As the U.S. propaganda machine boasts of the “progress” it is making in Afghanistan, the facts on the ground point to a reality that is quite different. The number of casualties of the occupation forces over the first 10 months of 2010 has surpassed 600, by far the highest in the nine years of occupation.
 U.S. occupation continues in Afghanistan |
In all of 2009, 521 occupation forces were killed and that was, until then, the highest annual casualty count since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. On average, two soldiers have been killed each day this year as the resistance has steadily gained strength. Of the total of 2,170 occupation troops killed since the invasion, at least 1,348 are from the U.S. Two-thirds of the 150,000 occupation forces today are U.S. troops, numbering approximately 100,000. Of course, the number of Afghan casualties, which the U.S. military refuses to count, is in the tens of thousands.
The failure of the occupation forces to achieve their objectives in pacifying Afghanistan and defeating the resistance resulted in a surge of 40,000 U.S. troops during President Obama’s first year in office. But seeing no end in sight, Washington’s allies are dropping out one by one. Italy has announced that it will begin withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan next summer. Earlier this year, the Netherlands withdrew its troops. Even Canada has decided to withdraw its troops in 2011.
Another sign of the diminishing prospects of victory for the occupation forces is the actions of Hamid Karzai, the country’s so-called president. The former Unocal executive airlifted into Afghanistan by the U.S. and installed as president has been acting in ways unbecoming of a puppet.
Fearful of the people’s strong opposition to their occupation, Karzai has defied his masters in demanding the expulsion of mercenaries. Initially, he set a Dec. 17 deadline for all private security contractors to leave Afghanistan. There are an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 guns-for-hire in Afghanistan, paid mainly by the U.S. government.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high ranking U.S. officials put Karzai under intense pressure to change his decision. On Oct. 24, Gen. David Petraeus, the top NATO commander, held what was described as a “tense meeting” with Karzai on this issue.
But on the next day, Oct. 25, Karzai restated his commitment to kick out the hired guns. He said at a news conference that the security companies are enriched in the United States, “then they send the money to kill people here.” He added that the operation of the private security companies is the source of “insecurity in Afghan homes and causes the killing of Afghan children and causes explosions and terrorism in Afghanistan.” On Oct. 27 it was announced that Karzai had revised his decision, still expelling some of the contractors by Dec. 17, but allowing others to remain until at least February 2011.
Negotiations that Karzai has started with various “Taliban” leaders also speak volumes to the weakness of the U.S. and its allies. The New York Times reported that NATO troops were offering safe passage to certain leaders of forces fighting the occupation. In one case, NATO aircraft was used to fly one such leader into Kabul.
Seeing a U.S. victory as improbable, for years Karzai has promoted the idea of reaching an agreement with those leaders of resistance who are willing to negotiate with the United States. In 2007, when Karzai started pursuing this idea, Washington was opposed to it, rejecting negotiations with resistance forces. People remember President Bush’s bellicose lines about refusing to “negotiate with terrorists” and making “no distinctions between terrorists and those who support them.” A political settlement with leaders of the Taliban and other resistance forces would leave little room for a declaration of victory after a decade-long occupation whose objective was ostensibly to remove the Taliban.
But now, Washington seems to have conceded to the reality that it cannot achieve victory, its constant declarations of “progress” and impending “victory” notwithstanding. Karzai has set up a High Council for Peace to establish dialogue with resistance groups. The meetings have Washington’s blessing. With only Kabul under his nominal control, Karzai is in no position to reach significant agreements with anyone without Washington’s backing. Responding to the question of whether NATO was involved in facilitating the meetings, Petraeus stated: “Indeed, in certain respects, we do facilitate that given that, needless to say, it would not be the easiest of tasks for a senior Taliban commander to enter Afghanistan and make his way to Kabul if [the coalition] were not willing and aware of it and therefore allowing it to take place.”
In the last week of October, Karzai captured the headlines on the news that his government had received cash payments from the Iranian government, reportedly $1 million at least once or twice a year. Karzai confirmed these reports: “It is not hidden … we are grateful for the Iranians’ help in this regard.”
The significance of this news is not the widely publicized propaganda cries of Iran “interfering in Afghanistan’s affairs.” Karzai dismissed these criticisms: “This is a relationship between neighbors, and it will go on and we will continue to ask for cash help from Iran. The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices.” It is the height of imperialist hypocrisy to paint the U.S. as righteous in occupying a country half way across the globe for a decade while characterizing as “interference” Iran’s attempt to influence its neighbor through aid.
The significance of the news of Karzai receiving cash from Iran is that it demonstrates, in yet one more way, that he has no faith in the ultimate victory of the United States, the imperialist power that installed him. Having established good relationships with Tehran, to the chagrin of Washington, Karzai is hedging his bets.
Any real progress towards peace in Afghanistan can only start by respecting the will of the people of Afghanistan, who have a right to self determination. An immediate end to the occupation of their country is the demand of an overwhelming majority of the people of Afghanistan. End the Occupation of Afghanistan Now.
