Afghanistan’s “Senate”– that is, the Meshrano Jirga upper house in the country’s post-2001 bicameral system– yesterday backed proposals that call for a cessation of military operations against against the Taliban, and invite the Taliban to take that opportunity to enter peace talks.
The Meshrano Jirga also called for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan.
These proposals came from a peace commission that the MJ had previously established.
The MJ consists of “an unspecified number of local dignitaries and experts appointed by provincial councils, district councils, and the president.” It does not, apparently, have as many powers under the Afghanistan’s January 2004 Constitution as the bigger, elected lower house. The NYT’s reporters say that the lower house is unlikely to back the MJ’s resolution.
However, the US-led project to build a pliant but also locally credible political system in Afghanistan now seems to be in about as much trouble as the parallel effort in Iraq. In Baghdad, also on Tuesday, 144 lawmakers– that is, more than half of the members of the parliament elected in December 2005– signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Writing on Alternet, Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland say,
- It’s a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass
Jarrar and Holland note that despite its groundbreaking nature, the news of this legislative petition did not make it into the US MSM. (I tip my hat to Juan Cole for the link there.) The rest of their post there on Alternet is also certainly worth reading.
But I am also intrigued by the Meshrano Jirga’s vote in Kabul. Here in the US, the term “Taliban” is freighted with all kinds of dread, misgiving, and plain outright hatred– though in its original essence it only means “students.” During their years of rule in Afghanistan, the Taliban did do many terrible things to enforce their vision of what puritanical Islamic rule over the country should look like; and the female half of the country suffered particularly badly under their rule.
On the other hand, the Taliban did bring nearly completely to an end both the warlordism that had plagued the country for many years prior to their establishment of their government, and the industrial-scale poppy-growing with which the warlords had financed many of their military operations. During the violence-wracked years of the horrendous contests among the warlords, all Afghans, of both genders, suffered hugely; and millions fled the country to escape that violence and instability.
When the US invaded the country in November 2001, they did so in coalition with many of those same warlords, who today form a potent political force in the highest levels of the “Constitutional” government. If members of the present upper house are now proposing talks with the Taliban, to me that is a measure of the deep dissatisfaction many Afghans must have today with what the US-warlord coalition has delivered to their country. Certainly, the tendency of the US military to go careening round Afghanistan blowing up large numbers of people with little success in discriminating between combatants and noncombatants among those they target has alienated considerable numbers of Afghans from the US military. (Even the US-installed President Hamid Karzai has been obliged to voice public complaints.) It has also strengthened the Taliban’s support in the country.
I believe that we in the international community (and in the US, in particular) need to be much more open than we have been so far to the idea of an intra-Afghan reconciliation process that is broadly inclusive of the Taliban. (Anyway, as in Iraq, the internal reconciliation process in Afghanistan is really none of our darn’ business.) Yes, many of us have continuing concerns about the status and plight of Afghanistan’s women if the Taliban are able to regain too much influence in the country. However, I’d note the following:
- (1) The improvements that the post-Taliban era has brought to in women’s status has not been nearly as deep or as widely distributed as some people imagine or claim. Most of the country remains extremely conservative/restrictive on women’s issues. And
(2) There certainly are other models around the world of politically successful Islamist movements that have actively pursued affirming policies towards female inclusion in all aspects of the public sphere including in education, the workplace, religious life, and even politics. See, for example, my reporting about the Hamas women, here and here. It would actually be great if we could see some signs that the Afghan Talibs– who grew up in a society that had far less social and economic development than the Palestinians– could take a few lessons from their Palestinian co-believers’ success in promoting and supporting the advancement of women’s skills, even within a strictly Islamist social and political context…
Anyway, I guess the main point of this post is to note that as of now, even the US-installed satrapies in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be chafing under the yoke of the Bushists’ continuing ineptitude and their continuing reliance on blind military force long after it has become evident to everyone else– including a majority of folks here in the US homeland– that a blind reliance on brute force and ignorance really can’t bring good things to anybody in the world.
I think the main cause of this vote has been the recent incidents of large losses of civilian life. A couple of months ago some U.S. troops apparently cracked under pressure and killed 13 people in a spree brought on by an attack, and then six people were killed in an air bombing just days after. Last week, as many as 51 civilians were killed in fighting in Helmand, and just yesterday 21 people were similarly killed. I’m alarmed about how U.S. and NATO troops are conducting their fights. Today (5/10) “All Things Considered” had a blistering report about how the deaths of the 51 people came about.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10118273
The US and NATO forces >MUST
The US and NATO forces >MUST< reevaluate their conduct in the fighting. These large civilian losses cannot continue.
My comment got cut, sorry.
MUST reevaluate their conduct of fighting. These massive losses of civilian cannot continue.
