Afghanistan Opinion: It's Victory Day But Afghans Are Still Voiceless Decades Later (Mull)

Josh Mull, the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

Happy Mujahideen Victory Day! This is the national holiday when Afghans celebrate their victory over the communists in the 1980's. We remember the Mujahideen of course, they're the folks to whom we gave all that CIA training and Stinger missiles so they could kill Soviets. We all at least saw the film version of Charlie Wilson's War, right?

Afghanistan: How Many Soldiers Does it Take to Screw in a Light Bulb? (Mull)

The basic historical narrative is that the Soviet superpower bad guys  (who incidentally invaded in the name of democracy and development) are defeated by the heroic good-guyAmericans, who saved the hapless, incoherent hillbillies, the Afghans, by giving them lots of weapons. Yay for freedom fighters!


The danger, our story warns, is that we abandoned Afghanistan after Mujahideen Victory Day, causing America to become the victims. Blowback! Poor, foolish America should have interfered more with Afghanistan I suppose. But we're ignoring the Afghan version of history and completely missing the point of Mujahideen Victory Day.


Let's take a look at their celebration, via Pajhwok Afghan News [subscription]:

[Deputy President Qasim Fahim] urged Afghan citizens to join together to find a solution to the problems faced by the country.

He said there were some people, both inside and outside the country, who were trying to destabilise Afghanistan.

A strong army, a vigilant fight against corruption and smuggling and respect for good government and the rule of law were some ways in which Afghanistan could retain its strength. Corruption, he said, was the fifth pillar of terrorism.

Fahim delivered a warning to unnamed countries who he said were meddling in Afghanistan's affairs, saying they would find themselves mired in similar problems if they did not leave.

Oh yeah, he's got our number all right. We are definitely "meddling," which is a nice way of saying occupation. And boy are we ever having similar problems! Indeed our meddling mires us in corruption, what with the billions lost to waste, fraud, and abuse by war profiteers. And rule of law is sure out the window since the President can now lock you up forever because he calls you a terrorist or just assassinate you. But notice that the Afghans don't think of the holiday as a time to pine for American intervention: Mujahideen Victory Day is about throwing off any foreign occupation, be it Soviet or American.

And the dirty secret here is that nobody abandoned Afghanistan. We like to take Afghanistan's decades of war and blame it on the Afghans being xenophobic, or "tribal," or some other backhanded way of saying they're all backwards idiots. If only they would just let us manipulate them, they'd have peace. But the history of Afghanistan's "war-torn" decades is a history of nothing but foreign meddling. Take a look at these snippets from the Washington Post:

Already, efforts to jockey for future control of Afghanistan have been seen among Pakistan, India, Iran and even Russia. [...]

Karzai and most Afghans fear that if Washington waits too long to decide about talking to the Taliban, control will fall to the ISI as happened in the 1980s and 1990s -- when Washington abandoned Afghanistan to Russia and Pakistan but the ISI played favorites and was unable to end the civil war among Afghan factions.[...]

Pakistan's maneuvers have prompted India to try reactivating its 1990s alliance with Iran, Russia and Central Asia, which supported the former Northern Alliance in a civil war against the Pakistan-backed Taliban regime.

See all the meddling? Iran, India, Pakistan, Russia, all of "Central Asia" apparently, plus all of our meddling. Everybody had a hand in it. And check out that bias: "ISI played favorites and was unable to end the civil war". Gee whiz, I wonder why they were "unable" to end it when, a few sentences later, we see that a lot of other folks seemed to have been around as well.

Afghans don't need more of us, they need more of themselves. Everyone but Afghans has a say in their affairs. Remember the outrage over President Hamid Karzai appointing Afghans (scandalous!) instead of foreigners to the election commission? Guess how many foreigners regulate the elections in Montana? Zero.

Now, don't misconstrue this as a defense of Karzai's fraud, it's simply illustrative of our rejection of Afghans at every step of the process. We whine about abandoning the women of Afghanistan, instead of letting them do it themselves. We complain that Afghan electricity isn't sufficiently dependent on our puppet in Kabul, instead of helping them develop their own energy capacity. And rather than allow Afghans to develop their own security, we support child molesters and drug addicts who ravage the population.

