Written by Richard Kane   

When the Russians left Afghanistan women in Kabul had to wear burkas, and there was a general bloodbath as warlords fought over who would be in charge. Dennis Kucinich just wants out, but some other progressives want to vote for some kind of hedging on details of an end the war resolution so they wouldn’t be blamed for what could go wrong. This making them seem to be hypocrites. I would like Rep. Kucinich to introduce an antiwar bill with this preamble, “Since the international money system can’t possibly survive an ever more expensive, endless war, war funding will end on a certain specified date, realizing that burkas for women in Kabul might be mandatory again (PS in non-Taliban controlled areas a woman without a burka might not have to face a whipping, but rapes are not infrequent. If a woman or relatives presses charges for rape they are very frequently counter charges, even on non-sex related matters, and often the rape victim or her relatives trying to press charges ends up in jail, not the rapist).

Such a preamble on an end the war spending amendment might seem a poor way to get co-signers but at least all the Congressional Representatives voting wouldn’t find excuses to back out at the last moment before an end-the-war funding bill is about to be passed, and would prepare people for a little bad news in the aftermath if the US gets out. Since Americans, and indeed the world, didn’t dwell on the slaughter from the chaos of the infighting between warlords when the Soviets left, a few hundred or even a thousand people fleeing Afghanistan if US war funding was cut off because a stop the funding resolution coincided with some severe economic news would be considered extremely bad news not luck that things weren’t a lot worse.

There is a growing impression that Obama and a lot of Democrats aren’t really listening to the American people. The American people want to stop spending money on the war. However, they don’t want any unhappy results like women whipped for not wearing burkas. Most want to punish not bail out the banks, but don’t want such possible results such as a very unstable dollar and the risk of currency collapse. Unfortunately there is a growing feeling that the hypocrites in Washington, don’t want change, they just pretend they do.

It seems to me that whenever an end to the Afghan War gets really close such as when a brutal (until recently) Taliban supporting warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar suggested a power-sharing coalition government, suddenly the possibility of an unhappy peace becomes everyone’s focus including that of sections of the peace movement. After a British Afghan women cried on the Internet, “Don’t Betray Afghan Women in the Name of Peace”, the Institute for Policy Studies which concerns itself on wars all over the world including such places some Americans never heard of in Africa, on it’s Foreign Policy In Focus blog, had an article, “Afghanistan: Should We Stay or Should We Go?” worrying about women in Kabul forced to wear burkas again. To change the subject Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is the kind of guy who might be willing to rent the entire city of Kabul to the West for a million dollars, far less then the war is costing. If Mullah Omar does decide to negotiate, despite a less brutal background, Hekmatyar would be more reluctant to compromise on principle. But again this kind of thinking is totally against the grain and against conventional thinking, thus not likely to occur. To say there is no way for the US not to be spending a huge fortune on the Afghan War 20 or 50 years from now would make no sense, but other than the world economy collapse or some other economic disaster, conceivably caused in part by too much Defense Department spending, there is no way to leave without ahead of time carefully discussing how an unhappy awkward peace might be avoided. Some may differ with the focus of this article but nevertheless agree that the Internet and other media should be alerted that demanding that Obama, and the Democrats to do something without mentioning some possible unpleasant outcomes, is similar to what Conservatives complain of when they complain of unfunded mandates. The complaint that politicians are not listening to the people is overstated, I hope people post this and anything similar around the Internet.

There was a recent event that has ominous historical precedence that of a NY Times guest editorial against General McChrystal spending so much effort avoiding civilian casualties. There is a bit of history left out of the history books: Much, smaller then the peace movement but at one point growing rapidly, before the Vietnam War ended, was a “Nuke Vietnam” movement. Then near the end of the war, Paul Harvey News came out with a “Win or Get Out” movement. Despite little mention today, it was quite popular, after Paul Harvey’s call, the placards “Nuke Vietnam” were no longer seen at support the troops events. If the peace politicians trying to challenge Obama in the 2012 primary seems to be hypocrites, a Dick Cheney type, calling to get tough to end the war might get the entire Muslim World mad at the US. This would be for bin Laden a dream come true.

