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: How Many Soldiers Does it Take to Screw in a Light Bulb?

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

As the US gears up for its inevitably bloody assault on Kandahar, the plans have hit a bit of a snag. There's a dispute raging between the military and civilian sides of our war effort over, believe it or not, development aid. The Washington Post reports:

Convinced that expanding the electricity supply will build popular support for the Afghan government and sap the Taliban's influence, some officers want to spend $200 million over the next few months to buy more generators and millions of gallons of diesel fuel. Although they acknowledge that the project will be costly and inefficient, they say President Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 has increased pressure to demonstrate rapid results in their counterinsurgency efforts, even if it means embracing less-than-ideal solutions to provide basic public services....

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

U.S. diplomats and reconstruction specialists, who do not face the same looming drawdown, have opposed the military's plan because of concerns that the Afghan government will not be able to afford the fuel to sustain the generators. Mindful of several troubled development programs over the past eight years, they want the United States to focus on initiatives that Afghans can maintain over the long term.

The dispute is easy to understand. The military wants an immediate impact, while the State Department wants a long-term solution. Because the army has to leave, they need quick solutions or, though it is left unsaid, "we will fail in Afghanistan".

We know that this is not true. Even after July 2011 there will still be combat troops in Afghanistan, just the "special" ones that do the most killing. But framing the aid dispute around the military's needs completely misses the point that the military should n0t even be involved in Afghanistan. The State Department is right: if we care at all about our objectives in Afghanistan, governance, development, human rights, then we need sustainable solutions. And who knows more about that, the civilians or the military?

In the Post article, an anonymous military source crystallizes the debate:

"This is not about development -- it's about counterinsurgency," said a U.S military official at the NATO headquarters in Kandahar, advocating rapid action to help Afghan officials boost the power supply. "If we don't give them more fuel, we'll lose a very narrow window of opportunity."

It's not about development, it's about counterinsurgency (COIN if you're a cool kid).  This is supposedly a fancy new military doctrine for winning the hearts and minds of civilians, including things like $200 million worth of generators.

But COIN isn't new, it's a buzzword for occupation. It even accounts for installing and coercing a puppet government (host nation) and undermining domestic and foreign discourse with propaganda (strategic communication). In other words, it is the exact same cycle of overthrowing foreign governments we've been doing for decades. That's the best thing our military has to offer when it comes to succeeding in Afghanistan: an insidious and illegal foreign occupation.

Why? Because they're the military. They've got aptly-named Predator drones and Hellfire missiles and other tools explicitly designed for hunting down and obliterating human beings. Despite the commercials you see of them rescuing disaster victims and handing out food, they're really what Ted Koppel said during the Iraq invasion, "an awesome, synchronized killing machine". Now, you want something "awesome" like that when Russia's Putin comes knocking on Sarah Palin's door, or whatever military threats might fall upon us.

But in Afghanistan, that's not what we need. At least, those aren't the objectives laid out by the President:

Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

OK, so the big target is denial of an Afghanistan for al-Qa'eda. That's been done for like a year now. We don't want the Taliban to overthrow the government? Done, the Taliban are negotiating with the government.

But finally, "strengthening the capacity" of the government to "lead responsibility," that one we haven't done. The government is corrupt and broken. That's where all that talk about development, governance, and human rights comes in, which brings us back to the aid dispute above. The civilian side of our efforts wants to continue repairing a dam that could provide a stable power source indefinitely, instead of handing out expensive generators that require fuel local Afghans couldn't possibly afford without welfare from President Tony Montana in Kabul (who can't afford it either by the way). And our diplomats and development agencies actually know what they're talking about.

Let's look at Bangladesh. Like Afghanistan, they have similar energy problems, as my friend Bob Morris writes:

Imagine a city of 13 million with continual blackouts

That’s Dhaka, Bangladesh now. Uncontrolled growth is a primary reason that blackouts now occur every few hours, something which usually shuts down the water supply too. And here I get cranky when the Internet goes down for ten minutes. If you’re reading this on a laptop in a developed country, you are in the global elite.

