 |
The occupiers of Afghanistan are further from “victory” today than at any time in the past eight years, however that “victory” is defined. By Nov. 10 of this year, 288 U.S. troops had already been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the total of those killed from all occupying countries to 468. Both figures are nearly double the highest number of casualties in previous years.
It has been widely acknowledged, by U.S. military and civilian leaders alike, that the frequency and the intensity of attacks on the occupying forces have increased dramatically, as has the complexity of the operations of the resistance forces. The 62,000 U.S. forces, another 31,000 troops from U.S. coalition partners, along with an estimated 68,000 contractors, have failed to quell Afghan resistance. The Obama “surge” of troops early this year has not changed the situation at all.
Occupiers’ ‘democracy’ on display
The United States and its junior partners were hoping that a showcase presidential election would give the appearance of legitimacy to their installed puppet, President Hamid Karzai. Instead, the elections have done the exact opposite: stripping Karzai of what little legitimacy he might have had in the eyes of the Afghan people.
Imperialist occupiers design and set up elections to serve their interests. Elections under the boots of foreign forces can never be legitimate, no matter what the results are. But the Aug. 20 elections were such a farce that any claims of legitimacy were laughable.
Indicating the level of regard of Afghan people for the elections, only 38 percent of eligible voters, a little more than a third, went to the polls Aug. 20. Initial tallies gave 54 percent of the vote to incumbent Karzai. But then there were reports of massive fraud on such a wide scale that even the Independent Election Commission, whose members were appointed by Karzai himself, could not ignore them.
Overseen by the U.N., the Independent Election Commission had to downplay the fraud in hopes of salvaging the elections. The U.N. has effectively sponsored the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. An intense debate ensued, leading to the resignation/firing of Peter Galbraith, deputy to the U.N. Special Representative for Afghanistan Kai Eide. Galbraith accused Eide of covering up the cheating to smooth the path to Karzai’s re-election.
As a way out of the debacle, they came up with the plan to have a runoff election. The Independent Election Commission invalidated nearly a third of Karzai’s votes, dropping him below the 50 percent threshold needed to win outright. Officials of more than 200 of the 380 electoral districts were implicated in election irregularities.
The runoff election was scheduled for Nov. 7 between Karzai and the second highest vote getter, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. But Abdullah refused to play along. He made specific demands for preventing a repeat of the Aug. 20 fraud. When his demands were not met, he withdrew his candidacy and refused to run as the second candidate in the runoff.
This left the United Nations, the United States and all those seeking to legitimize the elections, in a quandary. Karzai had received less than 50 percent of the votes in the first round—Afghan law requires 50 percent or more to win an election—and now, with Abdullah pulling out, there would be no second round.
So they had to put democratic pretenses aside. On Nov. 2, the Independent Election Commission annulled the runoff and gave Karzai another five years as president. Commission chairman Azizullah Lodin announced: “His Excellency Hamid Karzai, who has won the majority of votes in the first round and is the only candidate for the second round, is declared by the Independent Election Commission as the elected president of Afghanistan.” No mention was made of “his Excellency’s” responsibility in the election fraud, as if the stuffed ballot boxes and the rigged votes had been acts of nature. The United Nations declared the elections “credible” and “legitimate.”
Another escalation
The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has been part of a wider strategy of regional dominance. Controlling the government of Afghanistan and maintaining military bases on its soil for the capability of launching military strikes on Iran and other countries that may challenge U.S. dominance in the region remain paramount objectives.
Now, U.S. policymakers are engaged in an intense debate on how to move forward. This summer, General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, submitted a detailed report to President Obama. The report contained a sober analysis of the situation and, among other things, recommended an additional 40,000 U.S. troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.
But the United States desperately needs a government in Afghanistan that, while subservient to Washington, is able to establish some semblance of the rule of law and have a military force able to take on the burden of fighting the resistance and absorb the bulk of the casualties. Following the elections debacle, the likelihood of the notoriously corrupt Karzai government being able to meet this expectation is slim to none.
This has led to some U.S. leaders, including Vice President Biden, to oppose another surge of troops. Karl Eikenberry, U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, is also reportedly opposed to sending more troops, citing questions about the leadership of Karzai.
But short of withdrawing forces from Afghanistan, an unacceptable option for meeting imperialist goals, the United States seems to have few other options. The majority of U.S. senior policymakers reportedly favor another escalation of troop levels. Their differences are tactical in nature, revolving around the specific number of additional troops, the timetable for their deployment and specific strategies in engaging the resistance forces.
After months of deliberation on this issue, President Obama is expected to announce his decision in late November or early December. Whatever the specifics, it will be a decision to promote the interests of the imperialist occupiers of Afghanistan, not the people of that country.
It is up to the anti-war movement to continue to oppose this criminal occupation—an occupation that has cost an untold number of Afghan deaths and unimaginable suffering. The future of Afghanistan is to be decided by the people of Afghanistan, not by its military occupiers. U.S. out of Afghanistan!
