Will
the US Meet Its Waterloo in Afghanistan and Iraq?
2nd Anuradha Ghandy Memorial Lecture
by Dr. Jan Myrdal
St Xavier's College, Mumbai
Dear
friends!
I
am deeply honoured by being invited to hold this memorial lecture
in honour of the late Anuradhu Ghandy, a great Indian revolutionary
and intellectual.
At
present, the US is waging two wars in West and Central Asia. In
both of them the US have clear economic and strategic goals. A third
war, one against Iran seems to be looming - the faithful British
ally Blair mentioned Iran 58 times during the Chilcot testimony
last week. As all these wars are directed against and conducted
in Muslim countries they also take on the colour of what Huntington
called Wars of Cultures.
This
in itself is dangerous. These wars are becoming a factor in the
rising tide of ethnical and religious contradictions. In Europe
it is evident that the sharpened conflict about jobs and housing
in the economic crisis between immigrants from Asia and Africa and
local populations are being given religious and racial colouring
by different reactionary groups.
The
US seems to have learned from the British how to use and develop
such contradictions in order to try to secure their own rule. They
now develop the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq like the
British developed the conflicts in Cyprus, Palestine and South Asia
(Bengal!).
Possibly
also with the same historically tragic long term results.
In
both Iraq and Afghanistan the people have had to pay heavily -both
materially and in dead and wounded - for the US war. At the same
time it has proved impossible for the US and their more or less
willing allies to gain a clear victory despite the fact that they
have managed to install themselves militarily in the oil rich Iraq.
But
what is generally important is that what is called the "War
on Terror" has led to the militarisation of both the US and
its allies; the long range effect in our countries has been the
rise of modern police states. Even my own country - Sweden - has
as a result seen the deterioration of traditional legal and civic
rights.
But
that the US and its empire in the longer run is doomed to failure
is evident. No tree grows up into heaven. The US is a paper tiger,
as Mao put it. It will follow the road of other world empires. The
Roman and Spanish - and British. But that is a very general statement,
it does not say when and how that empire will come to its end. But
if it does so by meeting a Waterloo is another question., It is
of course possible that its end will be of the Waterloo kind; a
defeat like that of Napoleon by a coalition of powers. That is possible.
Washington is after all waging its present wars on credit.
If
China, The European Union, the Gulf states refused to finance the
present wars of the United States any longer then they would stop.
It
would be as turning the ignition key in a car. But even if these
powers are getting reluctant they are much too afraid of the resulting
financial meltdown; you could say that the US is blackmailing them
to continue financing its wars by threatening suicide!
Already
in the war against Iraq it was difficult for the US to get its European
allies like France and Germany to become willing allies.
Today
with the continuing war against Afghanistan there are new and increasing
signs of tension. The European Union is beginning to act as if it
has its own agenda in the Afghan war. China is showing increasing
signs of uneasiness. China Daily published an interesting article
by Han Dongping "Say no to NATO use of the Wahan Corridor"
on January 15th. Even if the paper stated that the opinions expressed
do not necessarily reflect those of the China Daily" the publication
indicates that they are not contrary to the opinion of the Chinese
government.
But
still I don't think that such a Waterloo ending of the US empire
is imminent. A repetition of the Soviet breakup after the military
defeat in Afghanistan would of course be possible. The internal
economic and social difficulties and conflicts in the ever more
deeply divided United States are great. But still, they might not
be as acute as those of the Soviet Union twenty years ago when the
defeat in a relatively minor war triggered a total collapse of the
system.
There
is instead another Napoleonic example of an empire nearing it send.
The US empire is now getting involved in its "Spanish War".
It
was the Spanish war that signalled the end of the Napoleonic empire.
For
the first time the army of Napoleon got bogged down in un-winnable
war. A war against a people in arms. As it dragged on it sapped
the power of the undefeatable French army. The situation of the
French forces in Spain are not unlike those of the US forces in
Afghanistan.
A
militarily superior army is met by a popular resistance by poorly
armed peasants. (There are great differences of course - the role
of Great Britain for instance.) The war becomes unwinnable. The
costs (a million dollars a year for each US soldier in Afghanistan)
mount and the war becomes ever more cruel while the results are
not to be seen.
But
there is also another lesson to be learned from the Spanish war
of Napoleon. He had installed his brother as king of Spain. The
policies of that king were officially liberal in the Napoleonic
sense. For example the hated inquisition was abolished. But this
did not endear the French occupation to the poor peasants. One could
say that the Spanish people preferred the inquisition to the officially
liberal French occupiers.
In
their propaganda the US is in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.
That
is the normal verbiage of colonialism and imperialism. I remember
when Mussolini was going to attack Ethiopia. It was the first such
war I remember following on the radio. In the League of Nations
his diplomats declared that Italy was waging this war in order to
liberate the people from slavery and feudalism.
Of
course Haile Selassie was a feudal monarch and official slavery
had only just been abolished but certainly still existed. But I
remember my parents laughing at Mussolini. His propaganda was fake.
His troops were not there to liberate the people but for the loot
to themselves and an empire to Mussolini.
Today
it seems according to some Swedish politicians that the US forces,
the NATO forces and the Swedish soldiers sent to Afghanistan are
there to liberate the women of Afghanistan.
When
some friends on the left side in politics begin to talk about liberating
the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban I remind them first of
how the Spanish peasants preferred the inquisition to the French
occupiers and then point out that if they want to send Swedish soldiers
abroad to liberate women there are other more suitable targets.
