President Obama's secret trip to Afghanistan, shrouded in
secrecy for security reasons, culminated in a midnight meeting with
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the signing of a 'strategic
partnership agreement', the full details of which have not been made
available to either the American or Afghan public.
US President Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan late Tuesday on a
surprise visit and signed a 'strategic partnership agreement' with
Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a midnight ceremony. (AFP) "If
ever there was an image to convey the limits of the UK-US success in
Afghanistan, it was the way that Barack Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of
the liberating, Taliban-scattering forces was forced to skulk into
Kabul last night under the cover of darkness,"
writes the
Telegraph's
Peter Foster. "After landing at Bagram Airbase just after 10pm local
time, there was a low-level, cover-of-darkness helicopter insertion to
the Presidential Palace where the ten-page deal (which contains no
specifics on funding or troop levels) was signed around midnight."
The agreement, broadly understood, codifies the ongoing conditions
under which the US government agrees to operate in Afghanistan and will
guide policies on the management of military bases, authority over
detainees, the execution of night raids and other security operations,
and will set conditions for troop levels and residual US forces that
will remain in Afghanistan even after a 'withdrawal' commences in 2014.
The agreement also deals with ongoing financial support for the Afghan
government and military into the future.
Though Obama spoke optimistically of 'light of a new day' in
Afghanistan and many media reports heralded the agreement as a 'signal
to the end of war', other analysts arrived at different conclusions.
"Interestingly,"
writes Jason Ditz at
Anti-war.com,
"with the ink now drying on the document and the US officially
committed to the occupation of Afghanistan for another decade, officials
are continuing to tout 2014 as the “end” of the war. This speaks to how
the 2024 date, though openly discussed by the Karzai government in
Afghanistan and privately acknowledged as part of the secret pact, has
not been publicly presented to the American public. When they will
officially spring it on us remains unclear."
“While the world may accept that the US and Afghan governments have
some 'state’ or ‘noble’ considerations for not revealing the contents of
the US/Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement, how about the democratic
consideration of involving Afghans in their own future?," asked Kathy
Kelly, a co-coordinator of
Voices for Creative Nonviolence,
who is currently on a peace walk from Madison, Wisconsin to Chicago,
where she will arrive in time for the upcoming NATO Summit.
“The SPA is likely to prolong fighting in the region," Kelly added,
"because the Taliban and neighboring countries have clearly stated that
they won’t accept US foreign troop presence. Also, many Afghans wonder
if the US and NATO want to protect construction of the TAPI
[Trans-Afghanistan] pipeline, which the 2010 NATO summit approved of and
the New Silk Road which Hilary Clinton has promised the US will
construct.”
President
Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai sign a strategic
partnership agreement at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan,
Wednesday. (Charles Dharapak/AP)
US veteran Sgt. Jacob George, who served in Afghanistan but now speaks out against the war,
argued
the agreement speaks to the futility of US military efforts in
Afghanistan that began with the US invasion in 2001. “The agreement
actually allows for sustaining a ‘post-conflict’ force of 20,000 to
30,000 troops for a continued training of indigenous forces. They are
pretending this is something new, but it’s not. That’s what I was doing
in 2001 — and 2002, 2003 and 2004. This is just disastrous, for ten
years, with the greatest military the world has ever seen, we’ve been
unable to defeat people with RPGs. And a year after Bin Laden was
killed, we’re still planning to keep tens of thousands of troops there.”
Andrey Avetisyan, Russian ambassador to Kabul,
speaking to
the Telegraph
newspaper ahead of the agreement, revealed concern for the long-term
impacts of a sustained US military presence. “Afghanistan needs many
other things apart from the permanent military presence of some
countries. It needs economic help and it needs peace. Military bases are
not a tool for peace."
"Does anyone think our staying until 2024 is going to bring peace and
stability to Afghanistan?" ask Kevin Martin and Michael Eisenscher in
an
op-ed today on
Common Dreams.
"We’ve already been there for eleven years – the longest war in our
country’s history. What do we really have to show for it? We’ve spent
almost $523 billion. Almost 2000 Americans have been killed and another
15,300 wounded. 1000 NATO troops have lost their lives." Eisenscher is
National Coordinator of
U.S. Labor Against the War and Martin is the executive director of
Peace Action.
Dec.
19, 2001 — Marine Lt. Ronald Reed of Virginia waits inside his fighting
position on the perimeter of the bombed-out airport in Kandahar. More
than eleven years later, an end to the disaster that is the US war in
Afghanistan is nowhere in sight. (Rick Loomis/Los Angeles Times)
They continue: "Staying through 2024 will be a hard sell to the
majority of Americans. According to last week’s Pew Research public
opinion poll, only about a third of those polled think U.S. troops
should stay in Afghanistan 'until the situation there is stabilized'
(whatever that means). About two-thirds of Obama supporters, and almost
as many swing voters (who make up nearly a quarter of the electorate),
want a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops, while Mitt Romney supporters are
split just about evenly."
Today also marks the one year anniversary of the US killing of Osama
Bin Laden in Pakistan. Martin and Eisensche conclude: "It’s not clear
what the year since the killing of Bin Laden has done to improve U.S. or
Afghan security. It’s even less clear what staying for another dozen
years will do for either country. The time to bring U.S. forces home is
now, not 2014, and certainly not 2024."
And Robert Naiman, Policy Director at
Just Foreign Policy, asks in his analysis at
Common Dreams, '
What Did We Get for 381 US Dead Since the Death of bin Laden?' and writes:
In his speech, President Obama said, "As we move forward, some people
will ask why we need a firm timeline." I'm delighted that President
Obama supports the principle of a firm timeline. But it's far from
obvious that we actually have a "firm timeline," and if we do, exactly
what it is. Certainly there is no timeline for when all U.S. troops will
be withdrawn. President Obama did seem to imply that we can be sure
that there will be no U.S. troops involved in "combat" in Afghanistan
after December 31, 2014. But they may be involved in "counterterrorism,"
which presumably is combat, and "training," and if you ask the military
what "training" is, they will say it includes embedding with
Afghanistan troops who are engaged in combat. So "training" is also
combat. And therefore it is far from obvious that we actually have a
"firm timeline" for anything. [...]
In his speech, President Obama said: "we are pursuing a negotiated
peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has
been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that
they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce
violence, and abide by Afghan laws. "
Isn't this essentially the same policy that Republican Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist was proposing in October 2006 when he said
that the Afghan Taliban couldn't be defeated militarily and that the
U.S. should bring "people who call themselves Taliban" into the Afghan
government? Why have we waited almost six years to adopt this policy?
Are we really going to get a much better deal now than we could have had
six years ago? If so, will the difference be sufficient to justify the
additional sacrifice of the last six years?
If we stopped the killing now, how sure are we that the political
deal that would result would be much worse for us than the deal that
will result if we keep killing? Shouldn't someone have to answer that?
What if we tried having an offensive cease-fire for 30 days, just as an
experiment, to see if it facilitated peace talks? What exactly would be
the downside of giving that experiment a try?
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment