Very interesting. Anyway, what do you think of Sartre's proposition that "l'enfer, c'est les autres"?

Thankyou Dave. That was a bit of a shambles last night and a waste of a serious post.

As for supporting the Taliban, well this is an issue that causes great confusion and teeth gnashing on the Left primarily due to a totemic 'anti-imperialism' which was forged mainly in the early 20th century in response to the Great Power politics of the time. As such it is utterly useless as a guide to understanding the present situation in Afghanistan.

Anyone who has so much as a single humane bone in their body cannot ever be seen to support a quasi-medieval outfit such as the Taliban. If the choice is between a Bourgeois capitalist democracy and an inhumane theocracy then the Left must support the former, NOT the latter- regardless of what we think of the Bourgeoisie or capitalism or representative democracy. Now if saying that puts me outside mainstream Left thinking that's fine.

Because mainstream Left thinking is utterly incapable of giving us clarity and the understanding that is sorely needed on this issue.

Now shoot me down.

Dave,
"somehow the issue in the comments box becomes … the Taliban"
I blame Stroppy, she's such a trouble maker - setting the fuckwits off like that

;p
Mj

why not ask leftists in Afghan from organisations like RAWA, ALRO or SAZA what they think about the issue, ... or is it the case, that leftists from Britain have also their own particular imperial ambitions and always know, what is best for the "others"?!

You know that saying "victory to the resistance" is not the same thing as saying "victory to the Taliban" even though there may well be some overlap.
I have said that I wish there was someone politically better to support but at the moment there isn't and nobody can deny that the Taliban have achieved significant military successes despite very limited resources in weaponry compared to the occupying powers. As all guerrila campaigns have shown this is only possible because their support is increasing.
Also it is part of the imperialist propaganda machine to demonise anybody who dares to take up arms against them as a bunch of reactionaries, its really sad that significant numbers on the left seem to have swallowed these lies.
I very much doubt that anybody here really knows who excatly the resistance are, Taliban has become a generic name for them even though a lot of them may well just be ordinary farmers and villagers who decide to take up arms because they have seen their families massacred by the invaders.
I really would have thought that most of you here would have understood this, but that doesn't seem to be the case all you are doing is just regurgitating western propaganda.

Johnny Uk,

That position puts you outside the left altogether and into right wing neo liberalism. For you George Bush has to considered a great liberator.

The whole movement in Latin America is a move against this philosophy that the west knows best. They know first hand what your liberal democracy really means. And this movement all denounce the actions of the capitalists in the middle east, just like socialists the world over do.

Can I just get confirmation that Johnny's is the view of the whole of the non fuckwit tendency.

And if you don't agree with Johnny then can Marsha and Stroppy come up with an appropriate description of this group.

The first rule of Taliban club...

I tend to agree with paddy garcia. I didn't like the Taliban, wasn't sorry to see them go, am somewhat horrified at the thought of them coming back, don't know if it's possible to distinguish between them and other resistance forces.
But...they are resisting a foreign occupation which has imposed a corrupt government on them with the thinnest of legitimacy, and I'd rather see a victory for the Taliban than a continuation of that occupation.

Entdinglichung - if leftists from Britain support self-determination for the Afghans, in what way are they promoting their own imperial ambitions or claiming to know what is best for the "others"?

I agree with every word of the above.

'Communist Terrorists' (CTs) was the 50s British state PR spin name for anyone who fought against British rule in Malaya, 'Taliban' is the latest version of that, faithfully reproduced by their useful (more useless) idiots on this blog

And quick rule of thumb from me (as opposed to one from someone asserting their power as a blog propietor) - If that rightwing, Islamaphobic set of nasty cynics (and many idiots commentating there - Sue R, do you really think I am a member of the SWP!?) at Harry's Place think you are wrong, you often as not, right.

should have said 'I agree with every word of Paddy's above'

And skidmarx is bang on the money too 'Entdinglichung - if leftists from Britain support self-determination for the Afghans, in what way are they promoting their own imperial ambitions or claiming to know what is best for the "others"?'

cf with those supporters of the Afghan state (incidentally the one that has passed a law allowing husbands to deprive their wives of food if they deny them sex.)

the remark about "imperial ambitions" was about those leftists who write detailed programs for their non-existing sister organizations in countries like Afghanistan which include suicidal advices and no nowledge about the situation there ("giving military support to the Taliban while fighting them politically", etc.) ... my main point was the first part of my contribution

skidmarx: I'd rather see a victory for the Taliban than a continuation of that occupation.

What kind of society offers greater scope for the organisation of workers, trade unionists, women, and human rights activists (etc.) though? Definitely not one governed by a victorious Taliban. I'm not willing to support either -- least of all those vicious reactionary bastards.

I am not usually that arrogant that I think I'm right all the time. But on this I believe I am and its nice to get some support here.
As far as the rest of you are concerned (apart from the Isalamophobes and IDF fan club of course, I think we know where you both stand, more than likely with the BNP, on some issues anyway).
Do you not support the defeat of imperialism?
If so do you not support those who put themselves on the line to do this?
If you don't what then is your alternative, nobody but nobody has really answered those questions, all we get are the usual platitudes that the Taliban are bad, well yes in some ways they are, but then how else are you going to end the occupation without supporting them and others who are actually trying to just do that? You going to wait until something nice and fluffy comes along and set up a stall and paper sale on Kabul High Street and start telling the Afgan people what is best for them? Dream on comrades that aint going to happen under the occupation.

At least no one could accuse me of being a useful idiot. Isn't the point that revolutionary socialists have a rule of thumb? Will x advance the cause of socialism and the workingclass. I supose those who are calling the Taliban 'the resistance' think that a blow to imperialism will cause the great edifices of Western Imperialism to crumble. That somehow Eastern Imperialism is nicer, prettier. Umm, I remain to be convinced.

current statement by RAWA: http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/lets-rise-against-the-war-crimes-of-us-and-its-fundamentalist-lackeys.html

Interesting discussion.

Definitely on the southpawpunch/paddy garcia side here. Not because of any particular love of the taliban, but western forces distort Afghan society and politics, meaning that "legitimate" politics takes place with reference to external governments rather than the Afghan people. For instance, any protest around rigged ballots from the western powers is taken more seriously by Karzai than protest from the afghan people, because they hold the purse strings and underwrite him militarily. The Taliban are at least is some (violent and undemocratic) sense beholden to a constituency within the country, as they need both tacit and active support to function. To paraphrase - the taliban might be bastards, but they are the afghan peoples' bastards.