So, what do we do about it? Send in 100,000 troops to shoot and bomb the hell out of them? Nope, just stuff like this:

USAID aims to:

• 
  
  Strengthen energy institutions, particularly the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission, the Rural Electrification Board and the rural electric cooperatives known as the Palli Biddut Samities or PBSs;


• 
  
  Help develop appropriate market structure and associated rules to ensure a competitive market for efficient market operations and increased consumer benefits


• 
  
  Promote balanced public discussion on reform of Bangladesh's energy sector; and


• 
  
  Improve the legal, regulatory, and investment environment to promote private investment and development of the energy sector.[...]

Complementing these activities is USAID's South Asia Regional Initiative for Energy (SARI/Energy) program. The program promotes energy security in South Asia by facilitating more efficient regional energy resource utilization, increasing transparent and profitable energy practices, mitigating the environmental impacts of energy production, and increasing regional access to clean energy. SARI/Energy focuses on:

1. 
   
   Cross border energy trade


2. 
   
   Energy market formation


3. 
   
   Regional clean energy development

That's a lot of jargon, but essentially it's the same sort of solution that we need in Afghanistan. In fact, it's exactly what the State Department is asking for in the aid dispute with the military:

Instead of buying fuel, Eikenberry and other embassy personnel want the electric utility in Kandahar to do a better job of collecting fees and to use the money to buy fuel for the generators it already has, which would increase supply but not eliminate the shortage. USAID is offering help through its Afghanistan Clean Energy Program, a $100 million effort to promote "green" power in the war zone. The agency plans to install solar-powered streetlights in the city this year.

Rather than unsustainable bribes, help the local population solve their own energy crisis.

Now I know what you're thinking, Bangladesh is not Afghanistan. If we pulled out the military and just left the civilians and aid workers, they'd all get killed by the Taliban, right? Wrong. Bangladesh has many of the same problems: corrupt government officials, extremist infiltration in the military, even jihadi terrorist groups with lots of scary dashes and apostrophes:

Meanwhile, intelligence agencies in Bangladesh have sent a report to the Prime Minister on the existing militant groups in the country. According to the report, at least 12 militant outfits are active in Bangladesh, which have foreign funding links and relations with local political parties. The 12 militant outfits are, Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh [JMB], Harkatul Jihad al Islami [Huji], Hizb Ut Towhid, Ulama Anjuman al Bainat, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Islamic Democratic Party [IDP], Islami Samaj, Touhid Trust, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh [JMJB], Shahadat-E-Al Hikma Party Bangladesh, Tamira Ad-Din Bangladesh [Hizb-E-Abu Omar] and Allah'r Dal [Hezbollah]. The report however did not mention names of other militant outfits such as Zadid Al-Qaeda, Khatmey Nabuat Movement and Khatmey Nabuat Andolan.

It may be mentioned here that, members of Khatmey Nabuat Movement and Khatmey Nabuat Andolan have been staging massive repression on Ahmedia religious minority group in Bangladesh. Moreover, Mufti Noor Hussain Noonari, leader of Khatmey Nabuat Andolan led dozens of Islamists in destroying a sculpture, which was erected by the City Corporation in front of the Zia International Airport. Members of law enforcing agencies were helplessly witnessing the destructions of State properties by the unruly Islamists in broad day light. Later another group of Islamists attempted to destroy the sculpture in front of the National Flag Carrier's head office. They also threatened to destroy the National Monument, which was erected in memory of the martyrs of the independence war of Bangladesh as well as another monument erected in the memory of Bangla Language Movement. It is learnt that, Mufti Noorani is continuing to give instigations behind such illegal activities.

Yep, that place sounds crazy dangerous, yet our civilians have been able to provide electricity to some 40 million people at a rate of 2,000 new connections per day. That's just one piece of the program; there's still all the other stuff about "market formation" and improving the regulatory environment. And ta da! No Special Forces or Hellfire missiles. Our civilian aid workers and diplomats are highly skilled at operating safely and effectively in failed states, war zones, all kinds of unsafe places, and they don't need military firepower to do it.

