Look at that face!

The grinning soldier could be 18, snookered into a military job by duplicitous recruiters, a victim of the depression, hoodwinked into thinking that the Afghan rebels (Taliban, Hez-i Islami, Haqqani network and other groups in what's really a growing "insurgency"---more appropriately called a resistance movement) are the same people who attacked thge U.S. on 9/11). He's pissed that he's in a country where everybody seems to dislike him, fear him, or if displaying some signs of friendship likely feigning it. He's taught to feel a sense of righteousness, and so hey, why not pose with the butchered bodies of the anti-American foe?

If there's one thing to take comfort in, it's this:

The U.S. imperialists inevitably, through their very nature, generate the resistance that will drive them out. Afghanistan's been called the "graveyard of empires." It was for the USSR. The USA under Obama is marching towards defeat. This is not bad for the world.

At some point Americans need to start taking responsibility to understand the world around them. This goes for young people that want to join the military. It it their responsibility to know that they are joining an aggressor military for an imperialist country and that they may soon be involved in actions against their own countrymen. There are no excuses.

Gary, is it really true that "the USA under Obama is marching toward defeat"? I ask as a sincere question, I don't really know if that's the case or not. But I am wary of the false optimism involved in saying that the Afghan resistance will <i>necessarily</i> defeat the US occupation by virtue of some historic trend. What evidence exists that the US is visibly losing (as opposed to merely stagnating) in the conflict?

Natalio:

I don't have time to amass the evidence just now. But the very fact that the "ISAF" forces are talking about an offesneive/assault on Kabul should tell us something. It's a statement that the occupation doesn't even control the capital city (which by the way in the 1980s, while the Soviets undertook their campaigns against the muhjahadeen, was basically tranquil). And the fact that the Washington wants talks with the Taliban (once pronounced dead) is telling.

Gary, that is not true about Kabul. The Muhjahadeen did Spring Offensives in exactly the same style as they are doing to the Americans now, and did so every year between 1980 and the final advance into Kabul as the Soviets left. These offensives also continued on the part of whatever faction didn't control Kabul until the US invaded - however they were more sporadic in 1996-2001 when the Taliban controlled Kabul and the Northern Alliance had trouble reaching Kabul.

Kabul was indeed controlled by the Afghan communists as was the road connecting Kabul and Termez and Termez itself, as well as most of the North East itself. Yet this didn't mean it was in any sense "pacified" to the extent that hit-and-run operations were not possible.

That the ISAF/NATO/US is selling a bill of goods is true, but lets not use the Soviet intervention as a contrast. The Soviets lost much more helicopters because the US provided MANPADS, a luxury the Afghan guerrillas do not have now, and the casualty figures are a factor of ten less: the soviets lost in the first 6 months of the war what has taken the USA more than ten years to lose. I am sad to say so, but the puppet Afghan government of today has much more legitimacy in Afghanistan than the Soviet puppets ever did, and the Afghan troops on the ISAF/NATO/US side are much more militarily useful than the pro-Soviet troops ever were. They have in fact have had most of the casualties, which was not the case with the Soviets.

"What evidence exists that the US is visibly losing (as opposed to merely stagnating) in the conflict?"

There are two differences between a guerrilla force and that of a traditional army. The guerrilla army in order to win merely needs to survive, and constantly harass. The traditional army needs victories and to end a conflict to be victorious, if it merely "survives"/stagnates then it is the one that is losing.

SKS; You say "that is not true about Kabul." What is not true?

All I said about Kabul was that "the occupation doesn't even control" that city (while noting that during the 80s, that city was "basically tranquil" in my understanding). I don't question that there were "hit-and-run operations" by Mujahadeen in the city during the Soviet period. But we are now seeing headlines about a NATO offensive to subdue the capital.


