Afghanistan, conflict zones, latest, USA
Comments 13

Reasons to be Cautious About US ‘Withdrawal’ from Afghanistan

James O’Neill

(AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)

The weeks before and since Christmas have seen and acceleration of efforts to achieve a peace settlement in Afghanistan. What is interesting is that the countries that have an important stake in there being a peaceful Afghanistan are driving this process: Russia, China, Pakistan and the Central Asian republics adjoining or proximate to Afghanistan.

Officials from these countries have met in Moscow and Astana and are due to meet again in Moscow on 5th February 2019. They are meeting with Taliban officials, Afghanistan Government representatives (although not in an official capacity) and in the case of the Moscow talks, a representative from the United States embassy.

The United States has had separate talks with Taliban officials in Qatar, and on 25 January announced an agreement in principle on two crucial and linked elements: that foreign forces would be withdrawn within 18 months from the signing of a ceasefire agreement; and a pledge by the Taliban that Afghanistan would not be used as a basis for attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States.

That latter element was at the insistence of the Americans. The reasons for it, from the American perspective, are historic. The Americans have claimed, ever since the attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001, that they were carried out by al Qaeda militants directed by Osama bin Laden from his base in Afghanistan.

That this claim was bereft of any evidence worthy of the name did not deter the United States and its coalition allies from attacking Afghanistan in October 2001 and remaining there to this day. We now know that the decision to invade Afghanistan was made in July 2001.

The link between “9/11” and the invasion of Afghanistan was not only a false one, but it ignored the actual history of US involvement with Afghanistan. An understanding of the history is important to an evaluation of whether the current negotiations for a settlement of the conflict are likely to succeed or not. It also explains the long-standing concerns of Russia, China and the “stans” of Central Asia.

The parallels with the Vietnam War are also instructive, bearing in mind that American involvement in that country began with its refusal to implement the terms of the 1954 Geneva peace accord, and not with the false flag operation of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1965.

Contrary to the official version which has been relentlessly propagated by the mainstream media, United States involvement in Afghanistan did not begin with the October 2001 invasion. Its origins can be placed at least as far back as 1979 under the auspices of Operation Cyclone.

That project, essentially controlled by the CIA and partially financed by Saudi Arabia, trained Mujihideen in Pakistan for infiltration into Afghanistan with the purpose of destabilizing the socialist government then in control of Kabul.

It was this destabilization that prompted the Soviet intervention in December 1979. President Taraki (until 14 September 1979) had requested Soviet assistance on several occasions, which President Brezhnev had refused. The media portrayal of Mujihideen being formed to resist the Soviet “invasion” is an inversion of historical reality.

The significance for the present day is that those terrorists trained in Pakistan were intended for infiltration not only into Afghanistan, but also China’s Xinjiang province (which has a significant Muslim population) and the “stans” of the then Soviet Union, which are overwhelmingly Muslim in religious affiliation.

Operation Cyclone’s objectives remain a key feature of the United States foreign policy in the region to the present day.

The geopolitical situation in the region has changed radically since the 1980s. The Soviet Union ceased to exist nearly 30 years ago. China has risen to be the world’s number 1 economy on a parity purchasing power basis. In the last five years China has embarked on a massive infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, that has a strong initial focus on Russia, Central Asia and Pakistan, with extensions to Europe, Africa and Latin America.

It is not by coincidence that the Shanghai Corporation Organisation, (SCO) which formed in 2001, with its original members being China, Russia and four of the Central Asian “stans” had a primary focus on security issues.

SCO’s full membership has expanded to incorporate India and Pakistan and with several associate members, including Iran and Turkey, and security remains a central focus although cooperation is now expanding into other areas such as trade, technology and military cooperation.

The American led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 created a refugee crisis that is barely acknowledged. There are currently about 1.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and about 2.5 million in Iran. American support for the MEK terrorist group, which operates in Pakistan and Iran, is an ongoing major concern for those two countries.

The Taliban and the neighbouring countries therefore have legitimate reservations about the United States commitment to controlling terrorism in Afghanistan following a putative ceasefire or withdrawal of troops. The latter was also stated by President Trump in respect of Syria, but the opposite appears to be the case.

According to at least one recent report, United States troops were used to free ISIS fighters from a Taliban prison, killing all of the guards, and then ferrying the prisoners by helicopter to another destination.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John Sepko, has detailed the waste, embezzlement, fraud and abuse (including widespread civilian casualties) by the forces supported by the US. Mr Sepko commenced reporting in 2008 and nothing has improved in the 11 years since then. If anything, the situation has deteriorated.

The asinine claims by “coalition” members about transiting Afghanistan to a “more secure and peaceful future” collapse in the face of reports such as those from SIGAR. The UN Drug Agency also confirms that Afghanistan is the source of 93% of the word’s heroin.

That trafficking could not be sustained without the active involvement of US forces (and their allies). The role of illicit narcotics in financing US clandestine operations is well documented, although the western mainstream media refuse to discuss it.

Even the New York Times, in an op-ed on 1 January 2019 opined that Afghanistan was a lost cause from the point of view of America’s professed objectives such as a military victory and “leaving behind a self-sustaining democracy.” Afghanistan was described as a “vestigial limb of empire” and that it was “time to let it go.”

But democracy was never the real motive, any more than Afghanistan being responsible for “9/11”. Afghanistan’s resources, its geographical centrality viz a viz the Eurasian heartland, and the opportunity it provides to “contain” Russia and China and disrupt the China-Russia led Eurasian renaissance have always loomed larger in America’s calculations.