Somehow we need to have an honest discussion of all our mixed feeling. During Vietnam many war protesters thought North Vietnam was really a friendly country with such things as health care and woman’s rights, others thought of it as a vicious communist dictatorship. Today almost no one in this country appreciates either the Taliban or al Qaeda. Unfortunately for many, a Dick Cheney type wouldn’t be another hypocrite. Some (maybe somewhat subconsciously) prefer both Dennis Kucinich’s or Dick Cheney’s, like Paul Harvey’s “Win or Get Out” crusade.

Afghanistan is nothing like Vietnam where you had Ho Chi Minh, the Buddhists, and Ngo Dinh Diem of the Catholic minority who upset Buddhists more then Uncle Ho with Ho’s atheistic materialism. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai represented the faction that wanted the king back. Google, “Wikipedia Karzai Diem” to note the vast difference between Karzai and Diem and between the two wars. The following link how much Afghans long for King Zahir Shah, much more overwhelming then the Vietnamese who longed for Ho Chi Minh to be in charge during the Vietnam War,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19908445/

I'm not sure why but King Zahir Shah suggested (or totally went along with) Karzai becoming the President, instead of trying to return to power. But Karzai and his ancestors’ connection to the king enhances Karzia’s prestige. King Zahir’s peaceful reign and his timid adoption of progressive reforms is longed for by most Afghans, the way some Americans long for the return of Camelot and the Kennedy years. The Taliban hates Karzai less than they do the western values seeking Afghans, and those with some western leanings much prefer Karzai to the Taliban. In 1994 Karzai was arrested while trying to mediate between the rebel bands that immediately began fighting with each other as the Russians left. Google, “CIA prisoner believed to have rescued Karzai” for a lot of sad details. Karzai many times urged the US to avoid civilian casualties. I could not find any other area where the US was ever involved where the government the US helped kept urging the US to be more careful. As things now stand the next Afghan President will basically have support from one sub-tribal neighborhood, and those who don’t like the war or the US presence will consider that neighborhood the enemy. Karzai keeps making peace overtures to the Taliban whose usual response “officially at least” is they will not negotiate with traitors. Every time Karzai hints he might want to make peace with even al Qaeda the US government suddenly dwells on Afghan corruption. But this is a false fear because al Qaeda will never give up its claim that extreme violence is only hope for cultures totally abused and insulted and overwhelmed by Western Culture.

Karzai’s brother Ahemed Karzai is a warlord, getting rich by renting property to the CIA then paying the local Taliban not to attack it and not to attack election booths etc. Lately the US got into the act by paying individual Taliban fighters to change sides and they pay their old buddies not to get mad, as they share their weapons with them. The US now has the Russians angry accusing the US of being in the drug trade as General McChrystal allows the poppy fields to stay so as not to offend farmers.

The war is a bottomless sink hole of ever more war expenditures is endangering the dollar and the entire world-wide economic system. The money spent on smart weapons, and the vast private contractor network is far greater than the money President Karzai wastes if you could call it waste. The Afghan people are relieved somewhat that there is an almost permanent local lull to the war thanks to what Hamid and Ahemed Karzai are doing. I wonder even if the US private contractors who managed to finish their assignment, without things blowing up and their local employees threatened with death if they don’t quit, somehow managed to accommodate al Qaeda a little.

In Iraq it was recently discovered that Prime Minister Malik has secret prisons, much worse than the official ones. None of that in Afghanistan. And Mullah Omar, the leader of the main Taliban faction, has a Taliban strict code of conduct of his own. Goggle “Taliban code of conduct” with “NY Times” for a lot of details. Foreign contractors and locals working with the US are ordered to quit before they are attacked. And when the Central Bank in Kabul wasn’t successfully penetrated the attackers didn’t blow themselves up on the crowded street. The shopping bazaar complex next door, where they holed up for hours without shooting any of the fleeing shoppers, wasn’t blown up either. US soldiers aren’t attacked either except in the pitch of battle or from bobby traps in areas the Taliban orders US soldiers to stay away from. If US soldiers at rest, enjoying nightlife, or eating a meal had to worry about being attacked, there would be a lot more Afghan civilians killed by US soldiers no mater what General McChrystal ordered.

