Should The Left Call for Taliban Victory?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/jones

"If the contest at the ballot box doesn't move the country to greater violence, all this 'security' should do the trick.

It's too bad about Afghans though. Given half a chance, they'd vote for change and peace and reconciliation and no more soldiers."

Fidel wrote:

According to Canadian [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html]John Ryan[/url], progressive reforms were stopped in 1979 and thousands of people jailed. This was after Hafizullah Amin seized power and had Noor Mohamed Taraki and his supporters murdered.

This was that CIA sponsored coup that provided the spark for the Afghan insurgency that soon involved Russia.

Quote:

...every town or village they liberate is a victory for our side and a grievous blow to U.S. imperialism--we would do well to remember that and to offer our solidarity and support for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan.

A grievous blow? From reports we see, villages change hands on a daily basis. Don't the invaders use the same language every time they re-take a village? 

If the Taliban are able to retake the entire country, there will be a lot of space for leftists and other progressives in Afghanistan to critically support the new government once they're finished with summary executions. 

"Really? Well to answer what kind of people use artillery to blow up ancient art, I give you the ultimate reactionaries:

UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization, has issued a report outlining the extensive damage caused by US occupation forces in Iraq to the archeological site of ancient Babylon, about 100 Km (60 miles) south of Baghdad."

 

C'mon. Did they target with the intent of committting cultural genocide?

They manufactured a reson for war, illegally invaded a soverieign state, smashed its civilian infrastructure, murdered up to a million people, displaced 4 million, allowed the plundering and looting of cultural artifacts, museums, galleries, etc ... and they were presenetd with a list of sites in need of protectind including the UNESCO heritage sites and turned these sites of human cultural value into bases and latrines anyway. This was no accident or act of ignorance even if ignorance was an excuse for breaking the law.

As Naomi Klein effectively argued, it was a purposeful effort to erase Iraqi cultural history to produce a blank, neo-liberal slate. It is telling the only things they preserved and protected was oil infrastructure.

The US government has no cultural or moral superiority over the Taliban. The Afghans, and all of us, should be free of both organized political groupings of vandals and thugs.

Support from the left is irrelevant.  The Taliban have existed, and will continue to exist with or without it, just as they will persevere despite the baleful efforts of white western colonialism.  Let Afghan citizens condemn their brutal excesses in whichever manner they see fit, while we focus on matters closer at hand, the business of slaughter and hegemony undertaken by our own so called representatives.

Polunatic2 wrote:

What the US did in Iraq should have little bearing on whether or not the Taliban ought to receive international support. Some barrels have more than one rotten apple. 

Perhaps, but certainly the moral justifications for invading Afghanistan, from those who support the war or who support saving Afghanis from Afghanis with the use of bombs and guns, ought to apply the same moral justifications equally to other nations. And if you read up, you will see I was replying to a contention that the Taliban are a whole other breed of evil for having destroyed cultural artifacts.

I'm reminded of a debate that took place in the mid-80s during the height of the contra war in Nicaragua and other US interventions in Central America. It was called the "Contadora Accord". Progressive organizations in Latin America, including the Sandinistas and the FSLN of El  Salvador, from whom we were taking our cues in setting priorities, were suggesting that the international solidarity movement support this peace initiative. Most of us did and we tried to put pressure on the Canadian government.

There were also dissenting voices who argued that the solidarity movement had no business supporting this peace accord, even if our allies were asking us to do so because "they had a gun to their heads". It's really easy to come up with the battle cry "to the last drop of THEIR blood". 

Frustrated Mess wrote:

It is also easy to always find a reason to object no matter the cause or the voice making the plea because the blood is seldom our own.

Just to be clear, those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't the ones calling for more bloodshed.  We're calling for an end to the war, and an immediate end to our imperialist role in it.  The equivalent analogy to Nicaragua would be calling for an immediate end to US support of and withdrawal of the Contras, which would have ended the conflict pretty much immediately.

If anything, by calling for a continued occupation by blue-helmets or a continued occupation until a peace treaty and "exit strategy" can be devised so as to diplomatically secure imperialist interests, it is the people calling for negotiations or UN occupations instead of immediate withdrawal who are calling for a prolonging of the conflict "till the last drop of THEIR blood"

And if I remember correctly, in the last poll 60% of Afghans supported an immediate withdrawal of NATO forces.

genstrike wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

It is also easy to always find a reason to object no matter the cause or the voice making the plea because the blood is seldom our own.

Just to be clear, those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal aren't the ones calling for more bloodshed.  We're calling for an end to the war, and an immediate end to our imperialist role in it.  The equivalent analogy to Nicaragua would be calling for an immediate end to US support of and withdrawal of the Contras, which would have ended the conflict pretty much immediately.

If anything, by calling for a continued occupation by blue-helmets or a continued occupation until a peace treaty and "exit strategy" can be devised so as to diplomatically secure imperialist interests, it is the people calling for negotiations or UN occupations instead of immediate withdrawal who are calling for a prolonging of the conflict "till the last drop of THEIR blood"

And if I remember correctly, in the last poll 60% of Afghans supported an immediate withdrawal of NATO forces.

I'm not quite sure why it seems you are disagreeing with me when it seems we are in agreement. Is there some sort of funky communication thing taking place, or what?

