Re: Entirely Predictable: The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan Worse Off Than Before

On 11/7/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Entirely Predictable: The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan Worse Off Than Before
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/entirely_predictable_the_us_is_leaving_a
> fghanistan_20141106/
> Posted on Nov 6, 2014
> By Sonali Kolhatkar
>
> Shutterstock
> With very little fanfare and barely any major news coverage, U.S. Army
> units
> have begun leaving Afghanistan. The drawdown signals the wrapping up of
> what
> became-officially at least-the United States' longest war. A few thousand
> American troops will stay indefinitely. And, says "Reena," a spokeswoman
> for
> the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), the U.S.
> is leaving Afghanistan worse off than when the Taliban was in power. This
> should come as no surprise, given that for decades the U.S. has refused to
> back anyone other than corrupt and criminal elements.
> For RAWA to assert that Afghanistan is worse off today is quite serious.
> The
> underground Afghan women's group was vocal in denouncing Taliban atrocities
> in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In fact, it was RAWA's video of an
> Afghan
> woman being publicly executed by a Taliban soldier in Kabul Stadium that
> replayed endlessly on U.S. television news in the days after the 9/11
> attacks. RAWA is the oldest political organization of women in Afghanistan,
> so it is not surprising that its members' predictions of disaster resulting
> from U.S. policies have come true. For example, in 2001 RAWA warned the
> international community and the U.S. against empowering the Northern
> Alliance warlords, saying, "The NA will horribly intensify the ethnic and
> religious conflicts and will never refrain to fan the fire of another
> brutal
> and endless civil war in order to remain in power." Just three years later,
> Human Rights Watch released a report documenting horrific abuses by the
> Northern Alliance warlords in the Afghan government. Those abuses have
> continued unabated, alongside U.S. ground operations and Taliban attacks,
> for the past 13 years.
> In an interview on "Uprising," Reena-who like most Afghans uses only a
> single name, and like all RAWA members employs a pseudonym for security
> purposes-told me, "[A]s we have said for the last 13 years, this war could
> not bring freedom and prosperity and a better life for the people of
> Afghanistan. And now as the U.S. has left, it has made the situation of
> Afghanistan much worse than it was in 2001."
> Earlier this year Afghans elected a new president, Ashraf Ghani, who took
> office just weeks ago. In one of his first official acts, Ghani, a former
> World Bank official, signed a long-awaited security agreement with the
> United States.
> Ghani took over from Hamid Karzai, a two-term president who was dogged by
> accusations of corruption and who refused to sign the agreement with the
> U.S. But Ghani's own election was marred by so much evidence of fraud that
> he was forced to share power with his closest rival, Abdullah Abdullah,
> whom
> Ghani named Afghanistan's first chief executive officer, a newly created
> role akin to a prime minister. Abdullah is a key Northern Alliance figure
> who threw in his lot with war criminals during the civil war from 1992 to
> 1996. Even more controversially, Ghani named as his first vice president
> Abdul Rashid Dostum, one of Afghanistan's most notorious warlords, whom
> Ghani himself referred to as "a known killer" some years ago. Dostum has
> been strongly implicated in the mass killing of 2,000 Taliban soldiers in
> 2001, among other war crimes.
> Still, Ghani is being hailed by many as the best hope for Afghanistan. In
> an
> essay in Counterpunch, Ralph Nader referred to him as the "one person in
> the
> world most suited to govern the turbulent land of Afghanistan." Reena
> acceded, "There is no doubt that Ashraf Ghani has some personal
> achievements. Especially in the eyes of the Western media." By this she
> means that Ghani is a champion of neoliberal policies. As Ghani states at
> the outset in a TED talk that he gave, he sees capitalism and democracy as
> being hand in hand. In addition, he announced soon after being sworn in as
> president that his intentions for Afghanistan's economic transformation
> were
> centered on exploiting its rich mineral reserves-an approach consistent
> with
> extraction-based economic models favored by the U.S.
> In signing the security agreement with the U.S., Ghani cited "shared
> dangers
> and shared interests" of the U.S. and Afghanistan. The agreement, among
> other things, enshrines the presence of about 10,000 U.S. troops in
> Afghanistan. But, according to Reena, "it is not just about these troops.
