Wie haben sie sich gefreut, die ApologetInnen imperialistischer Kriege in Afghanistan. Da kommt die Armee in das mittelalterliche Land und bombt die Menschenrechte herbei, Milch und Honig fließen dort, wo vorher karge Wüsten waren. Auch Präsident Obama pries die Wahlen in dem Kriegsschauplatz, den er selbst erneut zur Eskalation gebracht hat.
On Thursday, in a radio interview, he praised what he termed “a successful election in Afghanistan despite the Taliban’s effort to disrupt it,” while vowing that his administration would stay “focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan.”
Whether Obama knew it or not, his remarks echoed those delivered by one of his predecessors, who heaped similar praise on a vote that had taken place in a country thousands of miles away, while promising that US troops there would soon “finish the job.”
The year was 1967, the president was Lyndon B. Johnson and the election was in Vietnam. Johnson described the Vietnamese going to the polls as evidence of “dramatic progress” and invoked it as a legitimization of the steady escalation of the US war—now supposedly in defense of an “elected government.”
Doch oh Graus! Die Taliban! Sie wollen die Wahlen verhindern! Doch was für Wahlen waren das überhaupt? Die World Socialist Web Site hat heute einen ausführlichen Artikel über die ach so demokratischen afghanischen Wahlen veröffentlicht:
Both elections were carried out under the guns of US-led occupation forces. In both countries, any candidate opposing the US military presence in the country was prevented from running. And in both cases, the leading candidates were a collection of corrupt puppets who carried out wholesale ballot stuffing and electoral fraud.
The response of the US media, and particularly the editorial boards of the two most influential papers in the country, has been far more slavish in response to the Afghan elections than they were four decades ago in Vietnam.
The New York Times Friday lauded the corrupt charade in Afghanistan: “Millions of Afghans, determined to shape their own future, defied Taliban threats and voted Thursday…”
The editorial neglects to mention that millions more—apparently the majority of the electorate—abstained from the entire process. That those who voted did so out of a determination to “shape their own future” is hardly self-evident. In many cases, particularly in the rural areas containing nearly three-quarters of the population, voters were coerced by local warlords or cast their ballots strictly along ethnic lines.
Und während in Afghanistan mehr und mehr Menschen sterben:
The escalation of the US intervention is already resulting in a steady increase in the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, the inevitable outcome of fighting insurgents defending their own homeland against foreign occupation.
schreibt die Times (zitiert nach WSWS), dass nicht alle Bündnisse der Regierung mit lokalen Warlords gekappt werden könnten, weil das Land „unregierbar“ werden würde:
“not all unsavory alliances with warlords can be liquidated immediately” as the country would become “ungovernable.”
Etwas zu optimistisch, aber nicht grundsätzlich falsch, versuchen der Autor Bill van Auken und WSWS die Perspektiven für den Krieg in Afghanistan und Obama zu zeichnen:
Tens of thousands of US and NATO troops are in Afghanistan as part of a drive by US imperialism to secure hegemony in Central Asia, a geo-strategically vital region that contains much of the world’s energy reserves. While reproducing the vicious methods of colonial counterinsurgency campaigns, the broader aim of the war is to use America’s military might to offset its relative decline relative to its principal rivals in Europe and Asia.
The plans to escalate this war will soon be announced under conditions in which multiple polls show that the majority of the American people oppose what Obama and the Democrats have tried to sell as the “good war” or “war of necessity,” and by a two-to-one margin are against sending still more troops to Afghanistan.
Obama may also find himself following in the footsteps of LBJ in confronting mass opposition to war. However, under conditions of the most profound crisis of US and world capitalism since the Great Depression, this opposition will emerge most powerfully in the working class and will inevitably become fused with the eruption of class struggle against the profit system, the source of militarism.
Den ganzen Artikel gibt es hier zu lesen.
Al-Qaida could not care less what we do in Afghanistan. We can bomb Afghan villages, hunt the Taliban in Helmand province, build a 100,000-strong client Afghan army, stand by passively as Afghan warlords execute hundreds, maybe thousands, of Taliban prisoners, build huge, elaborate military bases and send drones to drop bombs on Pakistan. It will make no difference. The war will not halt the attacks of Islamic radicals. Terrorist and insurgent groups are not conventional forces. They do not play by the rules of warfare our commanders have drilled into them in war colleges and service academies. And these underground groups are protean, changing shape and color as they drift from one failed state to the next, plan a terrorist attack and then fade back into the shadows. We are fighting with the wrong tools. We are fighting the wrong people. We are on the wrong side of history. And we will be defeated in Afghanistan as we will be in Iraq.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of U.S. and NATO-led troops in Afghanistan, announced recently that coalition forces must make a „cultural shift“ in Afghanistan. He said they should move away from their normal combat orientation and toward protecting civilians. He understands that airstrikes, which have killed hundreds of civilians, are a potent recruiting tool for the Taliban. The goal is lofty but the reality of war defies its implementation. NATO forces will always call in close air support when they are under attack. This is what troops under fire do. They do not have the luxury of canvassing the local population first.
Combat creates its own rules, and civilians are almost always the losers.