For example:
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/south-asia/us-gearing-up-for-one-last-major-afghan-offensive

This suggests that the US/NATO control over Kabul is at least as tenuous that that of the Soviets. As for the "legitimacy" of the Karzai regime, as opposed to the Soviet-backed leaders, I'm not sure. Karzai was riding high in the polls a few years ago but his popularity has apparently plummeted. Public opinion changes rapidly, and it is hard to gauge opinion in a country with such security risks to those conducting surveys, such lack of infrastructure including lack of access to radios and newspapers, and the very high rate of illiteracy.

So I don't know on what empirical basis you state that the "puppet Afghan government of today has much more legitimacy in Afghanistan than the Soviet puppets ever did." Both have had their social bases, surely, and also their intransigent foes.

And all I said is that if it was "tranquil" in Soviet times, then it is also "tranquil" now. I do not think the control of Kabul of the Soviets was tenuous, it was in a military sense as best as you can have control under war conditions. There was a stable frontline for most of the war around Kabul, and not very different from the current one.


The basis on the legitimacy is two fold: one is that this State is one of the sides of the Civil War, that was never completely defeated, and that while it lost Kabul, was never fully pacified by the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban had as much headaches and faced a few spring offensives themselves.

The other is that Karzai can sustain himself in power in large sections of the country without NATO/USA help, while the minute the Soviets left it all collapsed.

To give you an idea, the Taliban control much less of the country than even the smallest level under the Soviets were controlled by the Mujahideen - and this is with the ISAF never reaching more than 20% of the total theater presence or troops in the ground than the Soviets. Essentially the puppet government today is the Mujahideen anti-Taliban forces - which while having no friends among pro-Taliban forces, are not

Put simply, the Soviet puppet government was basically the human intelligence wing of the Soviets - with nearly zero loyalty that was not based on bribery and brute force.

Now, having some legitimacy is not the same as total legitimacy - the Taliban are very much legitimate - but it does change the correlations of forces, and complicates direct comparisons, in particular ones that claim - as you did - that somehow the situation is worse than under the Soviets.

"Essentially the puppet government today is the Mujahideen anti-Taliban forces – which while having no friends among pro-Taliban forces, are not" illegitimate.

sorry

I did not say that "the situation is worse than under the Soviets." I do not even know what you mean by "worse" since I am not rooting for the imperialists and not enthusiastic about the Taliban and their allies either. I in fact think it's fine that the occupation faces armed opposition even in the capital.

I wrote "the occupation doesn’t even control the capital city (which by the way in the 1980s, while the Soviets undertook their campaigns against the muhjahadeen, was basically tranquil)." This is I believe a true statement.

As for your statement "that Karzai can sustain himself in power in large sections of the country without NATO/USA help, while the minute the Soviets left it all collapsed' --- Soviet forces were withdrawn as of February 1989, while the Najibullah regime lasted into early 1992. This is somewhat longer than a minute.

The forces retired, but they were armed, funded, and supported by the Soviets. Like in Vietnam, they "Afghanized" the war, but didn't really leave. However, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, so did the regime. Didn't last four months after that. That is, indeed, a minute in historic time, specially considering that war essentially ceases in winter in Afghanistan: the soviet union collapses in late December 1991, and as soon as it was Spring 1992, in mid-April 1992, the Mujahideen win. Or you believe the troop withdrawal meant the end of Soviet involvement?


Let unpack this:

“the occupation doesn’t even control the capital city (which by the way in the 1980s, while the Soviets undertook their campaigns against the muhjahadeen, was basically tranquil).”

It is a fact that Kabul was controlled by the Soviets. So if you say that the current occupation doesn't control it, you are saying their military situation is worse. It simple logic.

Same with "basically tranquil" - it was not. The Mujahideen harrassed the Soviets constantly, and peppered the hills surrounding the airport with mortar and MANPADS positions - to the point the Soviets had to develop special evasive techniques to take off and land from it (which have been copied by the USA).

Why is this important? Because you are arguing that ISAF/NATO/USA are in a weakened position militarily, they are not. They are leaving and then the Afghans will have another civil war, which in all probability Karzai will win. Then the cycle will repeat again, like Engels wrote a long time ago...