To have even the slightest chance of representative government, a country needs national self determination. Its a necesary first step. Anything less is to treat them like children.

[My apologies Dave, but Paddy Garcia's brand of "Bombs are OK, if I like the side throwing them" is a small part of the reason for the Left's isolation and it gets right up my nose.]

Anyways, back to the Taliban, rather than talking past each other, please, comrades, might I suggest addressing DB's point:

"What kind of society offers greater scope for the organisation of workers, trade unionists, women, and human rights activists (etc.) though?

Definitely not one governed by a victorious Taliban.

I'm not willing to support either -- least of all those vicious reactionary bastards. "

So, if, as internationalists, socialists truly want Afghan society to develop, then is that likely to occur under Taliban rule?

That's the political question that you all have to address.

So go on, grasp the issue, the political issue.

It's FLAK you tit.

"Bombs are OK, if I like the side throwing them"

As far as mod is concerned the bombs are ok as long as its NATO or the IDF throwing them.

Will Afgan society develop under the brutal occupation? I think not somehow.
I don't support the Taliban politically but as far as their military tenacity, bravery and prowess I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for them.
Interestingly Ive even heard these comments echoed by some British soldiers,even they recognise their increasingly adpet military skills.

This Garcia fool cannot be real. He's clearly a Zionist playing games. Ignore.

Anon, not necessarily.

'While many British organisations failed this test in the case of the Malvinas/Falklands War (e.g. the Militant group with its “workers war” against Argentina position), the British proto-ITO comrades (including Flack) did attempt to defend a principled position against the bankrupt positions of the leadership of its own organisation i.e. Victory to Argentina!' - based on http://home.igc.org/~itobr/history/trothist1.html

See there was a time when even the right of the Left (AWL, then SO) could be won to a communist position (albeit briefly). Victory to the other side (As I recall a conversation with a contact at the time - C:What you mean we may seek for our boys to lose!? SPP: Yes, can be comrade, like Lenin did. It's part of internationalism. We are communists, we have no country.')

But then breaking with all national chauvinism is the hardest thing to do - it broke up the 2nd international.

Kautsky had a history, insight and intellect. What have those who don't support the desperate national liberation struggle in Afghanistan have to offer in mitigation - mainly a petulant, abstract bit of emoting whilst the bombs rain down from the US bombers and the drones seek out their targets (sadly not in Stoke Newington)

It would be better if imperialism helped the Afghans to defeat the Taliban and then the Afghans began to edge the imperialists out once the worst danger of a Taliban mark II, in all of its non-fluffy anti-imperialist glory, had passed—ie the same as in Iraq. That way, the Afghans could get substantial military help against their mortal enemy—that is, their former owners—and get considerable development aid for years to come.

garcia,

Keep up and do read a bit, I made my comments clear in the other thread:

http://www.davidosler.com/2009/09/edlington_understand_a_little.html

But Garcia, that's the difference between us, I like politics, I think bombs are a poor substitute.

You, on the other hand, have some romanticized view of the "armed struggle" and can't get your mind around why that is so negative and anti-social.

Some links from your blog mod:

http://giyus.org/?bn=bn_eng_vert_small

http://giladshalit.blogspot.com/

I rest my case, bombs and military occupations are ok as long as its your IDF pin ups doing it.

Anyway as Dave kindly asked us to do, lets stick to the Taliban.

@rk

probably, the Talibans are the bastards of a reactionary current inside the elites of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

yes, Garcia, and you'll see a Palestine flag on my blog too.

I put them there for apolitical idiots to see and fall of their chairs :)

But if you delve deeper you'll see I have never recommended blowing people up in Pubs, pizza palours, the street, shoe shops or wedding parties.

But Garcia, please *do* tell us your view of the armed struggle?

Is it justified to plant a bomb in a pub or street market, in your view?

Ive answered your questions to the best of my ability on numerous occasions on your and other blogs. Why not just stick to the topic under discussion here? That would be most helpful.

Well, it is a fair question for those who support the Taliban, like you, Garcia:

Is it *anyway* justified to plant a bomb in a pub or street market, in your view?

If so, why?

Dave,

This debate is not really about the Taliban but the invasion and occupation of other countries for economic, geo political reasons and how the left should respond.

Can anyone please provide us with a detailed explanation of what they believe the mission in Afghanistan is and what objectives it can achieve.

Paddy,

I agree that Modernity has no problems if the bombs are thrown by Israel or the west. This is clear to anyone that read his posts.
He, like Marsha, Stroppy, SueR etc give implicit support for the continuation of the occupation. After all, if they were to leave the Taliban would be free to rule again. They cannot have it both ways, if they support the liberations, instigated by Bush and his 'great liberation' team, Cheney, Boulton etc they cannot moan how they go about doing it.

So Modernity, don't let the debate get sidetracked by trying to take the moral high ground.

Answer a simple question for once, do you support the call for the withdrawl of all British troops from Afghanistan. Yes or No.

I am only a semi regular at this here blog, so I will do my best to keep my temper in check...

I am trying really, really hard to understand how anyone after 30 years of neo-liberal government can even think about events on the other side of the world, but I can't get my head that far up my bumhole to even begin to make sense of debates like this.

Think about it - does the war against a bunch of inbred primitives in Afghanistan help you to get a bastard job in Britain? Does it reduce the price of your beer or get you a council house? How about leg-overs, blokes? Are your middle legs getting more exercise thanks to this lunacy?

The only strategy that makes any sense vis a vis these damned wars is to use them to chip away, bit by bit, at the state's legitimacy in the eyes of our people. Come on - if they can't even defeat a bunch of tribesmen, how can they be trusted to get anything right?

point me to where I've expressed my views on the occupation on this thread?

Yet you associate my views with Stroppys and hers in turn with Sue's when I haven't expressed any is amazing you must be a psychic.

In fact I do think the troops should be out of A now - but that doesn't mean I agree with the Taliban worship either, clearly women do suffer under Taliban rule and it is possible to both oppose the occupation and oppose the Taliban's treatment of women.

Think the inbred primitives as exile calls them can usually be seen on your local high street on Friday and Saturday nights and supporting England in football matches.

Not to mention your average thick lumpen Brit squaddie.

For once, I am tempted to agree with Paddy Garcia, let's not let Exile sidetrack the debate.

Instead, for those who support the "resistance" in Afghanistan another political question:

Suppose the Brits/Nato, etc leave Afghanistan as a defeated chunk of Western imperialism, do you seriously think that will "weaken" them?

If so, how?

Surely, in such an eventuality the West's political classes would simply brush themselves down and do something else, leaving the Afghans and Afghanistan to fade into the distant memory.

Tough, Modernity, because people like me were expected to sit back and allow our interests to be sidetracked by this nonsense and that is yet another reason why Nu-Labour is heading for the toilet.

As to how badly the boss class and its bumsuckers will be damaged by defeat, that all depends on how much we bang the drum, doesn't it?

The important thing is that defeat often leads to the discrediting of a system. Let's hope that this defeat does the same for ours.

Could someone here please kindly explain, in their opinion, how the US benefits from wasting Trillions of dollars in its war in Afghanistan (and the UK Billions)? Seriously, how do you think this furthers their 'imperialist' agenda?

Matty,

Access to the resources of the Caspian Sea.!

I think we need to look at the overall implications and ‘achievements’ of the imperialist project i.e. look wider than the middle east.

In Latin America the project has failed, socially, economically and politically. The new movements in Latin America offer great hope that real progress can at last be made, and without the ‘white mans’ help or at least without their direct help. (I believe this hope can still be scuppered by vested interests in the west with the compliance of their idiot cheerleaders on the left and among the general public).

In Africa the West’s colonial and imperialist adventures have brought mass starvation, war and Mark Thatcher. Meanwhile contrast this with the Chinese partnership approach, which builds infrastructure, puts Africans in charge and provides specialists in the form of Engineers, Surveyors etc etc. No Cecil Rhodes lauding it over the entire population.

In the middle east the power of the west upholds the most barbaric regimes on the planet, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc etc. The wars of conquest and occupation have brought mass murder, mass destruction and INCREASED Islamic fundamentalism.

As socialists we should denounce these ventures without qualification and press for change in our own flawed society, in order that we can offer real help and assistance to those countries obviously in desperate need of it.

Matty > The US doesn't benefit, just those in power and their rich backers. Everyone else has to pay for it. And it is not only about resources (they could get them from trading)but important long term strategic positions and short term lucrative contracts. Its a get rich quick utopia.

For those geographically challenged the Caspian Sea, is 500+ miles from Afghanistan

But supposing it were true, would access to the Caspian Sea be worth billions or trillions of dollars?

Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline: Unocal

"From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.....The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day.... The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant."
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS, HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 12 February 1998 - evidence by Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation (US oil company

"Would access to the Caspian sea be worth billions of dollars?"

Is this guy for real? Has ever a statement be uttered that showed more ignorance of economics than this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its not just oil, there are strategic military interests also involved here. Imperialism desperately want large bases in that part of the world so as to keep an eye on things and launch attacks on anyone who steps out of line such as Iran, Pakistan etc.

Think the inbred primitives as exile calls them can usually be seen on your local high street on Friday and Saturday nights and supporting England in football matches.

Proles! Know your enemy.

The chinless "left" don't even bother hiding their class animus these days do they?

I am surprised that the supporters of a "resistance" in Afghanistan are so reluctant to engage with the issue of the supposed defeat of imperialism in that country.

Anyone else want to list the, er, tangible benefits of such a course of action?

Or how the Western ruling classes would react? What would the likely outcome be for the Taliban? and how would the ordinary Afghans or women figure in this scenario?

Those are the politically difficult questions that the supporters of the "resistance" in Afghanistan should ask themselves, and be able to answer.

I think I have answered your question Mr Modernity.

I wonder why you refuse to accept that strategic and economic interests are at play here.
Very strange, especially for someone on the left and peculiar because it wouldn't even contradict your argument.

You seem to want to believe that the West’s motives are about making peoples (or Ragheads as many of the pro occupiers call them) lives better.
Why don’t you accept that there are selfish interests at play here and that getting rid of reactionaries is just a happy coincidence or by-product. Sort of like the Adam Smith invisible hand, except the hand is not so invisible.

That’s not a position I would agree with but is certainly one I can understand.

And good luck to England tommorrow night. Bring on the world cup!

Because mr modernity is a rabid Islamophobe and zionist who really wants to eliminate all those pesky Muslims who don't tow the line, that's why he won't condemn NTAO and Israeli bombs who indiscriminately kill thousands of innocent people.

thanks Edgar J for the response, but no, you answered your own question, remember I wrote:

Anyone else want to list the, er, tangible benefits of such a course of action?

Or how the Western ruling classes would react? What would the likely outcome be for the Taliban? and how would the ordinary Afghans or women figure in this scenario?

PS: Garcia, what next ? will you accuse me of having bad breath?

Really, you are silly.

Garcia, as an adult you should have learnt to lay off those childish insults decades ago, still I suppose that you are largely apolitical and find thinking about these issues rather hard.

The big mistake made by the pro-imperialist left is to imagine that the choice is between a 'liberal democracy' and something else. What you actually get is democracy lite if that. As well as loads and loads of dead people in Afghanistan and no real change for most of the population. Since the early 1990s people who used to be on the left have begun to think that the solution to feudal social relations and shattered societies is through invasion by western countries, and get terribly worked up if people don't support this. Why imagine that this is a solution? Did anyone call for the invasion of Chile after Allende's coup? Did anyone call for the invasion of South Africa or a host of unpleasennt dictatorships the left campaigned against? Not that I can remember. And quite right to. The idea that this is the way foward for humanity is false and has been shown to be false. The world is a far more dangerous place then it was ten years ago, the future even bleaker for people unfortunate enough to live in countries which suffered these interventions, and broken societies have become yet more broken. These countries will fade off the map to be replaced by successers. You can be sure that they will suffer the consequences for generations. Which is why any proper left opposes this line of argument.

coup AGAINST Allende naturally. the democratic election of Allende was overturned by a right wing coup supported by Washington.

I think a victorious resistance would join the anti imperialist alliance that Chavez and friends have established. I think this would be more beneficial than the occupation of people trying to exploit the country and its people.

The bigger this group gets the better as far as I can see.

I think the resistance will be victorious so Modernity's question will be answered whatever. I certainly don't think the Taliban will be defeated by people driven by the lust for power. More likely they will be offered inducements to play ball.