> It
> is about the bases they have [built] and the biggest embassy they have
> built
> in Afghanistan which shows that they are here to stay," and which can allow
> the U.S. to "use this region very strategically for its military purposes."
>
> "The way we see it," said Reena, "he is one of those people who will serve
> U.S. interests above the interests of our country. Our country is basically
> occupied at the moment. Democracy or elections or an independent government
> really does not make any sense."
> She explained, "If you look at his right- and left-hand people, they are
> the
> same warlords, the same killers and criminals that we have time and again
> called for the prosecution of. They are war criminals who have to be put on
> trial in international courts for the crimes they have committed in
> Afghanistan."
> If one traces U.S. policy back all the way to 1979, the Northern Alliance
> and to an extent the Taliban can rightly be viewed as direct outcomes of
> the
> American program of funding and training jihadists against the Soviet
> occupying army. The U.S. has insisted on cycling various figures in and out
> of positions of government power in Afghanistan since then, despite
> constant
> evidence of their criminal deeds. Still, Reena was dismayed that Western
> media and most Westerners are ignorant of how the U.S. government has
> worked
> closely with warlords such as Dostum who she says "are no different than
> the
> Taliban" and in fact "are actually worse than the Taliban." From the very
> beginning of the 2001 war, when many of the same warlords were selected to
> participate in Afghanistan's fledgling government at the December 2001 Bonn
> Conference in Germany, Reena knew that "our country was going to be
> destroyed all over again."
> She added, "Not only do our people view this as a failure, it is probably
> the biggest treason any country has done to Afghanistan in its history."
> The
> only other period in Afghanistan's recent history that comes close to the
> destruction wrought under the 13-year U.S. war was the 10-year-long Soviet
> occupation, from 1979 to 1989. But Reena contends that the American
> occupation was worse. She told me, "If we compare these two eras, obviously
> the Soviets killed thousands of intellectuals and have had maybe the
> biggest
> role in depriving Afghanistan of progressive thinkers and national
> patriotic
> leaders that Afghanistan so badly needs today. But if we look at their
> agenda, it is nothing compared to what the U.S. has done in the past 13
> years."
> Today, Afghanistan is struggling along no better than in 2001. While some
> rights are enshrined in the constitution, in practice women still suffer
> severe abuses, including rape and murder. Maternal mortality and child
> mortality rates remain among the highest in the world. Poverty is still
> grindingly high. Drug production and addiction rates are worse than before.
> One quick indicator is the United Nations Human Development Index, which
> has
> remained virtually unchanged over a decade: In 2004, Afghanistan ranked 173
> out of 178 countries for which data was available; today it ranks 175 out
> of
> 187 countries.
>
> While ordinary Afghans struggle to survive, President Ghani has promised
> peace talks with the Taliban. Many U.S. analysts, too, believe that
> bringing
> the Taliban into power is the only way forward for peace. Reena responded
> to
> this approach by saying: "The U.S. has already brought fundamentalists into
> power who are much worse than the Taliban. ... Not much is going to change
> if the Taliban are officially brought into power."
> She added, "If you look at Afghanistan today, the north is officially under
> the control of the government. But they have their own militias who commit
> countless crimes against people every day. Their crimes are widespread." So
> if the Taliban, who control the south, share power in the government, she
> said, "The situation will deteriorate in any case" all over the country.
> How can ordinary Afghans take back their nation? Reena lamented, "Our
> country has been demolished. There is no nation in the world that can
> survive three decades of war and still be able to resist foreign occupation
> or to actually fight for their rights and for the betterment of their
> country." She concluded, "Our people need to be united. They have to break
> the barriers of the divisions that the U.S. occupation has brought upon
> Afghanistan. They need to fight the foreign occupiers. Afghanistan has a
> glorious history of driving out foreigners whenever they have tried to take
> over Afghanistan. This is the only way."
> Sonali Kolhatkar is co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a
> volunteer-run nonprofit organization that has worked in solidarity with
> RAWA
> since 2000.