It's the military presence that makes it unsafe for aid agencies. The civilians become co-conspirators in foreign domination, and with the military pretending to be interested in construction and development, they become completely indistinguishable from the occupying army. That's why they become targets. We have to completely remove the military from the equation in order for our civilian efforts to work, and thus achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

And we have to remove the military quickly, because unlike our civilian workers, the military is not only making the situation unsafe in Afghanistan, but they're even unsafe at home. Are you sitting down? Check this out:

Troubling new data show there are an average of 950 suicide attempts each month by veterans who are receiving some type of treatment from the Veterans Affairs Department.

Seven percent of the attempts are successful, and 11 percent of those who don’t succeed on the first attempt try again within nine months.

Holy shit! Excuse my language but that is a staggering statistic. Almost a thousand soldiers try to kill themselves every single month, and that's just the price of doing business. If they manage not to get blown up by an IED, shot by friendly fire, or electrocuted in the shower, then they still have deadly severe post-traumatic stress disorder to deal with. Even if they're over there COINing it up, the environment our occupation creates is so hellish, the atrocities so outrageous, that afterward it completely shatters our soldiers' will to live.

I can't seem to find the same statistics for IREX or USAID. I guess there's not a lot of diplomats commiting suicide because of all the schools and clinics they built.

How many soldiers do we need working in Afghanistan? Zero! We've got to get every last one out of there, or not only will the sickening death toll continue to rise, but we'll never get anywhere near completing our objectives in Afghanistan.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the President's ideas about creating a stable Afghanistan. Intervention in any shape or form is controversial, and we're welcome to have a philosophical debate about Neoliberal Globalization and "Soft Imperialism" and all that fun stuff, but we're nowhere near that point yet. Right now the debate is over this:

Afghan protesters torched NATO supply vehicles in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, hours after allegations emerged that U.S. and Afghan troops had killed three civilians, including two brothers, in their home.

The demonstration occurred in Logar province after a nighttime joint patrol of U.S. Special Operations forces and Afghan soldiers fatally shot three people and arrested two others. NATO officials said the men were insurgents who had displayed "hostile intent." One of those captured was a low-level Taliban commander who planned suicide bombings, they said.

But after daybreak, more than 100 people gathered on a main road in Logar to protest the killings and the death in a separate incident of an Islamic scholar, according to Afghan officials. Military operations at night are deeply unpopular, and Afghan officials have called for them to stop. The furious crowd blocked traffic and set fire to at least 10 fuel tankers using hand grenades, said the provincial police chief, Ghulam Mustafa Moisini.

"If they were insurgents, why are the people so angry?" asked provincial government spokesman Din Mohammad Darwish.

They're angry for the same reason we are. We've got to get the military out of Afghanistan, for our sake, for the Afghans' sake, and for the sake of our national objectives in Afghanistan.

Middle East Analysis: Cairo's Nuclear Move, Syria's Reaction

At last week's Obama-led summit on nuclear security, amidst speculation that many Arab and Muslim states would launch an ambush upon Israel's nuclear weapons, the deputy prime minister Dan Meridor summed up the conference: "Thus far, there has been no ambush."

On the same day, President Obama called on Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty as he called on other states, such as India, North Korea, and Pakistan, to join:

Israel Document: Strategic Affairs Minister on “Existential Struggle” and No Concessions

Whether we're talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important. And that, by the way, is not a new position. That's been a consistent position of the United States government, even prior to my administration.

Haaretz subsequently quoted Western envoys reporting that Israel may come under new pressure next month at a UN meeting on atomic weapons, with the US, Britain and France considering support for Egypt's call for a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear arms. In a working paper that reportedly Egypt submitted to fellow treaty members, Cairo said the conference should formally express regret that "no progress has taken place on the implementation of the (1995) resolution" that backed the idea of "a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction" and should call for an international treaty conference by 2011.

Although Israel's UN mission had no official comment on the Egyptian proposal, an Israeli diplomat told Reuters the Jewish state will be ready to discuss issues such as a nuclear-weapon-free zone once there is peace in the Middle East. One Western official said:

They [the Israelis] have an interest here. If the Arabs get something they want on Israel, they'll be more supportive on Iran's nuclear program and further sanctions. Israel would benefit from that.

So for Egypt, the nuclear move is a "win-win" situation. It can increase its stock through giving the image of "driving Israel to the corner" and by leading an international gathering through which new and stronger pressure can be put on Tehran.