————————————————
As for the vote, I hope that its effect will be to shock the U.S. and NATO troops into realizing their dangerous mishandling of the fighting. I DON’T want this to turn into a real set timetable for troop expulsion. The Taliban ( the organization led by Mullah Mohammed Omar, not “students” in general ) is a danger to the World so long as it remains tied to al Qaeda. The security and stability Helena notes in her entry is an explanation for why many Afghans have positive images of the Taliban, but that’s not an excuse. That is the gremlin of forsaking freedom for security that’s plagued humans for all time. The price for that security would be a return to the nightmare vision of theocratic dictatorship the Taliban wrought on the world from 1996 on.
Many members of both Jirgas are warlords that participated in the informal US/Warlord coalition. I wouldn’t lionize the Jirga just for this vote. Recently the Jirgas passed a law trying to give blanket amnesty to its warlord members for atrocities committed during the mid 90’s ( Karzai ultimately passed a modified version of the law that still has troubling implications. ). And the Jirgas passed a law designed to limit press freedom. A row between the Attorney General and Tolo TV was related to that vote. These damaging laws endanger the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their own ways, as the civilian deaths have been endangering the war. I would be very skeptical about the motivations of the Meshrano Jirga behind this vote.
BTW: I should also say I’m so grateful for Malalai Joya ( http://www.malalaijoya.com ). Her work against Warlords in the Jirga has been heroic.
The atrocity of the Invasion of Iraq was it that it took our attention away from the real War on Terror, in Afghanistan. The Invasion was George W. Bush’s greatest betrayal of the people who lost their lives in the September 11 attacks, and of the people under threat from al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The U.S. and its allies must put their focus back on Afghanistan, with greater number of troops and more serious strategy, vs. the haphazard strategy that has resulted in so much civilian death. Also, pressure must be placed on Pakistan to break the influence of pro-Taliban elements in that government that prop the Taliban movement up. But more importantly in the long run, the allies and the Karzai government need to confront the rampant corruption. Integrity in government officials is the long term political solution that will win the War on Terror against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
As for negotiations with the Taliban, I don’t see that as possible with Mullah Omar still in charge, and with Osama Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri closely affiliated to them. The Taliban needs a complete change of leadership first. Maybe pressure on Pakistan to bring down that government’s ProTaliban elements can bring this change. Actually, this Asia Times article
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IE01Df01.html
made me hopeful that it could be possible to break the Taliban powerbase in Pakistan, as well as the al-Qaeda connection
“The U.S. and its allies must put their focus back on Afghanistan, with greater number of troops and more serious strategy, vs. the haphazard strategy that has resulted in so much civilian death. Also, pressure must be placed on Pakistan to break the influence of pro-Taliban elements in that government that prop the Taliban movement up. But more importantly in the long run, the allies and the Karzai government need to confront the rampant corruption. Integrity in government officials is the long term political solution that will win the War on Terror against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.”
The problem with this sort of argument is that the war in Afghanistan is a profoundly corrupt enterprise. The suggestions Inkan makes (“put pressure on Pakistan”; act with Karzai to confront rampant corruption) are indicative of the hollowness of Afghan democracy (in fact Karzai is a puppet) which is a mere veneer over a CIA-Warlord alliance dripping with blood. Such a government cannot deal with corruption because it is corrupt. It has been from the beginning: corrupted by the lies justifying the attacks, by the lies about the targets (Al Jazeera’s studio for example), the lies about the “enemy combatants,” including my countryman Khadr, having been “captured on the battlefield” and so on. Lie after lie about the lynching of a regime and the killing of thousands of civilians. Lies about the involvement of agents of the “allies” in supervising the campaigns of warlords like Dostum. Lies about the “reconstruction” programmes, lies about the electoral process, lies about the freeing of women… so many lies that not only the people of the US but the government which told the lies is blinded by its own smokescreens. Inkan tosses around concepts like al quaeda, war on terror and taliban which are so freighted with distortions as to be useless: they describe nothing real, they have become slogans designed to make people afraid, to strip reason out of discourse.
You cannot cut this war in half calling Iraq a tragedy and Afghanistan a worthy enterprise: Afghanistan was the beginning, Iraq is what followed, now they are all part of a strategy which includes the cluster bombs in Lebanon, the threats against Iran, the refusal to deal with Hamas, covert acts of terrorism in a dozen countries, the invasion of somalia…This is not a smorgasbord from which we can pick a plateful of mouth watering revenge while turning up our noses at the beatings to death in Bagram and the foul taste of Guantanamo.
This is a seemless whole and it is called Empire. Blake called it “the strongest poison ever known.” If you want the victory parades you have to stomach the genocide that goes with them. If Israel is your ally Rachel Corrie is your victim.
Bevin, Osama bin Laden, Dr. Aymin al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Dadullah are real. So are the troops fighting underneath them and enforcing Taliban oppression in the Waziristans. They’ve made themselves out to be a concrete enemy the U.S. and N.A.T.O. forces have to oppose, as opposed to just “terror”. So far, the Bush administration has shown a lack of commitment to that fight that has resulted in the carelessness with civilian lives and the minimal progress in reconstruction and woman’s rights that they’ve tried to cover up with the lies you refer to.
