Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

As Iraq Threatens to Come Apart, U.S. Problems in Afghanistan Mount

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 6, 2010
White House / Pete Souza

By William Pfaff

Washington once again finds itself dangerously entangled with the hostile policies, nationalistic interests and supporters, and personal ambitions of a foreign figure whom it counted on to serve American interests.

This time it is in Afghanistan, the latest in what, alas, must be described as America’s quasi-imperial foreign military adventures. This is a country to which the United States, at stupendous cost, and with stupendous effort, is transporting the greater part of the huge logistical and war-fighting apparatus it has deployed over the last seven years in Iraq. It occurs at just the moment when Iraq’s situation—which none (save the surviving admirers of George W. Bush) dare call victory—is threatening to come apart.

Negotiations over the formation of a new government in Iraq have, for weeks now, been accompanied by bombings and suicide attacks, clearly political in nature, which imply the possibility of an eventual resumption of communal violence in that tragic country.

Shiite political figures have conferred in Iran (where they believe they are safe from American eavesdropping) on the formation of a new government, which inevitably will be Shiite-dominated.

Iraq under the Sunni tyrant Saddam Hussein, and his Baath Party, was invaded by the United States (at Israel’s urging!) because it was considered a major threat to American interests and security (and in Israel’s case, allegedly to its very existence).

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The thought that the invasion would eventually turn Iraq into a quasi-satellite of Shiite Iran seems the last thing anyone considered at the time. Nor is it clear today what is going to happen to the huge American military-base complexes, and the “enduring” U.S. troop commitments, grudgingly negotiated with the previous Maliki government in a status-of-forces agreement, supposedly so they could remain in a sovereign Iraq.

It all has happened before—in every significant military intervention of the United States since the Korean War (which never was won by the U.S.—or by South Korea’s Syngman Rhee; it merely has been suspended for the past half-century).

It happened in Vietnam and Cambodia. The independent-minded leaders of those countries at the time of American intervention in Indochina in 1955—the Catholic nationalist President Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam and the neutralist Prince Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia—were both overturned by American-inspired military coups (and in Diem’s case, killed).

Their successors were American-appointed generals told to fight the Communists. All were eventually defeated (and the United States as well).

It happened repeatedly in the Caribbean, where, before the rise of Fidel Castro, the U.S. put in place dictators friendly to American business interests, who then turned against Washington. The most recent was Gen. Manuel Noriega, a one-time CIA “asset.” The United States had to go to war with Panama in 1989 to get Noriega out of Panama and into a Miami prison on fraud and drug-dealing charges.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan last Thursday told his country’s parliament that American and other Western governments, together with officials of the United Nations, were responsible for the widespread fraud that occurred in Afghanistan’s presidential campaign and election last year, and indeed that they were continuing to undermine his government.

A U.N.-led Electoral Complaints Commission had disqualified nearly a million votes cast for President Karzai, thereby depriving him of an outright majority in last year’s vote.

This attack by Karzai on his former Western sponsors came four days after U.S. President Barack Obama personally visited Kabul to urge a crackdown by the Karzai government on the corruption supposedly provoking the Taliban rebellion in Afghanistan.

The Afghan uprising has by now led to insurrectionary episodes by Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistan army and government, and last weekend, an assault upon the U.S. consulate in the northern Pakistan city of Peshawar. The attack employed a truck bomb and rockets, and killed several Pakistani security officials.

President Karzai told his parliament that the U.S.-led NATO military coalition now in his country—being enlarged by land, sea and air with every passing day—is close to finding itself looked upon in Afghanistan as an invasion force. That would lend even further support to the opinion held by many Afghans that the Taliban are fighting to save their country.

He earlier had said that the United States has designs on Afghanistan’s sovereignty, planning permanent military bases there and the use of Afghan territory for a pipeline route that would avoid the ex-Soviet states while carrying Central Asian energy to ships in the Arabian Sea.

Such negotiations reportedly did take place before 2001, after the Soviet invasion ended and when the Taliban initially governed Afghanistan. The Taliban government was approached by the American Unocal company (now part of Chevron), and Karzai is plausibly reported as having been a consultant to Unocal. He says he was working in association with the U.S. government at that time to defeat the Taliban government.

The obvious if unwelcome conclusion of this is that American security is better found in an American foreign policy of military disengagement from the affairs of other societies, leaving them, and their own leaders, to search for their own solutions to their own problems. The American nation within its borders can safely be said invulnerable to military or terrorist defeat. That cannot be said of its forces, or its national honor, committed elsewhere.

