Twenty years ago last week, the Soviet
Union began its withdrawal from Afghanistan,
eight and a half years after it was invited by the desperate People�s
Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had
degenerated into intra-party squabbling and was beset by Islamic rebels
massively financed by the United States. The straw that broke the Soviets� back
was when the US began providing Stinger missiles to Osama
bin Laden and his friends.
Now, after eight years of US/NATO occupation, the parallels
-- and differences -- between the two occupation are many and stark, as
confirmed by the current Russian ambassador to Afghanistan,
Zamir Kabulov.
�There is no mistake made by the Soviet
Union that was not repeated by the international community here in Afghanistan,� Kabulov said. �Underestimation of the
Afghan nation, the belief that we have superiority over Afghans, that they are
inferior and cannot be trusted to run affairs in this country. A lack of
knowledge of the social and ethnic structure of this country; a lack of
sufficient understanding of traditions and religion.�
Not only that, but the country�s new patrons are making lots
of new mistakes as well. �NATO soldiers and officers alienate themselves from
Afghans -- they are not in touch in an everyday manner. They communicate with
them from the barrels of guns in their bullet-proof Humvees.� As a career
diplomat who was posted to Afghanistan in 1977,
he sees some divine justice in the US�s current predicament. �But I am even
more satisfied by not having Russian soldiers among ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] because I
don�t want them to suffer the same results.�
Kabulov explains that things are even harder now than they
were in the 1980s. �The structures of government then were very much there and
our task was very much to support and to win loyalty -- if you will, hearts and
minds -- but we had a working administration.� These are long gone, though,
ironically, in Helmand province and elsewhere,
NATO forces are fighting from military posts originally built by the Soviets.
At least the Soviets were invited in, if only by one faction
-- Parcham, by far the most benign one -- of the ruling PDPA. The US merely
issued an ultimatum to the ruling Taliban to hand
over their own erstwhile ally, Osama bin Laden,
knowing full well no devout Muslim would turn a guest over to the enemy. The
offer of the Taliban to send him to a neutral
third country until proof of his masterminding of 9/11 was made was dismissed
out of hand, and US and eventually NATO forces proceeded to illegally invade
and depose the legitimate government, launching a merciless air attack, using
depleted uranium �bunker busting� bombs, which makes the horrors of Vietnam and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan pale in comparison.
Another difference is that the US managed to con the world
into supporting its invasion, while when the Soviet troops arrived in 1979, the
US was already arming Islamic rebels with the most advanced military hardware,
as Under Secretary of Defense Slocumbe said at the time, �sucking the Soviets
into a Vietnamese quagmire.� The Americans made a point of maintaining
the flow of arms, even after Soviet president Mikhail
Gorbachev made it clear the troops would be withdrawn, intending to use
this golden opportunity to stick the knife as deep as possible into the now
unravelling Soviet Union. On this basis alone,
the current invasion should be miles ahead of where the Soviets were after
eight years. But no.
Yet another contrast is that while the Soviets were
providing massive aid, effectively dragging Afghanistan
into the 20th century with universal education, equal rights for women, safe
drinking water -- the standard communist fare -- the US/NATO strategy has been
mostly to fight the remnants of the Taliban, with
aid well down the list. As for the quality of the aid, while Soviet teachers
and engineers earned not much more than locals, and were generally selected for
their idealism, Western-backed aid is channelled almost exclusively through
foreign NGOs, with Western professionals earning the bulk of the money and living
in conditions that locals can only dream of, causing well-earned resentment.
It should be noted that from the Soviet withdrawal in 1989
until the US invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was
mostly forgotten, with no Western programme of reconstruction. Russia, of course, had been bankrupt by then and there
was nothing to be expected from it either. Ahmed Shah Ahmadzai, a mujahideen
leader and prime minister in exile during the 1990s, admits the mujahideen
failed in the years following the Soviet withdrawal. He is now an opponent of
the government who stood against President Hamid Karzai
in the last election. �To my opinion the ground situation is no different
because the Soviets were imposing their Communist regime on us. The present
forces -- they are imposing their so-called democracy on us. They were wrong
then and the present NATO forces are doing wrong now by killing innocent people
-- men, women and children.�
Given the huge advantages over the Soviet experience, and
given the possibility to learn from Soviet mistakes, there really is no excuse
for the current tragedy unfolding with no end in sight. But then, in carrying
out their invasion of Iraq, the Americans apparently learned nothing from the
British invasion of the 1920s, repeating to the letter all the horrors the
Brits inflicted on the Iraqis.
Is it possible the chaos and murder is intentional? While
the Taliban were no sweethearts, they did
completely disarm the nation and wipe out the production of opium. Similarly,
while Saddam Hussein would hardly be one�s
favourite uncle, he presided over a stable welfare state where its many ethnic
groups were at least not blowing each other up. In contrast, the US has
destroyed the state structures in both countries, and made both into arms
dumps. It has managed to turn the peoples of both countries against each other,
with the likely prospect of civil war and disintegration into various malleable
statelets.
All in keeping with Israeli plans first published in 1982 as
�A Strategy for Israel,� a plan to ensure its
�security� (read: expansion) with the Middle East
a patchwork of small ethnically-based states which it could keep in order.
One brilliant innovation by the US, with Israel�s Haganah and
Irgun as possible inspirations, is the use of private mercenaries to carry out
murder and espionage that the NATO troops can�t do because of their �concern�
for international law. This policy is already well known to Iraqis in the guise
of Blackwater. Special investigator for the UN Human Rights Council Philip Alston
referred to three such recent raids in south and east Afghanistan
during a visit last month, clearly alluding to US intelligence agencies, though
he didn�t dare state this publicly. Alston said the raids were part of a wider
problem of unlawful killings of civilians and lack of accountability in Afghanistan. In one incident, two brothers were killed
by troops operating out of an American Special Forces base in Kandahar. Another
group, known as Shaheen, operates out of Nangahar, in eastern Afghanistan, where
US forces are in charge. �Essentially, they are companies of Afghans but with a
handful, at most, of international people directing them. I�m not aware that
they fall under any command.�
A Western official close to the investigation said the
secret units are known as Campaign Forces, from the time when American Special
Forces and CIA spies recruited Afghan troops to help overthrow the Taliban during the US-led invasion in 2001. �The
brightest, smartest guys in these militias were kept on,� the official said.
�They were trained and rearmed and they are still being used. The level of
complacency in response to these killings is staggeringly high,� he said.
Yet another innovation -- the most frightening of all -- is
the role of the US in allowing, perhaps even facilitating, the huge increase in
opium production, which, as already mentioned, was wiped out by the Taliban, which will be discussed in Part II.
It is very hard to exaggerate the extent of the abyss that
is Afghanistan under US/NATO occupation or to
conceive of an honourable exit for the occupiers. Mercenaries, opium and
who-knows-what, in a script written in Israel �s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Eric
Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002.