I’m not cutting this war in half. It was the Bush administration that grafted the Invasion of Iraq onto the war in Afghanistan in order to justify that; we need to amputate that. NeoCons have been trying to lump so many international issues such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Hezbullah and Hamas, Somalia, into one myopic vision of a “clash of civilizations”. We don’t have to agree with them. I know well enough that each of these conflicts are complex issues that can’t be answered with one simple ideological viewpoint. To resolve these conflicts we need to separately deal with each conflict’s parameters, instead of forcing them into some seamless whole.
Helena Cobban,
With due respect to you view in this regards, as seen common in most your post that you credit and believe that the US-led project to build a pliant but also locally credible political system in Afghanistan and Iraq?
In both these two project US have never that attention, those project not reflecting the will of both nations as such, instead US projects designed to create “a pliant but also locally credible political system” that’s work for US benefits for long decade to come we can say they copy the Latin American style here in ME by deploying same ideas in both Afghanistan and Iraq?
So saying that US doing some thing that’s works for the people in these two countries it’s a shadow reading of US wars in these countries or some thing that you believe inside!
Let talk here, in Iraq as for Iraqi they saw one thing good which is bring down Saddam regime, what’s follow is a dirty work of imperial power starting with Bremer and his corruptions and mismanaging the country, with divisive roll represented in his selection of provincial councils (CPA) members that selection smears fishy from the selections of people and the groups even they have bad and a criminal history with Iraqis (Hakim backed with Bader Militia) and things follow on and on.
Not just Iraqi believes that Bremer’s mismanagement and corrupted rule in Iraqi
Many Americans and other from world acknowledging same thing about Bremer and his CPA rule in Iraq.
We can say there are nothing good done to Iraq at all, we appreciate if you could list for us if you believe there are goods done by US lead efforts to build Iraq?
So here there nothing new with recent Meshrano Jirga or many Iraqi’s parliament call for US withdraw, you know as all we know there were many polls showing increasing call from normal Iraqis calling for US withdraw her troops this was in many polls done in different time frames and different cites and ethnics in Iraq done by very respected bodies.
So it’s not new and never been new I don’t know why you think this time should be some thing we need to highlight?
In regards to what you said “ women’s status has not been nearly as deep or as widely distributed as some people imagine or claim. Most of the country remains extremely conservative/restrictive on women’s issues”
The US a proved are not a good player in this field you can argue that but all the signs and the proof is there in Iraq and what’s we end in regards of “women’s status” it’s went from reasonably the best in the region to Taliban’s style under the eyes and control of US!
I would add this here, Afghanistan had a long history of destructions wars for the last 50 years that’s made that society and the country behind the reset of the world in all aspect of life include the “women’s issues “lets not forgot that Saudis played influential rule in regards of spreading “conservative/restrictive” Whahbi” sort of Islam which exactly what’s in Afghanistan of Pakistan and other Madrasah that Saudis founded around the world.
This the main point that let Bin-Laden to beard there and became beggar because Afghanistan exactly what the Saudis society that keep secrets and silent for a century by using their money to shutup all those who try to speak and published any issue in regards of “conservative/restrictive” behaviour they deploying there, we all remember that book” The Prince Death) “how studies brought all copies from the market to close the case.
I might be out in topic here but please if you let me add here this
In ME we have seen after the fall of Othman empire. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk lead turkey forward by dropping all things related to Islam from the Turkish language letter to all the aspects of live and he lead his revolution on this believe , while the Saudis moved to more “conservative/restrictive” style of Islam starting from late 1800’s and lead their country.
These two projects moved in opposite directions, we can see the differences in both countries but until 2001 no one give any attention what those Saudis done for decades until the disaster happened in US, then suddenly US weak up and start her wars but in wrong places and they missed the midwives of this ill style “conservative/restrictive” of Islam which is designed to let Al-Saudi to give long living and rule to rule their kingdom.
-We can’t just withdraw our troops and leave Iraq for fear of a much worse sectarian bloodbath than the one the president’s invasion and occupation provoked and sustains. If we leave the whole region will go up in flames.
(A majority of Iraqis say that it is long past time for U.S. troops to leave their country, a sentiment shared by a majority of Americans as well. And as long as we are doing “if’s” what if our leaving shocks the Iraqis into a real effort to find some way to live together peacefully just as they did before we invaded? What if our costly and deadly experience in Iraq doesn’t inflame the neighbors but convinces them it’s a good place to avoid?)
-We are there in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda – the people who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11 – and it’s better to fight them there than here at home.
(The terror group the president refers to is, to be precise, an outfit that calls itself “al-Qaeda in Iraq.” It is homegrown Iraqi and came into being well after we invaded Iraq. The real al-Qaeda terrorists – none of them Iraqi – who hatched the plot that killed more than 3,000 Americans on 9/11 don’t live in Iraq. They live along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We once had them and their boss, Osama bin Laden, in our sights but let them get away because we didn’t have enough U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The president then turned his attention to Iraq and diverted 90 percent of the resources from trapping the real al-Qaeda where they live. He chose to invade the one place where al-Qaeda didn’t live or work and where, under the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, they weren’t really welcome.)
http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/2007/05/bush-stalling-while-americans-die.html