> http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
>
> Entirely Predictable: The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan Worse Off Than Before
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/entirely_predictable_the_us_is_leaving_a
> fghanistan_20141106/
> Posted on Nov 6, 2014
> By Sonali Kolhatkar
>
> Shutterstock
> With very little fanfare and barely any major news coverage, U.S. Army
> units
> have begun leaving Afghanistan. The drawdown signals the wrapping up of
> what
> became-officially at least-the United States' longest war. A few thousand
> American troops will stay indefinitely. And, says "Reena," a spokeswoman
> for
> the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), the U.S.
> is leaving Afghanistan worse off than when the Taliban was in power. This
> should come as no surprise, given that for decades the U.S. has refused to
> back anyone other than corrupt and criminal elements.
> For RAWA to assert that Afghanistan is worse off today is quite serious.
> The
> underground Afghan women's group was vocal in denouncing Taliban atrocities
> in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In fact, it was RAWA's video of an
> Afghan
> woman being publicly executed by a Taliban soldier in Kabul Stadium that
> replayed endlessly on U.S. television news in the days after the 9/11
> attacks. RAWA is the oldest political organization of women in Afghanistan,
> so it is not surprising that its members' predictions of disaster resulting
> from U.S. policies have come true. For example, in 2001 RAWA warned the
> international community and the U.S. against empowering the Northern
> Alliance warlords, saying, "The NA will horribly intensify the ethnic and
> religious conflicts and will never refrain to fan the fire of another
> brutal
> and endless civil war in order to remain in power." Just three years later,
> Human Rights Watch released a report documenting horrific abuses by the
> Northern Alliance warlords in the Afghan government. Those abuses have
> continued unabated, alongside U.S. ground operations and Taliban attacks,
> for the past 13 years.
> In an interview on "Uprising," Reena-who like most Afghans uses only a
> single name, and like all RAWA members employs a pseudonym for security
> purposes-told me, "[A]s we have said for the last 13 years, this war could
> not bring freedom and prosperity and a better life for the people of
> Afghanistan. And now as the U.S. has left, it has made the situation of
> Afghanistan much worse than it was in 2001."
> Earlier this year Afghans elected a new president, Ashraf Ghani, who took
> office just weeks ago. In one of his first official acts, Ghani, a former
> World Bank official, signed a long-awaited security agreement with the
> United States.
> Ghani took over from Hamid Karzai, a two-term president who was dogged by
> accusations of corruption and who refused to sign the agreement with the
> U.S. But Ghani's own election was marred by so much evidence of fraud that
> he was forced to share power with his closest rival, Abdullah Abdullah,
> whom
> Ghani named Afghanistan's first chief executive officer, a newly created
> role akin to a prime minister. Abdullah is a key Northern Alliance figure
> who threw in his lot with war criminals during the civil war from 1992 to
> 1996. Even more controversially, Ghani named as his first vice president
> Abdul Rashid Dostum, one of Afghanistan's most notorious warlords, whom
> Ghani himself referred to as "a known killer" some years ago. Dostum has
> been strongly implicated in the mass killing of 2,000 Taliban soldiers in
> 2001, among other war crimes.
> Still, Ghani is being hailed by many as the best hope for Afghanistan. In
> an
> essay in Counterpunch, Ralph Nader referred to him as the "one person in
> the
> world most suited to govern the turbulent land of Afghanistan." Reena
> acceded, "There is no doubt that Ashraf Ghani has some personal
> achievements. Especially in the eyes of the Western media." By this she
> means that Ghani is a champion of neoliberal policies. As Ghani states at
> the outset in a TED talk that he gave, he sees capitalism and democracy as
> being hand in hand. In addition, he announced soon after being sworn in as
> president that his intentions for Afghanistan's economic transformation
> were
> centered on exploiting its rich mineral reserves-an approach consistent
> with
> extraction-based economic models favored by the U.S.
> In signing the security agreement with the U.S., Ghani cited "shared
> dangers
> and shared interests" of the U.S. and Afghanistan. The agreement, among
> other things, enshrines the presence of about 10,000 U.S. troops in
> Afghanistan. But, according to Reena, "it is not just about these troops.
