- Despite almost a decade of warfare, including an invasion
and occupation, the US military and its allies and client state armed forces
are losing the war in Afghanistan. Outside of the central districts of
a few cities and the military fortresses, the Afghan national resistance
forces, in all of their complex local, regional and national alliances,
are in control, of territory, people and administration.
-
- The prolonged unending war has become a major drain
on the morale of the US armed forces and undermined civilian support in
the US, limiting the capacity of the White House to launch new imperial
wars. The annual multi-billion dollar military expenditures, are exacerbating
the out-of-control budget deficit and forcing harsh unpopular cuts on social
programs, at all levels of government. There is no end in sight, as the
Obama regime keeps increasing the number of troops by the tens of thousands
and military expenditures by the dozens of billions but the resistance
advances, both military and politically.
-
- Faced with rising popular discontent and demands for
fiscal restraint by a wide spectrum of banking and citizen groups, Obama
and the general command have sought "partial exit" via the recruitment
and training of a large scale long term Afghan mercenary army and police
force under the direction of US and NATO officers.
-
- The US Strategy: The Making of an Afghan Neocolony
-
- Between 2001-2010 the US military expenditures total
$428 billion dollars; the colonial occupation has led to over 7,228 dead
and wounded as of June 1, 2010. As the US military situation deteriorates,
the White House escalates the number of troops resulting in a greater number
of killed and wounded. During the past 18 months of the Obama regime more
soldiers were killed or wounded than in the previous eight years.
-
- The White House and Pentagon strategy is premised on
massive flows of money, arms and an increase in the number of surrogates,
mainly subsidized warlords and puppet western educated ex-pats. The White
House "development aid" involves, literally, purchasing the transient
loyalties of clan leaders. The White House attempts to give a veneer of
legitimacy by running elections, which enhance the corrupt image of the
incumbent puppet regime in Kabul and its regional associates.
-
- On the military front, the Pentagon launches one "offensive"
after another, announcing one success after another, followed by a retreat
and return of the Resistance fighters. The US campaigns disrupt trade,
agricultural harvests and markets, while the air assaults targeting "Taliban"
and militants, more frequently than not end up killing more civilians celebrating
weddings, religious holidays and shoppers at markets than combatants.
The reason for the high percentage of civilian killings is clear to everyone
except the US Generals: there are no distinctions between "militants"
and millions of Afghan civilians since the former are an integral part
of their communities.
-
- The key and ultimately decisive problem facing the US
occupation is that it is a colonial enclave in the midst of a colonized
people. The US, its local puppets and its NATO allies are a foreign colonial
army and its Afghan military and police recruits are seen as mere instruments
perpetuating illegitimate rule. Every action, whether violent or benign,
is perceived and interpreted as transgressing the norms and historical
legacies of a proud and independent people. In everyday life, every move
by the occupation is disruptive; nothing moves except by command of the
foreign directed military and police. Under threat of force, people fake
co-operation and then provide assistance to their fathers, brothers and
sons in the Resistance. The recruits take the money and turn their arms
over to the Resistance. The paid village informants are double agents
or identified by their neighbors and targeted by insurgents.
-
- The Afghan collaborators, Washington's closest allies,
are seen as corrupt traitors; transient rulers who have their bags packed
and US passports in hand, ready to flee when the US is forced to exit.
All the programs, "reconstruction" funds, training missions
and "civic programs" have failed to win the allegiance of the
Afghan people, now as in the past as well as in the future, because they
are seen as part of the US military occupation ultimately based on violence.
-
- Ten Reasons Why the Afghan Resistance Will Win
-
- The Resistance has deep roots in the population
family community, linguistic and cultural ties which the US does not possess
nor can "invent"; nor can these ties be bought, traded or replicated
by their Afghan 'collaborators' or imposed by propaganda.
-
- The Resistance has fluid borders and broad international
support especially with Pakistan but also with other anti-imperialist,
Islamic groups who provide arms and volunteers and who engage in actively
attacking the logistical transport supply lines of US-NATO military in
Pakistan. They also pressure overseas US client regimes like Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia opening multiple fronts.
-
- Widespread infiltration, voluntary, active and passive
support of the Resistance among the US recruited and trained Afghan military
and police results in crucial intelligence on troop movements. Desertions
and absenteeism undermines "military competence".
-
- The scope and breadth of Resistance activity over extends
the imperial armies at its current strength and causes it to rely on unreliable
Afghan security, who have no stomach for killing their brethren, especially
when directed against communities with relatives or ethnic kin.
-
- Resistance allies are more loyal, less corrupt and reliable
because of deeply shared beliefs. US allies are loyal only because of
ephemeral monetary gratification and the temporary presence of US military
force.
-
- The Resistance appeals to the people in the name of a
return to law and order in everyday life, which preceded the disruptive
invasion. The US promise of positive outcomes following a successful war,
have no popular resonance after a decade long destructive occupation.
-
- The US has no belief system that can compete with the
religious-nationalist-traditionalist appeal of the Resistance to the vast
majority of village, small town and displaced rural population.
-
- The Resistance's support of Iraqi, Palestinian and other
anti-imperialist forces has a positive appeal among the Afghan people who
have seen the destructive results of US wars in Iraq and proxy wars in
Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The US backed Israeli assault of Lebanon
and the humanitarian ship destined for Palestine and the highly visible
presence of Zionist militants in the US government, repels the more politically
aware opinion leaders in Afghanistan.
-
- Afghans have, by force of circumstances, longer staying
power in resisting the US military occupation, than the US people who have
other, far more pressing needs and the US military with growing commitments
in the Gulf.