Visit William Pfaff’s website at www.williampfaff.com.

© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 8, 2010 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

Another fine mess you got us into Ollie!

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, April 7, 2010 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

The US should just shake the 3rd-century dust from its boots in all those Allah-forsaken places - and get the heck outta Dodge.  Somebody in the Defense Dept must really like squalid cities and flat color-of-pounded-cement landscapes. 

One would think that W, being nominally from the South, would have understood what a tar baby is - and that both Iraq and Afghanistan fit that title.  But maybe W preferred that kid’s “goat” book and ignored the stuff from Joel Chandler Harris. 

If somehow the thousands of lives and casualties are “worth it”, where is Cheney’s oil ?

... and still waiting for those bouquets in the streets of Baghdad.

Report this

By ritamary, April 7, 2010 at 12:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like Karzai is getting ready to go the way of Ngo Dinh Diem and General Noriega. He says he is going to join the Taliban, and he is rumored to be a heroin addict. Of course it must be true. I read it on cnn.com.

So don’t forget, you read it here first when the coup or the car bomb takes out poor old Hamid.

Report this

By Richard_Ralph_Roehl, April 6, 2010 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm… President Karzai (et al) $hooting hero-in the veins again? No wonder everything is going to hell!

The glorious [sic] invasions and occupations of Iraq-nam… and Afghanistan-nam… and Western Pak-a-nuke-nam… and Yemen-nam… will soon be trumped by a full scale war with IRAN… all for the $ake of ethno-racist Zionist bigots committing tribe-all-eeego apartheid and genocide in Gaza.

Another war front with Iran? Expect $25.00 bucks a gallon in Los Angeles. Prepare for a $100.00 loaf of bread!

WHERE THERE IS NO INSIGHT, THE PEOPLE PERISH!

Report this

By balkas, April 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

Of the thousand and one landlords-warlords-feudal-lords of afgh’n, i don’t know if karzai is also one.
However, the biggest land,feudal,and warlord in afgh’n is US. Actually US does not care ab tilling the land- only mining it; getting gas or oil outta it. Or using it as a stepping stone to siberia and china. Aparently that is where osama is now!

So if US warmasters had any brains, they wld have armed trodden villagers and led them in a war for liberation from mullahs and lords.

Poor pashtuns! Always fighting for own serfdom or as they say: Our way of life! They can have it!

Of course, lotsof pashtuns wld love to have a very brief talk with karzai and lotsof tajiki and uzbeki wld love to give him a ride to helmand or kandahar.

In any case, US shld tell karzai’s wives to shut up and that solves the matter. He’d be more docile after that than herod the small or was it the herod the great? tnx

Report this

By gerard, April 6, 2010 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

Let’s look at this frequently used expression
“serving American interests” for a moment.

First of all, why should any head of another country
“serve American interests”?  Serve implies waiting on, carrying water for, nextdoor to enslavement. American interests are notoriously grasping—oil and all other natural resources, money, influence—we want it all.  That’s why we have hundreds of bases everywhere and oceans are full of our navy, international corporations are full of our corporate executives, the air is getting filled up with our pollutants. In many cases, if countries “serve American interests” they are bribed or dragged into complying with rules that are to their own disadvantage, and later lose their power to govern their own countries.

The very fact that we assume other countries will “serve our national interests” is an example of our haughty view of our rightful position in the world.  The days of dominant imperialism passed with the British some years ago as a bullish Crown was forced to pull in its horns, so to speak. Why don’t we take a lesson from the past and cease this “exceptionalism” foolishness or “white supremacy” or whatever the animus is which leads us into problems on top of problems—Iraq and Afghanistan being the most recent of many?

There is no more reason for others to “serve out interests” than there is for us to serve theirs. The point is to get rid of up/down relationships and approach others as having equal rights to possess their homelands. If we want changes, how about trying peaceful persuasion and economic justice wherever possible?  How about getting out of the war business? Obviously, it isn’t working for them or for us. 
 
Sure it’ll be a huge readjustment because we depend upon producing wars to keep our economy afloat.  But ... there are better ways to make a living than by grabbing countries by the neck and forcing them to agree to arrangements they must later disavow if they are to keep peace with their own dissatisfied constituents.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook