On December 28th 2014, President Obama marked the end of the US combat mission in Afghanistan by calling it a “milestone” for the country . In a dual statement made on Christmas Day and Dec 28, Obama said that the US is “ending our combat mission in Afghanistan” but that US forces will remain there “to conduct counterterrorism operations” against what he called the “remnants of al Qaeda. “
War Mongering Rhetoric
It is perplexing how a nation can declare the end of a war whilst committing to further operations in the same sentence. Then again, customs and traditions of war mean zilch to America as we learnt earlier this month with its CIA led inhumane barbaric use of torture methods on extrajudicial prisoners of war. As a matter of fact, the formal use of war language in an American defined 21st century geopolitical world matters only to the propaganda machine as it did in the Cold-War 20th century context. Week in-week out we hear the word “ceasefire” “de-escalation” “peace-talk” in the Ukraine and Palestine conflicts, yet the reality of civil war, oppression, political and economic turmoil only escalate further. On the same note “withdrawal” means nothing in terms of geopolitical objectives, but only panders to domestic audiences. In fact the choice of announcing 3 days before 2015 starts is satirical as it gets since marking an end any later would add another year to the shambles of the war in Afghanistan, not to mention the glitter for Obama who promised his nation a withdrawal in May 2014.
When the US policy-making establishment uses the terms “war” and “peace”, they imply a different meaning from the way ordinary people understand them. When the United States speaks about war, this does not mean that it intends to go to war against other major powers. This is because it may lead to the destabilisation of the current World Order in which the US reigns supreme as the dominant power. The US does not engage in a war that may lead to a decline of its global supremacy. Due to his arrogance over the US’s military strength, George W. Bush waged war on Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring its allies and bypassing the United Nations. This unilateral military campaign of the Bush administration led to failures in achieving stated US military goals, thereby undermining US credibility as a global military power.
Furthermore, when US politicians talk about “peace”, what they mean is preventing war in areas where some sort of compromise is necessary to secure US interests. Therefore, the US strategy regarding peace does not mean putting an end to the war in Afghanistan. America will continue the war by other means and styles. America intends to use the Afghan army to conduct and carry out the war, leading them from behind the scenes. However, the feebleness of the newly created security force and its failure to deal with the Taliban led them to negotiate with their enemy. The endemic corruption of Afghani politics however turned America’s attention over the years to Pakistan in order to create a coalition that would carry out America’s work of rooting out the Taliban. The recent discussion about Pakistan and Afghanistan working together following the Peshawar massacre can be seen in this context. It appears to then public that the US wants to end the direct military engagement in Afghanistan, but in reality, it will continue its wars against the people of these two countries by employing the armies of these two countries as proxies so that people are subjugated by US colonialism.
Post-Withdrawal – The Bilateral Security Agreement
The Bilateral Security Agreement between America and her Afghan government has given credence to a legitmate post-2014 force which will consist of 17-18000 international troops who will remain in Afghanistan after 2014, of which 12,000 – including approximately 470 British troops – will form part of the new NATO mission, named Resolute Support. Whilst Obama claims that these troops are there to support the new security force of Afghanistan, the reality is that Afghanistan has key inherent geopolitical and ideological qualities that makes it a requisite component for any power competing for global hegemony. This is because Afghanistan sits in the heart of Asia at the crossroads of strategically important countries playing an important role in both regional and Eurasian politics. Thus Afghanistan has always been occupied by powerful nations wishing to secure these interests.
The war mongering rhetoric about a withdrawal and peace process is simply a cover-up for a shift in strategy in which the US has tilted from a preponderant military invasion to the use of regional surrogates and cultural imposition. The strategic pact between the USA and Afghanistan signed by Obama and Karzai in Kabul on 2nd May 2012 was for the expressed purpose of legitimising a long term presence. The key points from the agreement were:
1. Both sides pledged to strengthen long-term strategic cooperation in areas that are of importance for both sides. These include accelerating the peace and reconciliation process, and the strengthening of state institutions.
2. Both parties pledged to support democratic values and uphold such values as a fundamental aspect of their long-term partnership.
3. Afghanistan reaffirms its strong commitment to inclusive and pluralistic democratic governance.
4. Both sides reiterated that the presence and operations of US forces in Afghanistan since 2001 have been aimed at defeating al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
5. It is important that after the signing of this strategic pact, negotiations should begin immediately to pave the way for the signing of a security agreement to settle the issue of the status of American forces in Afghanistan.
6. The current military operations will continue until a bilateral security agreement is concluded.
7. The United States shall designate Afghanistan as a “major Non-NATO Ally.”
8. America pledged to support Afghanistan by training its military and providing equipment for Afghan forces after 2014.
9. The United States shall seek funds to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of the Afghan national security forces.
10. Afghanistan pledged to give America access to, and the right to use Afghan facilities until 2014. After this date, this issue will be governed by the Bilateral Security Agreement that will be signed between the two countries.
11. Both sides agreed to enhance information and intelligence sharing.
The content of this strategic pact shows that the US strategy is designed with the objective of staying in Afghanistan on a long term basis. This is similar to the US occupation of the Philippines in 1901 until 1946, although it came under the control of the Japanese for a short period from 1941 to 1945. The US then signed agreements with the Philippines and established bases there. These military bases still exist in the Philippines. The recent strategic agreement signed between Afghanistan and America is aimed at securing bases for the US in Afghanistan in return for making commitments to Afghanistan’s security and stability. However the idea of keeping Afghanistan’s political stability, durable through establishment of a strong central government seems a distant reality because of the following reasons:
1. Complicated and difficult geography of Afghanistan.
2. Tribal and intellectual differences.
3. Division of political power along ethnic and tribal lines among significant number of elements of power resulting in absolute lack of centralization of political power and political will.
4. Lack of well-equipped and sufficient number of armed forces proportion to the size and challenging geography of the country.
5. Lack of resources and transport infrastructure for mobilization of forces, and for joining economically and socio politically together, otherwise, geographically detached regions of the country.
Stratfor identified this “…Since geography precludes the formation of any stable, unified or capable government in Afghanistan….The American withdrawal strategy, is a simple one. Afghanistan cannot be beaten into shape, so the United States must maintain the ability to monitor the region and engage in occasional manhunts to protect its interests. This requires maintaining a base or two, not reinventing Afghanistan in America’s image as an advanced multi-ethnic democracy. “
The Afghan Theatre
America sees the Afghan theatre in the context of its rivalry with China and Russia. America wants to extend its control over the natural resources in Central Asia. In this strategy, Afghanistan stands strategically as the most important region from where America will implement its plans. The objective is not merely co-operation and progress in the region. The whole program is aimed at securing US interests in this region, particularly extending its control over Turkmenistan which is what matters the most for America. Turkmenistan is one of the biggest exporters of natural gas to Russia. The US not only wants to control Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, but rather wants to take the entire Central Asian region out of the influence of Russia and bring it under its control. This would be a determining factor in US-Russian rivalry, because if Russia loses control over this region, it would be a fatal blow for it as Central Asia, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe are spheres of Russian influence outside its territory. Moreover, the artificial Durand line and the creation of national identities by the British failed to root out then Islamic identity from these lands. America thus fears the potential of an Islamic Revival in the Af-Pak region. The War in Afghanistan was never to rescue people who rejected their presence and the imposition of an alien ruling system, rather it is to ensure the destabilisation of the region so that it cannot rise to threaten American hegemony in the region rendering its pre-eminence.
“The US has had the ultimate aim of preventing the emergence of any major power in Eurasia. The paradox however is as follows – the goals of these interventions was never to achieve something – whatever the political rhetoric might have said – but to prevent something. The United States wanted to prevent stability in areas where another power might emerge. Its goal was not to stabilize but to destabilize, and this explains how the United States responded to the Islamic earthquake. It wanted to prevent a large, powerful Islamic state from emerging. Rhetoric aside the United States has no overriding interest in peace in Eurasia. The United States also has no interest in winning the war outright……the purpose of these conflicts is simply to block a power or destabilize the region, not to impose order.” (The next 100 years, a forecast for the 21st Century)
References
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/28/us-nato-to-mark-formal-end-afghanistan-mission/
3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/28/nato-ends-afghanistan-combat-operations-after-13-years
4. http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire#axzz3NLF6OzMH