Just take a look at this movie showing in Afghanistan, keeping in mind that this is only one anecdote, from an American no less:

Last weekend, at the university where I teach, the new documentary film Addicted in Afghanistan by director Jawed Taiman, a British-Afghan, was shown. At point, one of the young boys in the family of opium and heroin addicts the film follows shouts to the camera that his addiction was produced by the U.S.-led occupation. The overwhelmingly student audience erupted into applause. I later heard that some shocked faculty members walked out in disgust with students. One, an American, reportedly said the incident has her reconsidering whether she will return after this semester.

I was stunned that my colleagues were surprised. Our students are not going to speak up in a well-lit classroom in an “American university” and tell their instructor what they honestly think about the United States. Some of the older students lived under Taliban rule. All of the students were directly impacted by the chaos of civil war and the latest bloody foreign occupation. Every Afghan understands that what you say in public can earn your execution.

But in the anonymity of a darkened gymnasium, with abundant peer support, they can exercise their frustration, disappointment, anger or disgust in a collective manner that affords both plausible deniability and little likelihood of reprisals. Popular resistance always finds, or creates, opportunities to express itself.

That's how battered and beat down by foreign interference they are. They can only express themselves anonymously in the dark. They're completely voiceless in the fate of their own country. Then there's that Pajhwok article I noted. They have to hide their exclusively Afghan voices behind loads of ads and a paywall just to keep the lights on.

But there's good news here. You are not behind a paywall, your voice is not confined to the darkness. Listen to what Representative James McGovern said on a recent conference call about Afghanistan:

I have to tell you as a former staffer and as a member of Congress-- pressure works, grassroots pressure works. It really makes a difference here," he said. "And when many people do it it's a movement. And what we need to create here in a very short period of time is a movement to try to change course on Afghanistan.

I was on that call, and I can tell you he very strongly emphasized that point over and over again. Pressure works. Calling your member of congress works. Writing your member of Congress works. Hell, even shutting down their office works. They have to listen to you, they desperately need you to tell them what to do. Unlike the Afghans, your voice still counts for a lot, and you can demand that the US stop interfering in Afghanistan, primarily by ending our bloody and expensive military occupation. Tell them the Afghans need to solve their own problems, they don't need us there manipulating them.

It's super easy, too. Take Peace Action West, for example. They've got a form all ready for you to tell congress to end the war, you just have to fill out your personal details. Click "send" and, poof, it goes straight to your specific members of congress. There are dozens more organizations out there just like that one, too. And of course it's always effective to just straight up call them at their office and speak your mind. And you won't be alone in doing this. Contact your representative, then join us on Rethink Afghanistan’s Facebook page and collaborate with the tens of thousands of others around the country working to bring this war to an end.

Afghanistan: Turning a Blind Eye to Corruption? (Sengupta)

Kim Sengupta writes in The Independent of London:

NATO has agreed on its long-awaited road map for the future of Afghanistan amid warnings that the process risks tolerating corruption and the power of the warlords for the sake of security.

The Alliance's summit in the Estonian capital ended [Friday] night without the details of the framework for a handover of security to President Hamid Karzai's forces being made public. The Independent has learned, however, that an area will be deemed ready for transfer if serious violence has been in abeyance for a period of time, if there is access to power by different ethnic and tribal elements and if the conditions are present for development projects taking place in relative safety.

Afghanistan: US Overruling Afghan “Allies” for Kandahar Offensive? (Porter)

According to senior diplomatic sources, clusters of provinces, rather than individual ones, will be transferred to "provide critical mass" able to withstand the Taliban. The decisions on the locations for handover and the timeframe involved will be made at a Nato conference later this year after talks between Western and Afghan government officials.


The start of the handover will not, however, mean that troops can start to withdraw, NATO officials stressed. British troops in particular will have to wait before pulling out as the areas in the south where they are based – the main battleground with the Taliban --– will be among the last to be transferred to Afghan control. [British Prime Minister] Gordon Brown had stated that the handover process will start this year, allowing UK forces to begin returning home.