Not only do I support the resistance, I think people who are occupied for greed and power SHOULD bloody resist.

RESISTANCE TO EXPLOITATION NOW!

again, the obvious questions go unanswered:

"

1. What would the likely outcome be for the Taliban?

2. and how would the ordinary Afghans or women figure in this scenario?"

The latter question is worth pondering.

Well this is inspiring. The left now adheres to the principle of "the enemey of my enemy is my friend". I always thought that was supposed to be one of the pillars of con. and neo-con. foreign policy?

The Taliban, like Ahmadinejad, might dislike the "forces of imperialism", yet it does not make them any more tolerable. The Taliban may be the "resistance" force in Afghanistan, but we're not talking about an army of Che Guevaras here for goodness sake. I don't think the invasion of Afghanistan was a terrific idea either, and whilst anyone who is invaded is entitled to take up arms and resist, let's get serious about the Taliban. They're religious fundamentalists - to simplify say for argument's sake that the western equivilent is the KKK. So by backing the Taliban, the so-called "forces of resistance and anti-imperialism," you are backing religious fundamentalism. No better than backing the Aryan Nation or whatever it's called nowadays.

Imagine if the US was controlled by religious extremists - and Dubya's government doesn't really count - a government whose treatment of its citizens, and in particular women, was brutal. Then someone invades them and installs a creaky government whose democratic principles are creaky as well. Are you going to back the wingnut KKK resistance or the dodgy foreign-backed government?

Me? Wouldn't wholeheartedly support either. Although in the cold sobering light of day I might say the creaky not-quite-perfect foreign sponsored government would be a better platform for the growth of better human rights, better democracy, a better more inclusive education system and all-round improvement for society.

And if any one of you say "OH LOOK, HERE'S ANOTHER IDIOT THAT'S BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THE MURDOCHITE MEDIA" look at the Taliban's human rights record. You don't need some neo-lib spin for that to look bad.

I find it hard to grasp how the (apparently) left-minded here will gladly denounce Stalinism but then jump with both feet into the camp of whoever America is fighting now, even if it's quite an unsavoury lot. All that does is discredit our cause even further. And god knows, there's plenty of non-leftists who'll do that for us anyway.

Modernity why do you never respond to anything anyone says, but just ask new questions? I think people can fight their own fights better then being turned into pawns for global and regional geo-politics (Afghanistan's tragedy for at least a hundred years). I also reject the notion that the solution to the worlds problems is through military invasions by more powerful countries. I'm also puzzled by this insistance that we all support military invasions and occupations as the only way foward for progressive change. Its never been a belief held by the left at any time, and I wonder what makes you think this is something to be defended now?

Should South Africa have been invaded by the west in the 1970s? Should Chile have been invaded after Pinochet's coup? The list goes on. In every single case no-one on the left and no liberal advocated this, despite appalling human rights records and on-going abuse. Why is it recommended now? (and incidently the 'new left' which the pro-imperialist love to denounnce also opposed Soviet invasions of other countries in the name of socialism).

Too long, sorry in advance

In 1996, when I was a pain-to-be-around politico Leninist who knew fuck all about anything, I heard about the Taliban take over. I thought 'Jesus....they are worst than Franco....Where do I join the International Brigade?' Where indeed.

The Taliban are essentially a millennial cult, as with the Anabaptists of Munster or the Romanian Legion of the Archangel St Michael. They truly and utterly believe that their actions with bring about a earthly nirvana. That nirvana inherently involves a ongoing war against women and girls as a source of decadence, against any other creed, be it other religions or secular ideologies, against impurity, against ambient human life. A theocracy is, after all, the basis of all totalitarianism, a proto-form, if you will.

When the human materials fail to perform their tasks, being all pious, all the time, seeking to abandon fully themselves into the collective, such totalisers and theocrats will inevitably fall back of absolute and ritualised violence. They have no need for a 'popular base' as theirs is a mission sanctified by god. Why would you consider a demographic of fallen and impious human beings when you think you have a mission from the perfect creator of the universe? The analogy between such a mindset and that of secular totalitarianism is plain. (note- I'm using the Emilio Gentile model of totalitarianism i.e. a vast experiment seeking to transform out of all recognition not only society but human nature itself via political action and state coercion)

Thus the Taliban is a known factor to a degree as in it is a psychopathic creed intent and willing to bloodily affirm its supremacy over all within its reach. We also know they can beat the warlords, as they did in 1996, by effectively using the clan system and with little (mostly Pakistani) external support. In short, Afghanistan as it is now is dependant on the continued presence of coalition troops, on the 'imperialists'. If you take away the troops, is some powerful counter block to the Taliban AND the Warlords going to appear? Are the seemly invisible working class suddenly going to roar and progress to socialism once the redcoats and GIs go home?

Alas, I doubt it. I doubt that the remarkable and utterly courageous work done by unionists and feminists at the moment can survive withdrawal. I doubt the schooling of girls, that burning affront to Taliban ‘sensitivities’ can go on. These important and enfranchising efforts are not supported by the Karzai-Warlord shack up, they are a result of a space created by the ‘Imperialists’. The real and meaningful progress made in these areas must be accounted for if one is serious about withdrawal.

As for the ‘imperialists’. Surely there are two sets here. First are the UN mandated coalition forces. Then there are the various Pakistani and Arab networks that support, supply and fight along side the Taliban. Those ‘students’ did not train in Afghan madraasas, they did so in Indian and Pakistani ones, imbibing an essentially Indian form of traditionalist Koranic literalism. During their reign, they accepted money and direction from ISI and Saudi idiot savant millionaire cum wannabe Caliphates. They too fought against a ‘nationalist’ resistance, one with a similar level of contempt for representation, women rights and thirst for cruelty as they did.

On the coalition troops, their presence there originally is hardly controversial. The Taliban sheltered the leader of a group responsible for the worst single act of non-state political terrorism in world history, when asked they refused to turn him over. The lack of clarity and downright hypocrisy of much of the arguments why the coalition should be there after the fall of the regime is probably the reason the occupation/joyful liberation/evil-Yankee-devil plot has been such a fuck up. Were troops there to create a stable democratic state, or merely a non-trouble making interim? Were troops meant to rebuild an economy ravaged back to feudal times or fight the ludicrous war on drugs? Were they there to fight a full on asymmetric war or a vast policing action? Could it be done with a few CIA men, wads of cash and a couple of deranged Vietnam vets ala Rambo 3 or would it involve hundreds of thousands of troops and auxiliary personnel? The biggest mistake, to my mind, was to rely so much on the Warlords, in both the overthrow of the Taliban and the political reconstruction. Once a system was in place in Kabul sans the Northern Alliance, then the central government could negotiate from strength to Dostrum et al. Though few men in this world deserve a cruise missile into their porridge than them, alas, such catharsis would have raised yet more problems and moral issues.