However, to establish this leading role in the Arab world, Cairo needs the support of a very significant country:  Syria, which is the "closest" ally of Iran and the greatest conventionally-armed "threat" to Israel. With Saudi Arabia breaking the ice with Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Assad was due Tuesday night to land in Egypt.

What is Syria seeking from this "alliance"? Damascus would gain from Egyptian support to counter Israel's allegations that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Lebanon's Hezbollah. Secondly, Cairo, in its "big brother" role mediating Palestinian affairs, could increase Syria's influence in the Gaza Strip.

Pakistan: President Weakened, 100 Die in Aerial Attacks (Cole)

Juan Cole offers an overview of the latest developments in Pakistan:

On Saturday, fierce Pakistani fighter-jet bombardments of suspected militant positions in Khyber left dozens of persons dead and local tribal leaders livid at what they characterized as the killing and wounding of innocents. The Pakistani military maintained that the militants had fled ongoing military operations in Orakzai and South Waziristan (i.e. they are suspected of being members of the Movement of Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan or TTP). In addition to the bombardment in Khyber, Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle on the ground at a checkpoint in Orakzai, leaving an alleged 54 militants dead.

The renewed fighting in the northwest and the announcement of such large enemy casualties may have been in part intended by Islamabad to do political work. On the one hand, the bombing raids were a form of reassurance that the central government is still strong, even though the president may have been weakened.



On Friday, the lower house of the Pakistani parliament passed the 18th amendment to the constitution, significantly diluting the president’s powers. A vote could not be taken in the senate the same day for lack of a quorum, but the bill is expected to pass there on Monday. After that vote, the president can no longer dismiss the prime minister at will or prorogue parliament, and no can he control appointments to the supreme court. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani praised President Asaf Ali Zardari and the Pakistani military for not interfering in the passage of the amendment or lobbying against it taking immediate effect (which it has). The amendments that had given the president those powers to begin with were martial law amendments implemented by generals during periods of military rule. In fact, Zardari likely acquiesced in the amendment because he is hoping to deflect any further legal action against him on corruption charges. Despite pleading from the Pakistani judiciary, Switzerland has decided not to proceed with a prosecution of Zardari for corruption, saying his position as president makes him immune.

On the other hand, Gilani will attend President Obama’s nuclear summit this week in Washington, and the massive bombardments serve as a reminder to Washington of Pakistan’s value in combating the Taliban and what is left of al-Qaeda in its northwest tribal areas. Given Pakistan’s past as an active proliferator of nuclear technology, the country is otherwise likely to come in for harsh criticism from India and perhaps others. Moreover, many in Washington worry about whether Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure, in the face of the Taliban insurgency. Gilani will argue that Pakistan is a prime security asset to Washington, and that its powerful 550,000-man army is fully in control of assets such as the smalll nuclear stockpile.

President Zardari clearly has a bill he wants to submit to Washington, since he claims that the ‘War on Terror’ cost his country $35 billion and caused a good deal of inflation and poverty.

Although it is true that US military leaders are pleased with Pakistan’s confrontation of militants in Bajaur, Swat and South Waziristan over the past year, suspicions linger that the country’s military continues to play a double game, using some of the Taliban while attacking others. The alleged release by the Inter-Services Intelligence of two prominent Afghan Taliban leaders, including recently, will reinforce suspicions of this double-faced policy. For all its remarkable progress the country has made, both in reversing the terrible legacy of military dictatorship and in finally owInter-Services Intelligencening its Taliban problem, Pakistan is still likely to receive some stern lectures in Washington this week.

The New US Nuclear Policy in 3 Bullet Points

Your easy-to-read version of the 49-page Nuclear Posture Review, released yesterday by the Obama Administration:

1. If you're not in the Nuclear Club --- Tehran, Pyongyang, we're looking at you --- don't even think about it. Shove off. Don't make us angry.

Still thinking about it? Don't.

2. If you're in the Nuclear Club --- Moscow, Beijing, how ya doin'? --- great to work with you to keep others out. Cold War? What Cold War?

3. Israel? Who is this Israel? (Repeat for Pakistan and India.)

Obama Document: The New US Stance on Nuclear Weapons