The Swedish state does not allow men to buy women. Those who do
are punished. But in Germany prostitution is legal. Hamburg on the
other side of the Baltic is one of the large and legal prostitution
centres of Europe. The German state takes much revenue in taxes
from the Hamburg brothels. (Many of the women working in these brothels
are trafficked from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe.) Sweden could
of course send its army, navy and air force to Hamburg in an attempt
to liberate these unfortunate prostitutes from the tax paying brothels
of Hamburg.
But
we do not. Instead we send our soldiers to Afghanistan where they
are to liberate Afghan women side by side with brothel keepers from
Germany.
Up
to now I have been discussing this fifth Afghan war from outside.
As
if the interesting question was how much the war costs to the US
(and to NATO and the European Union). But the real question is of
course that it is a war against Afghanistan and its people. For
me that is the main question. Not only in general but because I
have a great feeling for the country and the people. It is now more
than fifty years ago I and my wife came driving to Afghanistan in
July 1958.
We
were young, we were poor, we then travelled all around in Afghanistan
that year and the next. We even drove up the Wakhan Corridor and
up the Kunar valley to the Bashgul valley in Kafiristan.
Our
small car was like donkey. The reason we got all these travel permits
was simple: "You are from a small neutral country." Britishers
and Americans did not get them.
Even
if we travelled in border areas where there was some tribal fighting
we were always protected by the pushtun tribal tradition.
Unarmed
travellers are guests. Of course we were unarmed. If we had carried
arms we would have been regarded as enemies. I know some who did.
They disappeared. They had not shown respect.
We
travelled all around the country, stayed in big cities like Kabul
(where we had a small house) and Herat, in robats high up in the
mountains as with black tent nomads. The Afghans were always friendly,
my wife and I never met a harsh word. Everybody was helpful. We
often had punctures (16 in one day - in 1959 when our tires were
bad) the truck drivers then always stopped and asked if we needed
help. It was a partly tribal, partly feudal society but if you were
from a small neutral country, behaved in a polite way and showed
respect people were friendly, helpful and polite to you.
This
is not the Afghanistan you meet in British travellers tales but
it is the Afghanistan we met in the fifties and seventies when we
were living there. I then also wrote two books on Afghanistan that
are in their sixth edition now and sold through the Swedish association
"Afghanistan Solidaritet".
I
have wanted to say this as this war for me is not just any war but
a war against people I know and who are close to me. These last
two Afghan wars have been barbaric. My anger is so strong that I
can feel the taste of blood in my mouth when I see TV pictures of
US marines, Swedish mercenaries or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan
and my deepest personal feeling then is that the only good foreign
soldier on Afghan soil is a dead one. But that is a personal feeling
that I have to repress in order to be useful in the solidarity work.
Because
in this war the international solidarity with the Afghan people
is needed. I know that the Afghans will defend their land and people
as they always have done. This fifth Afghan war is as horrible as
the first barbaric three British wars and the fourth Russian one.
The international solidarity is necessary not only in order to see
to it that the price the Afghan people this time when the US empire
is conducting the war will not be unbearably high but also for our
own sake. As long as we can not stop our states participating in
such a war we are both responsible for the cruelty to the Afghan
people and at the same time our possibilities to change our own
society are lessened.
The
solidarity movement is not a political movement for the sake of
others but for our own sake.
In
Germany, Great Britain, Sweden and most of Western Europe a growing
opinion - a majority in most cases - are demanding the withdrawal
of forces from Afghanistan. This is creating increasing difficulties
for the European governments taking part in the war. If we can strengthen
this then it will become increasingly difficult for our governments
to continue this war against the Afghan people.
In
Sweden we founded a solidarity movement when the fourth war began.
It
had to carry through a great struggle with false leftist groups
trying to support the occupation policies of the then Soviet Union.
We at that time discussed a principal question that had been central
in European politics since the French revolution; the impossibility
of carrying the revolution to others on bayonettes. In that Robespierre
was right and Danton has been proved wrong! There was at that time
areal left wing movement in Afghanistan but it was drenched by Soviet
troops.
As
the movement for Afghanistan grew in Sweden during that war time
it also evolved into a state supported NGO organising schools and
hospitals in the post-Soviet era in Afghanistan.
With
the US war against Afghanistan it tended to follow the Swedish government
line (not surprising as it was the state that paid it).
What
then had to be built up was a new and growing movement based on
the demand that all foreign troops should leave Afghanistan: "Afghanistan
Solidaritet".
We
work together with other organizations with discussions, meetings,
exhibitions, demonstrations and our own magazine. "Afghanistan
Nu".
It
is not a sectarian organisation The former Swedish minister of defense
and speaker of the parliament Thage G. Peterson who took the initiative
to the appeal for calling home the Swedish force from Afghanistan
is one of its most prominent members and activists.
Together
with other social democratic politicians and prominent diplomats
he demands that Sweden should return to its traditional foreign
policy. "As a minister of defense I would not have allowed
Swedish armed forces to be used in this way."
The
Swedish political situation is very labile. The elections this fall
now seem to result in a change of government. Against the present
conservative led government stands a coalition of the Social Democrats,
the "Greens" and the "Left". The party chairman
of the "Left" has just declared that he will stand by
the demand to take home the troops even if the elections will result
in a change of government with the "Left" entering the
new government.
If
we are able to succeed in this work and change at least the Swedish
participation in the Afghan war that could be a help to the Afghan
people. Let us hope!
Jan
Myrdal is a prominent and distinguished Swedish author. Jan Myrdal
has written more than thirty books, including fiction, plays and
books on literature, art and politics. He has also made a number
of feature films and TV documentaries.
Global
Research Articles by Jan Myrdal
|