 

Slumberjack wrote:

Support from the left is irrelevant.  The Taliban have existed, and will continue to exist with or without it, just as they will persevere despite the baleful efforts of white western colonialism.  Let Afghan citizens condemn their brutal excesses in whichever manner they see fit, while we focus on matters closer at hand, the business of slaughter and hegemony undertaken by our own so called representatives.

Typically succinct and principled. Thanks, SJ.

 

Sure, just like Bush's executive death squads and SAS didnt intend to murder hundreds of academics, scientists, and politicians etc in Iraq. Many of Afghanistan's academic and cultural base fled the country and largest cities reduced to rubble during the 1990's and US bombing raids, and so the slate is a lot cleaner in Afghanistan so as to rebuild from virtually nothing. And after 30 years of war, Afghan expats have said Kabul is in worse shape now than during PDPA rule. At least in the 1980's there were traffic lights on bustling city streets and women training to be teachers, doctors, and engineers

The Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred in the 1980's, whereas Henry's destruction of monasteries, nunneries and abbeys occurred in the 16th century. And both historical events had nothing to do with democracy.

KBR

Garbge!

I was on a flight and I had a very informitive conversation with an African American fellow who laughed and joked about how KBR stood for Keeping Brothers Rich.

 

He said that KBR goes to cities where they are closin plants and factories and recruits people.  Choice is either unemployment or greebbacks, working in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a sub company (or whatever) of Haliburton and they own everything. He said that in the kitechen in Afghanistan if you sign in then KBR charges the US government $33.   You an have a 5 course meal he said or an apple and a coke.  Apple and a cost, price tag $33.   I was shocked to hear that.  He said he felt like they targeted African Americans too but didn't explain why.

"The Taliban have existed, and will continue to exist with or without it" -- see, I dunno, they seem to have been created by a foreign government (Pakistan) and backed by US "War on Drugs money" for a while ... just another gang of right-wing killers. 

Ghislaine wrote:

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?!!!?

Cueball wrote:

 

Whateve evil may have been done in the name of the Taliban does not trump the evil of empire.

I agree completely with these statements. The title of this thread is obscene, ridiculous, and shows an irrational prejudice.  It is repugnant and disgusting that someone would sympathize with the brutal misogynist, insanely superstitious Taliban in the name of "anti-imperialism" or "anti-racism".

RAWA has reported the acid story, but from pro-Karzai as well as from pro-Taliban men. I believe they're considered a reliable source here? 

Will popular hostility to the Occupation of Afghanistan help swing the Canadian government away from a continuing involvement?

Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War

By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen
Washington Post, Thursday, August 20, 2009

 

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. (...)

Digby comments on Hullabaloo, an essay relayed by AlterNet:

The Afghanistan issue has crept to the sidelines of the national debate, but thousands of families are still directly affected. People still die; 6 more Americans fell today, and August 2009 could be the deadliest month in Afghanistan of the entire war. The President calls it a "war of necessity" and "fundamental to the defense of our people" but cannot credibly articulate what that actually means. Juan Cole identifies three main points that Obama makes about the war, which seem fine in isolation, but not in practice:

1. "This strategy recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan."

2. "This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war-that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance."

3. "And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies." These three are praiseworthy points in themselves, but the question is how they work together. I couldn't catch the significance of al-Qaeda's move to northwest Pakistan for US military operations in Afghanistan itself. I agree that the key to success in Afghanistan is diplomacy, development and governance, but worry that the major emphasis being is put on sending more troops there and on highly kinetic military operations? And I'm not sure that the Taliban can be effectively disrupted by military means; why isn't diplomacy being mentioned in this third part?"

I'd expand on this critique. The goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda has almost no place in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, where many Al Qaeda leaders are now stationed. Gen. Petraeus admitted back in May that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan - we're fighting a home-grown Taliban insurgency more nationalist than religious extremist in nature. You could make the argument that a Taliban able to take over the country could usher in Al Qaeda safe havens, but the Taliban insurgents are small in number, and have been unable to gain acceptance in anything other than the Pashtun areas.(...)

 

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since the 1970s. Taliban militants are active in Pakistan and would love to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear weapons.

Do you think this is a bad thing, a good thing, or does it not make any difference?

By the way, what do 'nazis' have to do with any of this? Do you actually believe that NATO resembles the nazis?

 

Flippancy isn't called for, Unionist.  It's naivety like yours that allowed Ho Chi Min to grab half of Asia, like so many dominoes, back in the 70's.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

 And I seem to remember the same usage of "barbaric" "heathen" demonization used to secure the west as well. Like the article says: ISLAMOPHOBIA...

It all depends. Not all barbarians are considered equally useful to the vicious empire. According to former translator for the FBI, [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14595]Sibel Edmonds[/url], groups like al-Qa'eda have had common cause with US and Saudi, British and even Pakistani imperialists for some time. They've funded and trained terrorists for destabilization efforts in Chechnya Albania, and Kosovo to East Turkistan to Xinjiang province of China. Holy old jehad is said to have been harnessed by imperialists and redirected toward holy old anticommunist jehad in Asia and the Middle East.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6804537.ece

"'If Doctor Abdullah wins it will be a shame on all Pashtun people because he is a Tajik,' said Haji Abdullah, a pistol-toting young man who looked about 16 but whose voter registration card put him at 21. He insisted that he was old enough to vote, pointing out that he had voted in 2004. 'Maybe Afghanistan will be destroyed if he wins,' he added. 'Certainly there will be fighting.'"