The appalling casualties inflicted by the coalition onto innocents come mostly from this wilful confusion and double standards from the Bush White house and the other coalition partners. They created a political vacuum, filled it with warlords and corrupt opportunists, demanded results from a force far too small and instigated a heads on plates policy of bounty hunting. Unwilling to cover the ground with troops, they forced commanders to fall back on inherently inaccurate air power and then repeated the bloody mistake over and over again. And just because the political costs of saying they needed more men or that ‘doing’ Iraq might not be the best thing right now were more than the damage to any tangential humanitarian mission on the ground. Those who planned this occupation/joyful liberation/evil-Yankee-devil plot are, charitably, drooling retards, more accurately, cunts PLAYING with a nation’s future and its people, cruel and not a little malicious. I would happily see them at the end of a rope (after a fair trial by their peers, of course).

But does this make the alternative any better, both for the Afghans or the world. To delve into such games as trading bodies for ‘progress’ or ‘stability’ is always a morally repugnant act, yet both sides of the argument on this issue do so and are inevitable forced to. For ‘Decents’, the deaths from the counter-insurgency campaigns are ‘worth’ an advance of Afghan self-determination via a functioning though awesomely corrupt political system, they are ‘worth’ the slow but visible advance of female rights (albeit from a zero point), they are ‘worth’ defeating a vile totalitarian creed seeking to commend much of the world to political serfdom.

But generally they are at least honest about the ‘game’. Many, not all, ‘anti-imperialists’ are not. In effect, they say the death that inevitably will follow a withdrawal of troops now are ‘worth’ ending the bodies caused by coalition action or the efforts of the Taliban to destabilise the country. Those to die in a Taliban take over or an extended civil war between them and the warlords or if Pakistan is taken over are ‘worth’ ending the ‘imperialist’ occupation/joyful liberation/evil-Yankee-devil plot. Those deaths and the possibility of more Al-Qaeda ‘spectaculars’ are ‘worth’ ending the endless tales of young men and women from Rutland or Kansas killed in uniform or yet more bombed wedding parties or shattered market days in a seemly un-winnable situation. This is at least a moral position, if not, to my mind, correct. Some of the more Necheavian amongst the ‘anti-imperialists’, like the Islamists who came victorious out of a truly pyrrhic victory over the Soviet Union in 1989, might see Afghanistan as a opportunity to break another super-power, ‘worthy’ of the inevitable dead.

As for ‘Imperialism’ in general, what does it actually mean anymore? Seriously. The vulgar Leninist-Hobson model is long past its sell by date, Fanon merely substituted that for some pseud-anthropological rebirth rubbish he could have stolen from Codreanu and Cain and Hopkins ‘Gentleman capitalism’, the foremost theory of the last few decades is a inherently limited model. If Imperialism, coined in the very late 19th century for a phenomena virtually exclusive to Africa and the Pacific islands, means something singular so bad, it must be resisted without regard to either the nature of the resistance, the tactics used or the consequences of ‘victory’, what is it today? It can’t be on the grounds of self determination, as many of the resistance movements so feted by ‘anti-Imperialists’ are intrinsically opposed to any meaning form of democracy. It can’t be economic exploitation as otherwise, the greatest imperial power (spit!) would be the People’s Republic of China, now converted from 1984 to a pure form of Hobbesian capitalism. It can’t be globalisation, because Imperialism was essentially a creature of Nation states, rather than multi-nationals and supra-nation institutions. If someone could enlighten me to its meaning today, then please do….honestly.

As for the left never having been interventionist. Dearly me. The very very first left, those southpaws on the National Assembly were liberal interventions supreme. They declared war on every monarchical state in Europe, calling on the oppressed people ‘beyond the pale’ to rise up. Consider the cosmos of republics formed under the footfalls of the revolutionary armies:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_client_republic

and soon to collapse as soon as those armies suffered defeat.

Consider the repeated invasions of the Ukraine or the various non Bolshevik republics by the October regime or the inherent interventionism of international revolution. The nations of the eastern block might be forgiven for thinking there is a leftist case for imperialism. Were the Polish adventurer generals of the 18th and 19th century, defeated again and again by Russian arms in their homeland , not the classic interventionists, again and again leading the military of ‘foreign imperialist creeds’ against an indigenous but ‘non-fluffy’ regime. Why no hurrahs for Metternich or Jellenic? Was not non-interventionism the great enemy of the left during 1936-39?

If one is serious about a victory over the Taliban and a stable democratic Afghanistan, then one must demand that the coalition stop twatting about, playing like a child with a nation’s people, and start making the decisions to make it happen. Stop with the stupid poppy eradication would be one. For those serious about withdrawal, be honest about where that leaves the Afghans (not randomly bombed by NATO but at the tender mercies of theocrats) and the world in general.

The end, thankfully.

ps. Johng yes, to SA and Chile. Hang the dictators!

What a load of hot air and putrid apology for conquest and oppression.

Social Republican, I would like to publicly say that you are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to me; you may as well be Nick Griffin. Could you tell us which particular political party or movement you identify yourself with, so I can avoid it like the plague.

Afghanistan has been continually occupied by every empire from time immemorial. 9/11 was conceived, funded and created in Saudi Arabia, just remind me what happened to them. So cut this noble crusade bollocks. And what have these continuous occupations achieved, the Afghanistan we see today, so please tell us how this one will be any different. The times when the Afghans have been allowed to develop themselves are the only times that any progress has been made.

The evidence contradicts your racist assumption that they can only develop by the direct help of the West.

China is not sending planes or armies to other countries and indiscriminately slaughtering the population to get their hands on the resources and put up military bases in the USA's backyard.
They are investing and trading with countries.