The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned: "The future of this mission is clear and visible: more Afghan capability and more Afghan leadership... But it will not be a pullout. It will not be a run for the exit....Our soldiers will move into a more supportive role. So it will be a gradual process. This is conditions-based and not calendar-driven.''

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We believe that with sufficient training and mentoring, the Afghans themselves are perfectly capable of defending themselves against insurgents. Does this mean it will be smooth sailing? I don't think so, just look at Iraq. A lot of progress has been made there but there are still problems with terrorism."

Mrs Clinton said she appreciated that there was a shortfall of staff to train the Afghan security forces. However, she added: "We have a gap that we're still working to fill. I'm convinced we'll get that filled. For me, the glass is way more than half full."

Although Afghan forces will take the lead, Western troops will be available to provide firepower and back-up if the insurgents appear to be making a comeback. If an area which has been handed back shows signs of suffering from endemic corruption or depredations of warlords the local people could protest through shuras – public meetings – said Nato officials. Mr Rasmusson, however, has said the handover process would be "irreversible" and a senior Western diplomat acknolwedged that a degree of corruption will necessarily have to be tolerated as long as it does not threaten the security of Nato forces. "It is not for us to detemine whether a particular district's governance is working or not, it is whether there is a threat to the area to a point that the insurgency threatens to take over," he said.

The diplomat pointed out that the policy of transfers remained uncertain. "Unless we are saying that we will stay and colonise the country we can't say everything is irreversible for ever and we will probably need to remain in support for several decades."

NATO officials also said that the Afghan side in the talks to decide which provinces or districts were suitable for transfer would be represented by officials of the Karzai government at national and local levels and there would be no input from independent groups on the matter.

Some Afghan observers pointed out that NATO's seemingly relaxed attitude about corruption was in marked contrast to the public condemnation by the US and British governments of the corruption in President Karzai's government and his link to warlords such General Abdul Rashid Dostum and Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim.

Syed Ali Laghmani, a political analyst based in Kabul, said: "There is a big danger that areas will be given over to strongmen because they can deliver security for the right side and keep out the Taliban. If the West does not make sure that people do not suffer from corruption in these districts then there will be a lot of trouble in the future.''

The Latest from Iran (18 April): Strike A Pose

2030 GMT: A Swap --- But Inside or Outside Iran? Amidst all the posturing at disarmament summits, here's the key Iranian statement on talks:

Iran plans to hold talks with all members of the United Nations Security Council over a nuclear fuel swap deal, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said.

"We plan to hold direct talks on nuclear swap with 14 member states of the UN Security Council and indirect talks with the 15th member [the United States]," Mottaki told reporters in a Sunday press conference in Tehran.

And here's the question which, after weeks, still remains: when Iran refers to a willingness for discussions, does that include consideration of the exchange of uranium stock outside the country?

2025 GMT: Irony Alert (Because Hypocrisy is a Not-Very-Nice Word). Press TV reports with a straight face and no reference to recent pronouncement of Iranian authorities on the fighting of "soft war":

Schools in the US State of Pennsylvania have used lent-out laptop computers with spy cameras and "buggy" software to "monitor' students, reports say.

US investigators are probing spying cases of the Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvanian, where school officials have been implicated in receiving unauthorized images of students that borrowed "doctored" laptops from their schools, US media reported on Saturday.

2015 GMT: Picture of Day. It comes from the most recent meeting of women's activists in the Green Movement.

NEW Iran Document: The Supreme Leader on Nuclear Weapons (17 April)
NEW Iran Analysis: And The Nuclear Sideshow Goes On…And On…And On
Iran: Former Tehran Chancellor Maleki on Detention & Green Movement’s “Forgotten Children”
The Latest from Iran (17 April): Remember

2000 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Iranian Students News Agency reports that three prominent reformists --- Mohsen Mirdamadi, head of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, former Deputy Minister of Interior Mostafa Tajzadeh, and Davoud Soleimani have been found guilty of harming national security and propaganda against the regime. Each has been sentenced to six years in jail and barred from involvement in politics or journalism for 10 years.