-
- The Afghan Resistance does not normally kill civilians
in combat missions since the US troops and NATO are clearly identified.
Whereas, the opposite is not true. The Afghans who are part of the villages
in occupied communities are subject to assassinations by "Special
Forces" and drone bombings. In these circumstances ordinary people
suffer the same military assaults as Resistance fighters.
-
- A Failed Mission: The Incapacity to Build a Reliable,
Effective Afghan Mercenary Army
-
- A US government audit published in late June of this
year demolished the Obama regime's claims that it is succeeding in building
an effective Afghan mercenary army and police capable of buttressing the
current client regime in Kabul. The Report, based on a detailed analysis
and field observations argues that the Obama Pentagon relies on "standards
[which are] woefully inadequate, inflating the abilities of Afghan units
that Mr. Obama called "core to our mission" (Financial Times,
June 7, 2010, p1). In other words, Obama continues to play the con game,
which he inaugurated during his electoral campaign with his phony promises
of 'change' and "ending the wars", and continued with his bail
out of Wall Street in the name of 'saving the economy'. He followed up
by escalating the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 more troops and
increasing military and police expenditures to $325.5 billion, approximately
132% higher than the last year of the Bush Administration (Congressional
Research Service, FY 2010 Supplemental for Wars June 2010).
-
- The Obama regime's phony claims of progress were based
on self-serving bureaucratic and technical criteria, rather than the actual
fighting performance and behavior of the Afghan mercenary army. The military
command's reports and progress reports were based on how many courses were
taught, the length and breadth of training and the amount and quality of
arms and equipment supplied to the Afghan troops. As the number of Afghan
units passing the "training missions" increased from zero to
22, between 2008 - 2009, the Pentagon claimed extraordinary progress.
To correct the errors, the Pentagon has turned to "field assessments
by commanders" which is also failing, since the officials have
a vested interest in inflating the performance of the Afghans mercenaries
under their command in order to secure promotions and merit badges. The
Obama regime plans to increase the Afghan military from 97,000 in November
2009 to 134,000 in October 2010, to 171,000 in October 2011 a 75% increase
in two years (Congressional Research Service 2010, p 13). The same increase
occurs with the police: from 93,800 in November 2009 to 134,000 in October
2011 a 43% increase.
-
- Obama's claim that the war is gradually being handed
over to the US "trained" Afghan army is fully belied by two other
basic facts. The White House has requested $1.9 billion double the
2009 level under Bush for military construction of new bases and
installations for a "long term presence" (which the con-man Obama
claims does not mean a "permanent presence"). Secondly, using
the familiar double-talk of the Obama regime, Secretary of Defense Gates
and Admiral Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff now argue that Obama's
campaign promise of beginning the retirement of troops in July 2010 really
means "a day we start transitioning not a date we're leaving",
which would be based on "conditions on the ground a several year
process" (Gates Testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee,
December 2, 2009). In plain English "transitioning" is not "leaving".
It means staying, fighting and occupying Afghanistan for decades. It
means adding more troops, building more bases. It means spending another
$400 billion over the next 5 years. And it means doubling the number of
American soldiers killed and wounded over the next 3 years, from over seven
thousand to fourteen thousand.
-
- The criteria of 'success' in Afghanizing the war is
belied by the growing Americanizing of the bases, combat troops and expenditures.
The reason is that the Afghan army figures are as phony as Obama's promises.
The number of US personnel is growing because the Afghan political puppets
are so corrupt, ineffective and despised by their people that Washington
has to surround them with "monitors", "advisers" and
"operatives" who in turn are totally incapable of relating to
the needs and practices of the communities. Increased US "aid"
has led to greater corruption, more unfulfilled promises and greater animosity
from the would be popular recipients.
-
- The fundamental problem is that this is an American
war and that is why Afghan units suffer a 50% reduction of strength due
to at a minimum, a 20% desertion rate, admitted by US military officials
(Congressional Research, op cit, p.14). In other words, the Afghan recruits,
take the money and their arms and return to their villages, neighborhoods,
families, and perhaps not a few, use their military training, joining with
the National Resistance. With such high levels of disaffection among Afghan
recruits and even officials it is not surprising that the Resistance has
such high quality intelligence on US troop movements. Given the degree
of disaffection it is not surprising that some of the US intelligence collaborators
are double agents or vulnerable to exposure and execution. Faced with
a billion dollar recruitment program with high rates of desertion and the
"turning of guns on their mentors," the White House, Pentagon
and Congress refuse to recognize the reality that the imperial occupations
is the source of the resistance of almost the whole people. Instead they
call for more trainees, more funds for "training programs", more
"transparent" mercenary contractors.
-
- The reality is that with a bigger American occupation,
with escalating military expenditures, the Resistance is growing, surrounding
the major cities, targeting meetings in the center of Kabul and rocketing
the biggest US military bases around the country. It is clear that the
US has lost the war politically and is in the process of losing it militarily.
-
- Despite the most advanced military technology, the drones,
the Special Forces, the increase in the number of trainees, advisers, NGOers
and the building of more military bases, the Resistance is winning. The
White House by adding to the millions of displaced and murdered and maimed
Afghans is increasing the hostility of the vast majority of the Afghans.
Civilian killings are turning more and more of their military recruits
into deserters and "unreliable" soldiers. Some of whom are 'turned'
into committed combatants for the 'other side'. As in Indo-China, Algeria
and elsewhere, a popular, highly motivated guerrilla resistance army, deeply
embedded in the national-religious culture of an oppressed population is
proving more resistant, enduring and victorious over an alien high tech
imperial army. Obama's 'rule or ruin' Afghan War, sooner rather than later,
will ruin America and end his shameful presidency.
|