No matter, your Bush adoring neo liberalism will de resisted and will be defeated.

yes, to SA and Chile.
But they didn't and they won't. Why has the US not sent a couple of brigades to Honduras to re-instate Zelaya? It's not in their interest. Why have they not intervened in Burma,where the regime ivals the Taliban for nastiness, but instead Hillary Clinton is calling for dialogue?Same answer.Why has the intervention in Haiti only made a situation that seemed like it couldn't be made worse,worse? I getta tired of repeating myself. Relying on the world's imperialist powers to right the wrongs of the world means allowing their agenda to dominate, letting them pick the villains to be vanquished, and what should be put in their place. It is a further step away from democracy and is never productive.

JimD - They[China] are investing and trading with countries.
The manner in which they do it is creating a lot of resentment in Africa:
http://theshoebox.org/images/site%20images%20and%20icons/cool%20articles/China/Chinese_labo_policies_mar_African_welcome.pdf

They rely on the US to play the role of global policeman, while they can appeal as a trading partner that won't drag human rights questions into trade.The reports of further deaths in Chinese coalmines point up the fact that Chinese state-directed capitalism is no more progressive than its Western counterpart.

Modernity - again, the obvious questions go unanswered:
such as,why don't you make some substantial point that can be answered, rather than making like a low-rent Socrates?[Talking 'bout the method, rather than the hemlock quaffing, but...]

Isn't this "discussion" symptomatic of the decline of the British Left?

It is a key political debate yet people are talking past each other, meaningless distractions and silly comparisons are brought up, there is an inability to focus on the political questions and plenty of kettle logic.

Shame.

Still, I thought Micheal's contribution was by far the best, yet his points go unanswered.

Modernity -

Isn't your inability to even spell "Michael" symptomatic of something?

He repeats what is generally agreed,that the Taliban aren't nice people, then produces a pointless hypothetical about the US, then thinks that anti-Stalinism should preclude anti-imperialism. Not a great contribution.

My inability to spell Michael is dyslexia :)

"The West"(including Albania, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey, UAE etc. etc. by the way) aren't engaging in a colonial adventure.
They are there because the Taliban were hosting a movement intent on destroying modern society.
This is in the invading countries own interests, rather than a philanthropic gesture, to be sure, but it is not imperialism.
The Taliban, on the other hand, mostly came from Pakistan and fought for control of the state and imposed their world view on Afghan society while their hosts, Al Quaeda, have the aim of establishing a global Islamist state, so there is imperialism in this war but not where the 'anti-imperialists' say it is.

Those who say that Afghan women, secularists, socialists, democrats, gays etc. have to suffer so that 'imperialism' can be defeated are no less nationalistic than those who cheer for 'our troops' no matter what.
As long as our governments are defeated it doesn't matter to 'the anti-imperialists' what happens to the Afghans and what kind of medieval nutcases impose their rule on them.

I think this is because of the defeat of the USSR.
These same people used to support the USSR as progressive against capitalism. This was wrong but at least there was something positive there. Now there is just a nihilistic opposition to 'the west' and support for anyone fighting them no matter who 'the west' is fighting and for what purpose.

@Runia.

There are currently two options. 1. The status quo - the continuing slaughter of Afghanis by the invaders, a lower level of killing of civilians by the Taliban; a venal and oppressive puppet government and very little current chance of socialist organisations or 2. which is the same, minus "the continuing slaughter of Afghanis by the invaders" and "puppet".

Which would anyone, even with just humanism, chose?

Victory to the resistance, which in this case means, in practical terms, 'Victory to the Taliban'.

"The West"(including Albania, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey, UAE etc. etc. by the way) aren't engaging in a colonial adventure.
The first four countries are members of NATO or want to be by the way. As for the UAE...

They are there because the Taliban were hosting a movement intent on destroying modern society.
They are there because the Taliban were. He who controls the present controls the past.

but it is not imperialism.
Oh yes it is. And no backsies.

The Taliban, on the other hand, mostly came from Pakistan and fought for control of the state and imposed their world view on Afghan society while their hosts, Al Quaeda, have the aim of establishing a global Islamist state,
The Taliban may proptionately largely come from the tribal areas that straddle the AfPak border,artificially separating populations so that the Russians could be kept away from British India[sic]. They don't come from faraway countries that know little of them.
I think you have the hosts and guests mixed up.
I think you have actual imperialism and the dreams of some Islamists mixed up.

Those who say that Afghan women, secularists, socialists, democrats, gays etc. have to suffer so that 'imperialism' can be defeated are no less nationalistic than those who cheer for 'our troops' no matter what.
Nationalistic obviously means something different in your lexicon than mine. I don't see those groups suffering much less under the occupation, and the backlash against foreign rule makes any gains by these groups while the occupation persists fragile at best.

As long as our governments are defeated it doesn't matter to 'the anti-imperialists' what happens to the Afghans and what kind of medieval nutcases impose their rule on them.
No,the removal of foreign troops is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Afghan society to progress. You can't impose socialism and democracy at the point of a bayonet, and this lot aren't even trying.

These same people used to support the USSR
I hope your logorrhea is treatable.

Modernity - is your inability to construct an actual argument also due to your dyslexia?

SPP,

I welcome your candour, you at least say what others probably think, but really when you say 'Victory to the Taliban' what you really mean is

"Victory to right wing reactionaries, who hate socialists, trade unionists, etc, are happy throwing acid into the face of girls, burning down schools and oppressing women in the most extreme ways"

JimD

I know it was long but did you not get to the large section where I said i would like to see the planners of the operation on the end of a rope? I did not mean a dog lead.

Nor, I supposed, did you get to the point where I brought up the foreign influences on the Taliban?

To your 'points'

The last political party I was in was the SWP. Make of that what you will.

Having fought fascists, both in word and deed, I would ask to don't fling that label about. As an aside, it is official BNP policy for unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan, 'not worth a Coldstream Grenidier's bones' to paraphrase Bismarck. I wouldn't be so crude as to make generalisations about every one who advocated withdrawal from that fact.

My point about 9/11 stands. The leader of the group who planned it (in Germany and Florida as well as Saudi) was in Afghanistan at the time of the attack. The Taliban were asked to hand him over, they refused. Which of these three propositions is wrong?

'The times when the Afghans have been allowed to develop themselves are the only times that any progress has been made.'