While the negotiations are therefore to be welcomed, it would probably require a helicopter rooftop evacuation, as in Saigon in 1975, to finally kick the Americans out.

James O’Neill is a barrister at law and geopolitical analyst. He may be contacted at joneill@qldbar.asn.au

13 Comments

  1. Gezzah Potts says

    Reasons to be cautious? Um, well, let’s see, I suppose the United States historical record in this sort of thing is not exactly, um, perfect. I mean all those struggling American corporations need a helping hand. How much did Halliburton and Blackwater make in Iraq? And not too mention all those struggling Pentagon contractors. They gotta make a buck somewhere.

  2. Stygg says

    “We now know that the decision to invade Afghanistan was made in July 2001.”

    We do?

    I’m not trying to be a troll, just trying to suggest a point like this needs to be substantiated.

    2
    2
  3. Antonym says

    Again an article about Afghanistan without mentioning Pakistan’s continues negative influence there – a form of fake news. The Pakistani army wants Afghanistan as “strategic depth” in case of a war with India; a colony in short. Therefore they support the Taliban till today over the elected government. Uncle Sam had to buy off Pakistan for decades in order to supply their remote basis at Bagram.
    Pakistan’s latest donor China also eyes the minerals in Afghanistan, while KSA wants to keep it as a safe heaven for ISIS etc.
    Imagine that Afghanistan used to be Buddhist when Alexander the Great came through!
    When the US moves out, the Pakistani military will move in. After they will intensify their terror support against India.

    4
    13
    • John O’Donnell, Brisbane says

      I’m reasonably sure that China covets Afghanistan’s minerals but they are willing to use trade instead of guns to get them and is there anything wrong with that?

    • Tim Jenkins says

      @Antonym (& @Admin) I am 100 % sure that >>>

      This is one of the most hilarious bits of dumb mother-firkin’ trolling i’ve ever had the good fortune to laugh at for so many years & for so many reasons :-

      1) Are you illiterate or did you just not bother reading the article that mentions Pakistan in the first firkin’ paragraph , you plonker ! ?

      2) This comment is an identical copy paste , (including all your mistakes , see below), of your comment on the article “Getting out of Afghanistan, staying out of Venezuela” !.

      Now the fun bit , lol , Corrections . . .

      3) “Pakistan’s continues negative influence ” we must presume you meant ‘continued’ , in both articles !

      4) “in order to supply their remote basis at Bagram.” & we presume you meant ‘bases’, in both articles !

      5) “while KSA wants to keep it as a safe heaven for ISIS etc.” surely you meant to mention KSA, USA, UK, & ISRAEL , in both articles , for absolute clarity !

      6) ” when Alexander the Great came through!”. Do you live in Afghanistan Antonym? coz’ you sure make it sound like yer’ there right now, with your identical comment in both articles!

      7) “After they will intensify their terror support against India.” are you really so naive, ignorant & ill informed as to whom has been providing all the support for the phoney ‘War on Terror’ , established as ‘New Pearl Harbour’ after the 9/11 Deep State terror attacks of Zion? as you mention in both articles …

      @Admin, i do hope you keep a record of suspicious IP’s & ISP’s and watch for Antonym changing his profile, after this laughable attempt to troll OFFG’s pages , on behalf of … we all know who !!!

      Thanks for the big laugh, Antonym 🙂 Tip: best try reading at least the first paragraph of an article, in future, before you dash off down the pub , to drink yourself stoooopid’ and proof read what you wrote the first time, next time , if yer’ gonna’ copy / paste , from one article to the next.

      Right, off you dash and change your handle & angle of attack, when trolling.

      Variety the spice of life , Antonym 😉 you lazy ‘fuckwit’

      5
      3
      • Antonym says

        “Good” Pakistanis are not supposed to “dash off down the pub , to drink yourself stoooopid’”, even while in the UK…..

        2
        5
        • Tim Jenkins says

          Were you Pakistani … you would know all about the history, roots & routes of supply lines, (via Transit Hub Azerbaijan) and all the major nations, inc. Israel, behind the phoney “War on Terror”, conceived by your Deep State ‘angelic’ friends in “Safe Heaven for ISIS”, or did you mean Haven?

          Just ask Imran >>>

          as you are clearly not a native English speaker, your various spelling mistakes are excused, however, not the trolling and I thought i might help you with some technical support & ‘propaganda speak’ for your wholly inadequate response, that constitutes another ‘F’ 4 Fail … Your response constitutes ‘Projection & Transference’ , or throwing bones for Pavlov’s dogs , a straw man response, simply said.

          Thanks for the confirmation that you are actually trolling: meanwhile,
          did you see the ‘History of Oil’ video link , with Newman’s great impersonation of the War Criminal Tony BLiAR ? He also tried ‘Projection & Transference’, but he had advisors like Alistair Campbell to help the precise script & fictional narratives along … with comments like this you can hone your trolling subtlety, there in the 77th Brigade , go figure …

          “People should realise – When we are talking about Chemical & Biological Agents, we’re not just talking about , you know , washing powders & detergents . . ” (sic)

          Feel the CONTEMPT ? ! ?

          Antonym ? get a real job, son, one that fulfils your saddened soul.

          4
          1
        • mark says

          “Good” Jews are not supposed to eat pork pies and bacon butties, but a lot do. So what? Who cares? It’s their choice. If Pakistanis want a drink, they can have one. Good luck to everyone. Let them live as they want.

  4. Fair dinkum says

    The United States of Addictions.
    Heroin, oil and WAR.

    18
    • Mike Flanagn says

      I wouldn’t forget their addiction to Barbie Dolls they regularly trot out as spokespersons Fair dinkum.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole