Dutch Government Collapses, To Withdraw from Afghanistan

The problem is that by the 1970 there was a conflict between urban progressives, mainly educated and secular groups and conservative and mainly religious groups.

If you see pictures or film of urban Afghanistan in the 1970’s you’ll see young people that don’t look that different from young people in London or New York around the same time. Women could openly walked the streets in dresses even miniskirts talking freely with men, and people went out to bars and discos were they danced to western music. They were the product of reforms that had begun in the 1920’s.

When socialists came to power after the authoritarian rule of Mohammad Daud, the US began supporting the conservative religious groups. This escalated as the situation progressed, and when the Soviets became more involved US anti-communism become aroused and with the aggressive form of that policy that came about with Reagan the situation went out of control.

But warfare in Afghanistan continued even after the soviets had been driven out, as warlords fought for power then fought against the Taliban (who rose to power because of dislike of the corrupt and brutal warlords). Kabul was reduce to rubble (1) the urban, educated, western looking progressives had either fled or been killed. Women didn’t go out and if they did they wore the burka, talking to a man who was not a close family member could bring about a beating, bars were closed and music banned.

Things might have been very different if western governments and especially the US had supported the moderate left, like the Parchamis back in the 1970’s, anyway we’ll never know. What we do know is that Soviet support of the socialists and US support of the conservative religious groups brought about the situation.

US policy even then (after the soviet withdrawal) could have made a difference if it had been aimed at ‘fixing’ the country, but they only seemed interested in thwarting the soviets and once they pulled out they basically lost interest.

They re-found their interest after 9/11, but only briefly and half-heartedly because the neo-con faction in control of the US government at the time was more interested in Iraq. So they didn’t give Afghanistan the attention it deserved, basically they just helped back into power the brutal and corrupt warlords that the Taliban had driven out of power (which had been a popular move at the time) a few years before.

Once the warlords and Nato garrison troops were in place the neo-con pulled out men and resources to use in Iraq.

That was bad but things got worse the aid promised to the country just didn’t turn up.

It stopped looking and feeling like a liberation and more like a half-arsed and apathetic occupation, by ineffectual western forces while all the time the corrupt warlords solidified their control of the regions, thwarting any attempt by the central government to rein them in.

The limited ‘reconstruction’ stagnated.

The thing is that if western forces leave Afghanistan any time soon it would most likely result in another period of warlords fighting it out for power which would probably only result in the Taliban (or something similar) back in control, basically a return to what the country was like in 2001 except even poorer and more devastated.

 

Thing is it wasn’t a Civil War in the conventional sense; there was no united leadership or even uniting doctrine on the conservative/religious side, there were tribal leaders, military leaders, religious leaders, differing groups with differing views, some fighting out of hatred for the Kabul regime, others to oust the Soviets, others out of religious conviction and many because it became a nice little earner (with the largesse being given out by the US and Pakistani governments and of course the sideline in drugs). And since a lot of it was soviet against Afghan it was more of an occupation or proxy war, than a civil one.

After the soviets withdrew it was more about Afghanis fighting each other yes, but again it was more of a factional thing rather than a civil war, the Taliban being just another faction.

As to getting people to fight (or allowing it when it could be stopped) I don’t think that a form on ‘beneficial evolution’ but a bit cold hearted, like treating it as some type of gladiatorial entertainment, with no care for those that die.

 

Way back in 2001 I posted a plan for liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban.

It involved taking over just a section of the country and turning it into one of the best darn places in the world to live, with a quality of life on a par with the best in the world.

It would have a comprehensive welfare system, universal healthcare, top notch infrastructure, education, etc.

The place wouldn’t be run by Americans or Europeans but by well educated moderates and lefties from around the Muslim world, but the US etc would pay.

You let Afghanis in if they renounced their tribal allegiances and abided by the rules of the place and every year or so expand the borders, it was long term and I thought would probably be cheaper than a military solution.

It was tongue in cheek.

Although on second thoughts….

 

Very nice, Balbus. Your last couple of posts. Well written, very informative for me. Thanks

Hope you don't think I take any gladiatoral entertainment from the world's trouble spots.

 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization - how the hell is that close to Afghanistan? We are not the world police force - have our guys pack their toothbrushes, and get the hell out of that shithole!

 

Worldsofdarkblue

Sorry the ‘gladiatoral entertainment’ comment wasn’t meant personally.

*

It seems to me that US foreign policy has a selective isolationist bent interspersed by periods of aggressive and short term interventionism often associated with Presidential doctrines.

And they often feed off each other.

Isolationist feeling wane over time to the point were interventions are seen as acceptable, but when interventions go wrong, it re-enforces isolationist feelings but if it goes well it gives confidence to the interventionists.

The Korean war (50-53) ended in ceasefire as public opinion turns against war (still in effect going on as only ceasefire)

Lull

Vietnam War (61-73) withdrawal as public opinion turns against war,

Lull,

Grenada (83) seen as success

Panama (89) seen as success

First Gulf War (90-91) seen as success

Somalia (92-93) seen as failure

Lull (interrupted by 9/11)

Afghanistan (01 – Present) was declared a success when Taliban ‘defeated’.

Iraq (Second Gulf War and Occupation) (03 – Present) (also trumpeted as a success in the ‘Mission Over’ propaganda stunt)

US public opinion has turns or is turning against the wars

It is very possible that there is going to be another lull in direct interventions and going by previous lulls it could be as long as ten years.

I also think that if Afghanistan and Iraq had gone the way the neo-cons thought they would the US would have been at war with Iran.

*

Of course this is only a bit of musing, there were US foreign interventions, but most were short or small in scale, covert, fought by proxies, or were not as well trumpeted and yes there was the disaster in Beirut in 89 which didn’t seem to cause an isolationist backlash.

But as a generalisation this seems to hang roughly together.

Here is a fuller list of interventions
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

*

 

The US is a power (super power, hyper power whatever) a successor to the European powers and as such it wishes to protect what is sees as its interests globally.

Resources and Shipment

The US has not been self sufficient for years in fact it has become increasing dependent on imports.

It feels it needs to protect such resources is investments abroad and how they are shipped to the US (that is money and raw materials).

The neo-con reasoning on Iraq was that it would be a great strategic position from which to dominate the region in the interests of the US.

Ideology

The dominant motive in US foreign policy was the countering of its rival in relation to above.

This was presented as a fight against ‘tyrannical communism’ and there were those that saw this as the mission of the US.

Often this seemed an excuse to conceal the simple protection of US interests.

At other times drugs and terror have replaced ideology as a justification for action.

*

The thing is that how the Middle East is now is in many ways a direct result of the past US foreign policy.

The overthrow of the elected government of Mosaddeq in Iran, directly led to the Mad Mullahs getting control.

The backing of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and there subsequent abandoning of the country to its fate, directly led to the Taliban.

It is claimed that the CIA helped Saddam to power and it’s true that US saw him as a anti-communist and supported him in the war against Iran.

*

The thing is that Americans are reluctant to see themselves as an imperial power with global interests, connections and responsibilities and so they think that they can have nothing to do with that other place – the rest of the world.

The problem is that because they don’t much care about out there for most of the time they don’t take notice let alone try to understand what their elected governments do globally.

And when the din gets too hard for them to ignore – a war is rather noisy – they get indignant about US involvement and shout – why are we there let them sort out their own problems – without realising that the problems might be problems of their own country’s making.

 

If its a war on the Afghan people, why do polls show the Afghan people support it?

 

Mad

“The US is a power (super power, hyper power whatever) a successor to the European powers and as such it wishes to protect what is sees as its interests globally.”

Oh dear, you clearly you didn’t read the piece as a whole only went all sarcastic at the first few lines –

The first paragraph is linked to those at the end

To quote

If you’d read the whole thing you would have known that your comments don’t actually fit or counter what I’ve said

The point I was trying to make was that many Americans seem “reluctant to see themselves as an imperial power with global interests, connections and responsibilities”

I’m sorry if I gave the impression I meant every single American, if so I apologies, some do understand they are an imperial power, and to a lesser or greater extent understand what that entails, but many others don’t seem to think their country is or that it shouldn’t be.

There are many comments posted on the forums along the lines of ‘we shouldn’t be involved’ – ‘we are not the world’s police force’ – ‘the U.S. needs to stop playing big daddy to the world’ – ‘let them sort it out themselves’ etc.

It’s a denial of the US’s present and past position in the world.

In your own way you doing the same thing – you’re not analysing America’s past actions and what can be learnt from them you’re saying ‘don’t blame us’ – ‘why do you always blame us’ – ‘you lot, always blame us’ – ‘you always say its our fault’ etc

That to me seems like a refusal to even acknowledge if mistakes were made and without that how are you to make better decisions in the future?