Indeed. Yet from 1989-2001, the Afghans were not left alone, they were constantly at the mercies of Russian and Iranian backed Warlords, a ISI supported Theocratic movement and a host of Jihadists from around the world. The results were a million dead, another wave of exiles and finally a regime willing to except invasion just to protect the leader of a mass death cult(For the hard of knowing, OBL)

Is this absolute regard for Westphalian tradition extentable to self inflicted genocide? Do you question the basic rightness of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1979? Surely a prompt AU or UN mission to prevent the Rwandan genocide (rather than the small ineffectual mission to over see the ceasefire) would be a good thing? If internal forces had been left alone, what of the 100000 plus Muslims of Bihac?

From Michael's point, Consider if, fate forbid, the National Front had won the general election of 1979 or taken power in a coup. After they progromed much of the Muslims, the Hindus, the Jews, the Reds, the Blacks, the Pinks and the Micks, the EU or the US invaded for inherently self-interested motives. Would you support the fascist 'resistance'? A kind of British Werwolf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

'China is not sending planes or armies to other countries and indiscriminately slaughtering the population to get their hands on the resources...'

No, but they are complicit in the Sudanese Govenment's ethnic cleansing in Darfur, the continued nightmares in Burma and North Korea and of course Zim.

Briefly. Imperialism is bad, very bad. There are things worse, much worse.

Well good to see some of the far Left being honest here and admitting their "anti-imperialism" means handing the country over to the Taliban with all the ghastly consequences that will bring for most Afghans especially women. Of course they are just following in the same vile path as apologists for Stalinism and to most will (correctly) be written off as amoral maniacs.

What is more interesting is the questions for those on the Left (like Dave Osler?) who don't like the Taliban but who talk about immediate withdrawal. They are the ones who need to answer the correct questions about what would happen in those parts of the country where now there is some change for the better that would be most likely be completely overrun by the Taliban in the event of immediate withdrawal.

I think that there should be much more of a major international effort to train the Afghan army. If in the short term there needs to be more NATO (or other UN ?) troops sent to hold ground before a proper national army can be raised then that should be a definite priority.

The One eyed....

'Victory to the Taliban'

Leading the blind....

'I don't see those groups suffering much less'

'the continuing slaughter of Afghanis by the invaders, a lower level of killing of civilians by the Taliban'

Total direct deaths since the invasion : 8,773 - 11,570, both coalition and 'resistance' (based on collated UNAMA/HRW/AIHRC data here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

In August 1998 alone, the Taliban executed between 4000-8000 people in Mazar-i-Sharif

http://www.rawa.org/times.htm

Mass death is systemic to Theocrats. Killing is central to their conception.

There are lies and selective use of statistics.

Actually Wikipedia (for what's that worth) says 5,282 - 8,074 civilian deaths caused by US led (incl Afghan state?) forces; the figure SR gives is for all civilian deaths (same web link).

And on Mazar-i-Sharif it says "Between May and July 1997, the Taliban unsuccessfully attempted to take Mazar, leading to approximately 3,000 Taliban soldiers being massacred by Abdul Malik and his Shia followers.[3] In retaliation for this incident, the Taliban on August 8, 1998, was reported to have returned and led a six-day killing frenzy of Hazaras, a report which was refuted in a report that pointed out that all claims of military deaths were sourced and referenced, but the accounts of civilian massacres were not attributable to any reliable source and were allegedly fabricated by enemies of their rule."

I wonder about RAWA, every Western liberal's favourite NGO (Muslim women without burqas, and talking English too, wow, how radical!).They haven't issued any bulletins in months (they may have noticed the election, perhaps).

Bottom line - Talib civilian (and I will add military killings as well) are dwarfed by UK?US/Afghan 'official' killings. Ever noticed UK military claims to kill 'dozens' of Talib in firefights? IEDs v bomber jets - which do you think will kill more?

SPP,

This is a picture of a woman cowering on the ground with an AK47 pressed to her head, would you dispute that too?

http://www.rawa.org/zarmina1.jpg

SSP

Do you find charts hard to decipher?

The third column shows TOTAL deaths.

The first, death attributed to the 'resistance' reads 2994-4544, not including death from the first four years.

The second column from late 2001 to now read the dead attributed to the coalition reads 5282 - 8074.

The third column gives the total dead, as I did, 8773 - 11570

Here that reference expanded

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_brief_look_at_the_imaginary_report_on_the_situation_of_human_rights_at_Mazar-I-Sharif

A statement by the Taliban via their embassy denying it. No critical reading there?....SSP....Not just a little?

@SR

SPP and not SSP - do you find written stuff hard to understand. Your dyslexia maybe on this and the below. And funnily enough the SSP mistake is often made by Modernity.

The point you were making was about Taliban deaths, 'the continuing slaughter of Afghanis by the invaders, a lower level of killing of civilians by the Taliban' and comparing them with, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazar-i-Sharifa) a possibly spurious claim about killings in Mazar-i-Sharif.

So it is the contrary figure, the claim (and how good is a Wikipedia claim?) of deaths caused by the other side that is the relevant figure, not the grand total.

Just look at the total deaths now. Yes,if the Taliban comes to power they will use the state apparatus to up their killing rate (although, unless the civil war continues it won't be as high) but the victory of national self determination lays a lot greater chance of progressive forces emerging than, than continuing occupation does.

It stands to reason that if the Taliban seize power in Afghanistan, the killing will eventually peter out because there will be no-one left to kill and the fabric of society will disintegrate. Just a question of how long it will be before they run out of people to kill and no-one to work in the fields so everyone has to exist on UN aid rations, apart from the top Talibs that is. Weren't they in control before? Was there a democratic or progressive legacy from that time?

Damn lies and stats eh SPP

Maybe you could explain away Zarmeena's fate? Shot in the head in a public stadium by the Taliban in 1999.

http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm

"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Thousands of people watched as a woman, cowering beneath a pale blue all-enveloping burqa, was shot and killed today in the first public execution of a woman in Kabul since the Taliban religious army took control three years ago.

The woman, identified only as Zarmeena, a mother of seven children, was found guilty of beating her husband to death with a steel hammer as he slept. The reason for the killing two years ago was a family dispute," according to a Taliban soldier, who didn't give his name.

Zarmeena was taken from the back of a pickup truck that drove into the sports stadium. Two female police officers, both in deep blue burqas, held Zarmeena's arms.

Witnesses said the convicted woman walked slowly, each step followed by a pause.

When she reached the center of the field she was ordered by one of the women to sit.

Behind her a young Taliban soldier, his head wrapped in the traditional turban, took aim with his Kalashnikov rifle. But suddenly Zarmeena stood up and tried to flee. A policewoman stopped her and forced her to sit, said witnesses.