> It
> is about the bases they have [built] and the biggest embassy they have
> built
> in Afghanistan which shows that they are here to stay," and which can allow
> the U.S. to "use this region very strategically for its military purposes."
>
> "The way we see it," said Reena, "he is one of those people who will serve
> U.S. interests above the interests of our country. Our country is basically
> occupied at the moment. Democracy or elections or an independent government
> really does not make any sense."
> She explained, "If you look at his right- and left-hand people, they are
> the
> same warlords, the same killers and criminals that we have time and again
> called for the prosecution of. They are war criminals who have to be put on
> trial in international courts for the crimes they have committed in
> Afghanistan."
> If one traces U.S. policy back all the way to 1979, the Northern Alliance
> and to an extent the Taliban can rightly be viewed as direct outcomes of
> the
> American program of funding and training jihadists against the Soviet
> occupying army. The U.S. has insisted on cycling various figures in and out
> of positions of government power in Afghanistan since then, despite
> constant
> evidence of their criminal deeds. Still, Reena was dismayed that Western
> media and most Westerners are ignorant of how the U.S. government has
> worked
> closely with warlords such as Dostum who she says "are no different than
> the
> Taliban" and in fact "are actually worse than the Taliban." From the very
> beginning of the 2001 war, when many of the same warlords were selected to
> participate in Afghanistan's fledgling government at the December 2001 Bonn
> Conference in Germany, Reena knew that "our country was going to be
> destroyed all over again."
> She added, "Not only do our people view this as a failure, it is probably
> the biggest treason any country has done to Afghanistan in its history."
> The
> only other period in Afghanistan's recent history that comes close to the
> destruction wrought under the 13-year U.S. war was the 10-year-long Soviet
> occupation, from 1979 to 1989. But Reena contends that the American
> occupation was worse. She told me, "If we compare these two eras, obviously
> the Soviets killed thousands of intellectuals and have had maybe the
> biggest
> role in depriving Afghanistan of progressive thinkers and national
> patriotic
> leaders that Afghanistan so badly needs today. But if we look at their
> agenda, it is nothing compared to what the U.S. has done in the past 13
> years."
> Today, Afghanistan is struggling along no better than in 2001. While some
> rights are enshrined in the constitution, in practice women still suffer
> severe abuses, including rape and murder. Maternal mortality and child
> mortality rates remain among the highest in the world. Poverty is still
> grindingly high. Drug production and addiction rates are worse than before.
> One quick indicator is the United Nations Human Development Index, which
> has
> remained virtually unchanged over a decade: In 2004, Afghanistan ranked 173
> out of 178 countries for which data was available; today it ranks 175 out
> of
> 187 countries.
>
> While ordinary Afghans struggle to survive, President Ghani has promised
> peace talks with the Taliban. Many U.S. analysts, too, believe that
> bringing
> the Taliban into power is the only way forward for peace. Reena responded
> to
> this approach by saying: "The U.S. has already brought fundamentalists into
> power who are much worse than the Taliban. ... Not much is going to change
> if the Taliban are officially brought into power."
> She added, "If you look at Afghanistan today, the north is officially under
> the control of the government. But they have their own militias who commit
> countless crimes against people every day. Their crimes are widespread." So
> if the Taliban, who control the south, share power in the government, she
> said, "The situation will deteriorate in any case" all over the country.
> How can ordinary Afghans take back their nation? Reena lamented, "Our
> country has been demolished. There is no nation in the world that can
> survive three decades of war and still be able to resist foreign occupation
> or to actually fight for their rights and for the betterment of their
> country." She concluded, "Our people need to be united. They have to break
> the barriers of the divisions that the U.S. occupation has brought upon
> Afghanistan. They need to fight the foreign occupiers. Afghanistan has a
> glorious history of driving out foreigners whenever they have tried to take
> over Afghanistan. This is the only way."
> Sonali Kolhatkar is co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a
> volunteer-run nonprofit organization that has worked in solidarity with
> RAWA
> since 2000.
>
> A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion Publisher, Zuade Kaufman Editor,
> Robert Scheer
> C 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>