bottom line is that the US and NATO dont really want transparent peace negotiations where heads of state are held accountable to the people suffering by this war, and especially not UN mediated talks involving those countries which the US-led NATO is playing at colder war with. Because real peace talks might lead to the outlining of an exit strategy for NATO. Better to keep it a dirty war and as much known about "the enemy's" demands kept secret from the public as possible.
Saved for posterity.
I am with FM, sanizadeh, Al-Q, Michelle, etc. I am horrified anyone here would wish any success on those who pour acid on girls attempting to attend school. That is just one small example. I support withdrawal and did not support going there in the first place, but rooting for the Taliban? Seriously?!!!?
Whatever evil may have been done in the name of the empire does not trump the evil done in the name of Taliban.
Afghans havent had a posterity since about 1979. Apparently some babblers believe this war and foreign meddling in Afghanistan is about to be stopped by 11, 000 or so Taliban fighters controlled by Pakistan's army intelligence agency. If does happen, I'm sure we'd all jump for joy for the Afghans.
30 years and counting for this cold war game in Central Asia. It just never ends. It seems perpetual war really does represent normalcy for Afghans. Freedom is slavery and ignorance, strength.