We forget the massive carnage in Iraq especially from the tit-for-tat ethnic neighborhood fighting between Sunni and Shiites, several bloodbaths in Africa, what happened in Palestine when the Israelis decided to get tough. If the US were to leave and things only got slightly worse for a while, the US media and opposing politicians would dwell on every tragic incident. There were two places in Afghanistan where US soldiers couldn’t get a moment’s rest without fear of being shot or blown up, the Korengal Valley in Eastern Afghanistan where US troops recently withdrew from, and the other was in Kunduz Provence in Northern Afghanistan where fierce warlord Hekmatyar controls,
www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9093-news-taliban-strength-growing-in-northern-afghanistn.html
March 7 there was a firefight between Hekmatyar’s faction and Mullah Omar’s main faction supposedly, according to Ruters News, over who was going to collect drug tax money. My guess is since the US left and there was no fighting, US goods traveling the northern route was unhindered except for booty for resale which the US slowed considerably by putting miniature beepers inside the coffee, cement, and other products that would emit a tracking signal now and then. Thus, I think Mullah Omar needed Hekmatyar out of the way to keep the pressure on the northern supply line. If the US continues to refuse to take Hekmatyar off the terror list and accommodate him, despite Hekmatyar agreeing to the US demand to renounce al Qaeda and try to chase out “and arrest” any al Qaeda member who enter Northern Afghanistan (slightly moot since there is no al Qaeda members there) end up seized by Mullah Omar threatening the Northern supple route again, a lesson that it’s bad news to try to negotiate with the Americans, even more bad news not taking Hekmatyer off the terrorist list cements the idea the US mission now is clearly more than stopping al Qaeda.

I got an eerie thought Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial-Complex, but with some peace groups tied somewhat into the Afghan refugee community and what they want, such as the Institute for Policy Studies it actually means that some of the peace movement are afraid of peace as well. Also defense contractors and others could be giving extra space to silly proposals such as just setting a date to leave without negotiations, as another effort to keep their contracts longer.

Since the next Afghan President won’t be likely as careful as Karzai to avoid civilian deaths, and Mullah Omar’s eventual replacement will probably be far less careful to avoid mayhem, now is a good time for a power-sharing peace. Things could go wrong, Hekmatyar could end up totally in charge, or a lot of bloody fighting (not careful fighting avoiding civilian carnage) if he tries to take over but doesn’t succeed. But that would be, at a point, Afghanistan’s problem not the US’s. Karzai was chosen to be the head of Afghanistan by an Afghan conference in Germany not by the US. I personally feel he could represent his country in his own way almost as much as Nelson Mandela represented South Africa. Karzai is well liked by countries as diverse as Iran and Russia. He asked countries as different as Saudi Arabia, China and Iran to help broker peace. He was talked into postponing his May 2, giant peace conference or jiga to some not yet set date near the end of may. Let’s talk it up and post the new upcoming details of this event around the Internet. Karzai is more capable in deciding what is the best compromise then a lot of US State Department officials. When Karzai in frustration said that he might side with the Taliban if the West keeps acting more and more like invaders not liberators it should be seen as a sign of strength. If he wants a power-sharing government with Hekmatyar who now follows the US’s original ultimatum to renounce al Qaeda then it’s his country and his decision, not ours. Let’s get out of the way as soon as we can. Some may think I am exaggerating and conceivably some wishful thinking, however if you read Hamad Karzai’s page in Wikipedia, you will note that Karzai is not a typical representative of a US client state.

I hope those who disagree with this conclusion, at least agree that a discussion of hard choices like this article is desperately needed to be circulated around the internet and perhaps in other media as well.

By Richard Kane
For a lot of information Google, Richard Kane then RichardKanePA with Karzai
http://RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
readersupportednews.org/godot-recent
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-war/1493-western-peace-activists-ignore-real-afghan-peace-efforts