1730 GMT: Iran's Women Are Needed. Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, has declared that Iran's "unfinished democracy project" must be fulfilled through the significant presence of women in political movements.

1725 GMT: Attacking the Clerics. A group of plainclothes men have again attacked the offices of Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Dastgheib in Shiraz, vandalising the site by spraying paint.

In December, pro-regime crowds laid siege to the offices in a Shiraz mosque, temporarily forcing Dastgheib, a vocal critic of the Government, and his staff to leave.

1700 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Khabar Online repeats the claim, which we heard a few days ago, that Hashemi Rafsanjani has met judiciary head Sadegh Larijani to discuss the criminal case against Rafsanjani's son, Mehdi Hashemi.

1615 GMT: Laying Down the Law. The head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, has issued a wide-ranging statement. Like his brother, he has seized the nuclear line of criticising the US and "West" for lies.

At the same time, Larijani tried to position himself as the guardian of the law, emphasising his will to persecute corruption. And he took time to warn people of wearing inappropriate outfits.

1515 GMT: The Subsidy Battle. Is the economic feud between Parliament and the President over?

Yes. And No.

Rah-e-Sabz repeats the news that Parliament, in a secret meeting, has accepted the Government's demands for extra revenues from subsidy cuts.

Gholam-Reza Mesbahi Moghaddam, the Majlis Economic Committee member who was critical of Ahmadinejad, said laws were not violated in the agreement. However, he continued to blame the President for insulting MPs as "economic nuts", declaring to Ahmadinejad, "I was the teacher of your ministers and advisors."

1220 GMT: More on the Mousavi Statement. Speaking to the student committee of the reformist Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution, Mousavi called on supporters of the Green Movement to find “ways to expand the media and spread information". They should counter the attacks on the freedom of the press by replacing every banned weblog with “tens of weblogs for defending the people’s rights”.

Declaring that the Green Movement is “limitless” and can “open numerous new windows” for every blocked “opening”, Mousavi said that the opposition should “include every one of the 70 million people of the country, even our opponents".

1130 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi has issued a new statement reiterating his long-declared theme, "We All Must Be Media". We will be looking for an English translation.

1120 GMT: Parliamentary Sniping. Gholam-Reza Mesbahi-Moghaddam, who has been a leading actor in the battle with the President over subsidy and spending proposals, has attacked on a new front. He has derided Ahmadinejad's suggestion of paying $1000 to parents for every new child. Mesbahi-Moghaddam said, "[The] president is not the system's strategist. Rather he [is tasked] to implement laws and macroeconomic policies."

1110 GMT: The "Realist" Solution. Kayhan Barzegar of Harvard University captures the spirit of the movement in Washington amongst some Government officials and analysts for a grand settlement with Iran not only on the nuclear programme but on regional issues:

Obama's attempts to convince actors like Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia to impose new sanctions or political pressure are all short-term solutions and will not change Iran's nuclear policy. The United States needs to find a sustainable solution in dealing with Iran, based on a genuine change that can resolve existing strategic issues and in which zero-sum game solutions are finally put to bed.

What is striking is not Barzegar's specific argument but the fact that it has been picked up and featured in Tehran by Iran Review.

1105 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad has been sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for "spreading propaganda" and insulting the country's leaders.

Nourizad was arrested in November after writing the Supreme Leader, urging him to apologize to the nation for the post-election suppression of dissent.

(Given my grumpiness about the "Western" media this morning, credit to the Associated Press for picking up and disseminating the news.)

1055 GMT: The Corruption Story. Arshama3's Blog has an invaluable summary, in German, of the dramatic claims in the Iranian press of the "Fatemi Street" insurance fraud, linking the accused to First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

1045 GMT: Soft Power Corner. Want a useful alternative to all the nuclear news? Try this from Reuters' Golnar Motevalli:

The television in the corner of the port-a-cabin reception room where Ali Tavakoli Khomeini receives guests outside the Afghan city of Herat is tuned to Iran's state 24-hour news channel.