 

Again I have to laugh, you really don’t know much about lefties (or at least the ones I know) – there’s nothing they like more than blasting the imperial past of Europe.

I mentioned recently (I think it was to Hipstatic) about the book ‘Empire’ by the right wing historian Niall Ferguson a book that praises the British Empire (in ‘Colossus’ he argues that the US should be more imperialistic). I mentioned the book because a left wing friend had just read it and we recently had a happy time pulling it apart.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Britain-Made-Modern-World/dp/0141007540"]Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World: Amazon.co.uk: Niall Ferguson: Books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Colossus-Americas-Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/1594200130"]Colossus: The Price of America's Empire: Amazon.co.uk: Niall Ferguson: Books

They’re good books and well worth reading even if I disagree with many of the arguments and nearly all of the conclusions.

Although you might notice that I agree with Ferguson’s argument in Colossus that many Americans are uncomfortable with their countries imperialism.

Anyway for a very good alternative viewpoint (more of a left wing one) try –

The Blood Never Dried by John Newsinger

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Never-Dried-Peoples-History/dp/1905192126"]The Blood Never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire: Amazon.co.uk: John Newsinger: Books

Honestly man if you ever want a debate on European Imperialism, I’d be happy, actually more than happy, to have one, it’s a subject I’ve long been interested in and read a lot about so if you need any hints on background reading I can help you out.

Just start a thread I’ll be there in a shot.

 

Karzai has taken personal control of the electoral process

The Afghan president has subverted the intended legacy of the 2001 invasion by seizing control of the electoral watchdog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/22/afghanistan
*
The thing is what does the US government want in Afghanistan (and to that matter Iraq) and I think the answer is it wants to ‘leave’ or rather seem like its ‘left’ (fade away into the background, into US bases, and most definitely away from the media.)

Could they live with a corrupt regime, human rights abuses and an ineffectual president for life?

 

Back to the original topic...

while the government is being reported to have collapsed, that's hardly the case. Governments with a parliament such as the Dutch have the right to disband and call for early elections, which is really all that happened here. Doing it this way was just a bit more sensational.

 

This is a good thing. Canada is expected to pull out next year too. We've made no commitments to continue. I think Belgium's chance to renew their commitments is next.

 

My problem with bringing troops home is what are they going to do once they are home? This goes beyond Afghanistan even. We have troops all over the planet. Trying to sustain our empire is going to be our downfall. Still There are millions of ppl in this country that cant find work so how can we bring troops home? I know they are suppose to get their jobs back and all that but lets be honest, thats bullshit most of that time. We definitely fuck our troops over. Even if they did, the ppl they replace would then be out of a job. I just dont see anyway to resolve this. The United States government has made a mess of things.

 

They only get their jobs back if they're reservists. Active duty troops are supposed to be full-time soldiers, living on or near army bases, wasting their lives and time.

 

Yeah exactly, thats bullshit. We dont need troops stationed all over the world.

 

Having read the posts in this thread, there is a glaring omission. Fossil fuels!

I recall seeing footage of Taliban representatives in Washington to negotiate a natural gas pipeline to be run through Afghanistan. This was, of course, before 9/11. The Taliban nixed those negotiations.
Now, I do have my doubts that the attack on the Twin Towers was an Al-Qeda operation. That's another debate but I firmly believe the attack was allowed to happen so Afghanistan could be attacked.
It's also an interesting fact that Karzai is a former oil company (Chevron?) executive. Pretty damning evidence.
(this will be slightly off topic but makes a point) Please don' ban me, El Cheesmo!!!
After the "Coalition of the Killing...er...Willing" decimated the pitiful Iraqi army the first thing they did was secure the oil fields. Interesting, eh?

Nearly ALL wars are over economics. These are no different. Spreading Democracy by the gun??? Please, not all of us are jingoistic idiots. Unfortunately, most Americans are.

Zen

 

Oh god fossil fuels. Yes, the Afghan war was fought so Turkmenistan can transport oil to India for Indian use and Afghanistan get a 5% royalty on a pipeline that if ever built is going to be funded and built the Asian Development Bank, this terrible metaphorical pipeline that's still just literally a pipe dream.

Damning evidence? That evidence is as good as the birthers who say Obama is not an American citizen.

 

They didn't really decimate anything. Most of the army surrendered before major fighting was able to take place. And what would you have had the troops secure? The sand?