Large maps of Iran and Afghanistan adorn the walls, and a portrait of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hangs alongside one of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. An Afghan cook arranges a spread of Persian cuisine.

While the United States will soon have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan waging war against the Taliban, Iran is quietly exerting influence on its neighbor in a subtler way: through bricks and mortar, railways and road.

Tavakoli, an Iranian engineer, has built some 400 km (250 miles) of highway and railroad in western Afghanistan over the last six years, paving the ancient trade routes of the Silk Road.

His firm is building a dam in rural Herat, and has just finished laying foundations for a railway that could one day link south and east Asia to the Middle East and Europe, reviving some of the most important ancient overland trade routes in the world.

1030 GMT: We're Great, You Suck. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani scales the nuclear high ground (can't let his rival Mr. Ahmadinejad steal all the applause, can he?) with a statement to the Majlis:

The [Washington] conference not only eluded the issue of disarmament but audaciously prescribed the use of atomic weapons. In fact, all the nuclear conference in the US did was weaken the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. The use of other weapons of mass destruction was permitted under the pretext of concerns about 'nuclear terrorism'."

1015 GMT: OK, as we need after an extended break to catch up with news inside Iran, let's get the chest-puffing diversions out of the way.

We've got a special analysis on the latest sideshow of Tehran's disarmament conference complemented by US Government spin, put out through The New York Times, on the threat of Iran's nuclear programme. And this morning, the poses just keep a-comin':

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday Iran had the military might to deter attacks, his comments coming as Western pressure mounts on the Islamic state to dispel fears it is developing nuclear arms.

Speaking at a military parade that marked Iran's armed forces' day, Ahmadinejad said the "unrivalled" power of Iranian military secured stability in the Middle East....

"Iran's armed forces are so strong today that the enemies will not even think about violating our territorial integrity," Ahmadinejad said in a low-key speech at the parade.

Low-key in comparison to his Saturday opening salvo at the Tehran disarmament conference, I guess --- let Iran lead the global way for an end to nuclear weapons, chuck the US out of the International Atomic Energy Agency --- but obviously not low-key enough to avoid being splashed as Breaking News by Reuters.

Afghanistan: US Overruling Afghan "Allies" for Kandahar Offensive? (Porter)

Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service:

The U.S. military has now officially backtracked from its earlier suggestion that it would seek the consent of local shuras, or consultative conferences with those elders, to carry out the coming military occupation of Kandahar city and nearby districts --- contradicting a pledge by Afghan President Hamid Karzai not to carry out the operation without such consent.

Afghanistan: Misunderstanding the Society, Killing the Civilians

Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, told IPS Tuesday that local tribal elders in Kandahar could "shape the conditions" under which the influx of foreign troops operate during the operation, but would not determine whether or where NATO troops would be deployed in and around the city.



Asked whether the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is committed to getting local approval before introducing more troops into Kandahar and surrounding districts, the McChrystal spokesman said, "We're not talking about something as simple as a referendum."

At a Mar. 29 briefing in Kabul on plans for the Kandahar operation, however, an unnamed senior U.S. military official told reporters that one of the elements of the strategy for gaining control over the Taliban stronghold is to "shura our way to success" - referring to the Islamic concept of consultative bodies. In those conferences with local tribal elders, the officials said, "The people have to ask for the operation... We're going to have to have a situation where they invite us in."

Those statements clearly suggested the intention to get the support of local tribal elders before going ahead with the large-scale military operation scheduled to begin in June.

That is what President Karzai said to a shura of between 1,000 and 2,000 Kandahar province tribal elders Apr. 4. Karzai said NATO's Kandahar operation would not be carried out until the elders themselves were ready to support it, according to a number of press reports.

According to the report by RTA, Afghanistan's state television service, Karzai actually said, "I know you are worried about this operation," before asking their opinion. He also said that the shuras to be organised at the district level were for the purpose of "getting approval and deciding" on the operation, according to the RTA report.

And the assembled elders made it known that they didn't want the operation.

That was clearly not what McChrystal, who was sitting behind Karzai at the shura, wanted to hear.

McChrystal's Deputy Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. William Mayville, and spokesman Sholtis both sought to minimise the damage from the incident. Mayville asserted that Karzai is "on board" on the Kandahar offensive, adding, "We would not have had this shura if he wasn't convinced this is the right stuff."

Sholtis suggested that Karzai had only "made it clear that he would involve local leaders in the decision-making process".

Sholtis acknowledged that "nobody wants a counterinsurgency fought in their backyard", but claimed that the elders who spoke at the Kandahar shura had "made it clear that Kandahar also suffers from an unwanted Taliban presence."

Sholtis also said the three elders who had expressed concerns about the operation had been supported by "probably about a third of the more than 1,000 who attended".

But published accounts of the meeting show that the elders were not calling for expelling the Taliban from the city and its environs. When Karzai asked the assembled elders whether they were "happy or unhappy for the operation to be carried out", they shouted loudly, "We are not happy," the Sunday Times of London reported.

As reported by AFP, when Karzai asked, "Are you worried?" the elders shouted back, "Yes we are!"

According to the RTA account, one elder interrupted Karzai to say, "Who are the Taliban, but my son and another's nephew? The problem is actually these people who are in power, in particular the tribal elders and those who have power in Kandahar city."

And in a revealing response, Karzai said, "Absolutely, you are right..."

Some of the elders told CNN's Atia Abawi they preferred to negotiate with the Taliban rather than confront them in a military offensive.

Read rest of article....

Iran: A View From Tehran "The New Year Challenges"

Analysis from inside Iran can often be as interesting for what lies behind the words on the page as for the claims on the surface. Consider, for example, the latest perspective in Iran Review from Firouzeh Mirrazavi:

About one month after the beginning of the new Iranian calendar year (March 21, 2010) and following international registration of Norouz by the United Nations General Assembly, Iran is facing new challenges: part of this is domestic while another part emanates from Iran’s international and regional policies as well as international pressures it is bearing. Some Iran experts maintain that social unrests following presidential polls in 2009 have led to the isolation of certain parts of the Iranian society, political circles, media crew, and political parties and activists. Post-election events have deepened the gaps and put the country on a wrong track which cannot help to solve any of the existing problems.

The Latest from Iran (15 April): Accepting Authority?

As history has proven in past several thousands of years, enemies usually hit the country in such junctures by fanning the flames of differences. Ambiguities in international relations, especially where Iran’s national security is at stake, have further complicated the situation. Examples to the point include:


1. Iran’s nuclear case and plans by the Security Council and 5+1 to impose tougher sanctions on Iran as the country is getting ready to host an international conference on disarmament and nonproliferation and a similar conference on nuclear security is forthcoming in the United States;

2. Elections in Iraq and persistence of political challenges over the composition of the next Iraqi government;

3. The ongoing situation in Afghanistan and prospects of possible reconciliation between [President Hamid] Karzai and NATO alliance and Taliban forces;

4. Iran’s relations with Saudi Arabia which have been marred by an ongoing crisis of distrust between the two states in addition to territorial and strategic pressures from other Persian Gulf states which are in line with the regional interests of western countries;

5. Israel’s continued threats to use military force against Iran;

6. Tension between Iran and its northern neighbors over the country’s share of the Caspian Sea’s energy resources; and

7. Insecurity of the Iranian borders due to widespread presence of foreign troops in neighboring countries and activities of terrorist and insurgent groups in border areas.

Having a healthy, happy and progressive society by taking advantage of knowledge, expertise and efficiency of all social classes and political groups is the best way to overcome the above-mentioned difficulties. Problems can be successfully solved only when the majority of the Iranian nation, regardless of their political tendencies, lends its support to the government. National unity is an inevitable necessity under existing circumstances and to secure Iran’s rights and interests, there is no better option than strengthening national unity and fostering peace and tranquility in the country.