The Taliban soldier moved closer and shot her three times. "

The claim was called 'spurious' because of a link to a release made by the Taliban to their embassy. That ain't a slam dunk.

'We at Union Carbide do hope that the writer of this report had got to know the non dead people in the area and realised there wasn't even a plant in the area'

PROOF DOT COM

'the victory of national self determination lays a lot greater chance of progressive forces emerging than, than continuing occupation does'

Like in 1989?

Consider the GIA in Algeria, by 1996 it was prepared to claim the whole of Algerian society outaide of the group was in apostasy and thus should all be killed. What would stop a victorious Taliban, intrisically unbound by any concept of popular mandate, doing the same?

A civil war would be almost inevitable, would it not, it showed not signs of ending in 2001.

Bears repeating. Under Russian, Iranian and Pakistani 'Imperialism', under unleashed warlords and the Taliban, from 1989-2001, 1 million Afgans were killed

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/2005/03/31-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-on-afghanistan.html

Not forgetting the Taliban mascares of ethnic minorities, from 2001:

"Dr Kasim Waheedi is typical of his people. He is slight in stature, generous and well-educated. He has lived in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. And he is trying in his own small way to help his people cope with exile - he runs a primary school.

"Under the Taleban, life was unbearable for us," he said, reeling off a grim list of places where Hazaras have been massacred by fanatical Taleban commanders ready to use any excuse to kill Shia Muslims. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1608289.stm

From 2001, when the Taliban ruled Aghanistan:

"There have been new reports of human rights abuses carried out by the Taleban in the central highlands of Afghanistan.

In January, Taleban troops killed 170 men and teenage boys, apparently as a collective punishment, after opposition fighters belonging to the same ethnic group captured the town of Yakawlang"

the link,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1500682.stm

Dave—a thread that nicely shows the almost incomprehensible ideological degeneration and muddle that seems to be one of the many strange by-products of the overthrow of the Baath—in particular, the complete shattering and disintegration of a politically and morally coherent anti-imperialism, its complete dislocation in time and space.

I'm not saying that the vacuous sloganeering in the thread above represents the views of anyone but their owners, never mind "the left", or the "far left", but it is surely indicative that a bare-chested "NKVD anti-imperialist" like Paddy—who sounds disconcertingly like the "freak of imperialism" in Platonov's The Foundation Pit—responds to the blatantly racist anti-imperialism of our beloved petit bourgeois pornography retailer, Sir Kenneth, by regurgitating the standard demonisations of young members of the working class in a manner worthy of the Daily Mail! Therefore: Victory to the Taliban in the homes of the "anti-imperialists"—o, but what monsters the imperialists have turned you into.

I have updated a recent post to include HRW and Amnesty's reports on Afghanistan during the rule of the Taliban for those that would deny the Taliban massacres.

Dave's automated moderation system won't allow the posting of that many links, there's a lot of material about the Taliban's treatment of ethnic minorities.

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/good-analogy/

Southpawpunch doesn't even seem to realise the Taliban have been in power before and what a disaster they were for the Afghans - which is why they have very low support now.

Or is he saying they would be better now because they would have beaten "the imperialists" and that would magically transform them ?

The far Left needs to completely disassociate itself from such lunacy if it wants to survive in any form whatsoever.

I think we'd just as well be off debating whether the Blues or the Greens should have won the Nika riots...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

Lets remember, whether Britain/US withdraws from Afghanistan, thousands will be brutalised and slaughtered in Congo or Somalia, or a host of otehr hotspots where the current dilemma of in/out doesn't apply - maybeworking towards some general solution to the problem of war would be a touch better of who supports which Basterds...

My forehead is bruised from banging my head against the wall...blood is bleeding from my ears as my brains implodes...the answer to why the left is in the mess its in to be seen in all its glory in these comments.

According to wikipedia, 1.7 million refugees still remain in camps in Pakistan. Although there has been some repatriation, Afghanistan cannot absorb the influx easily, so some are being resettled in Canada, Australia, Norway. There are some refugees in Iran (no number given), but if they are not registered they can be arrested and put in prison-like camps. Doesn't sound to me that the people loved the Taliban regime. Sounds to me like they ran away from it.

@SR

I did not say the claim was 'spurious', I said it was "possibly spurious". That's very different.

It was your that started using Wikipedia figures; who knows the actual numbers.

Algeria. Tell me what you think would have happened if national self-determination hadn't happened there. Everyone would be shopping at Carrefour, enjoying 35 hour weeks and the women instead of often wearing burkas, would instead...no, that's enough.

They would live like the indigenous do now in the remaining French colonies in the Indian Ocean - under the thumb; and that's only if they generally didn't resist, or in the endless night of a French police state if they did.

National self determination is always good and the mad ravings of even powerful religious bodies don't come to fruition - did the Spanish kill all the Dutch heretics in the Low Countries or the Puritans all the 'papists'? Of course not, how would they continue to exploit the population if they killed most of them? Did you not notice the Taliban did not start a holocaust of all Afghans - many of whom they would consider equivalent to heretics - when they were in power.

Are you supporting national self-determination for the Afghans now - yes or no?

If not, accept, along with all the others who can't stomach the reality of who is doing the fighting (Do RAWA have many units in the field? How good are they with IEDs?) that when oppression came knocking on your door, with rifle butts, you put your fingers in your ears and went 'la-la-la' until they went away.

I think much of the pseudo "anti-imperialist" attitude shown here, seems to be summed up as NMP - Not My Problem, all very Sir Humphrey.

We know what will happen if the Taliban take power again, they will usher in another utterly brutal and barbaric rule in Afghanistan.

The Taliban will re-introduce public executions, destroy girls schools and close women's clinics, thus increasing child mortality and women's death rate in one move.

The Taliban will force women to stay imprisoned at home, mere chattel for men.

The Taliban will brutally suppress other ethnic minorities, kill gays, socialists, communists, trade unionists....all that and much more.

How do we know that will happen? Because that's what they did when they ruled the country previously.

SPP,

"who knows the actual numbers."???

Please, don't go down that route.

I suggest you either read the reports on my blog or a quick trip to google might help you, use the key words: Mazar-i-Sharif taliban 1998

Yeah Mod but it doesn't matter cos "the imperialists" will have been defeated. As will the majority of the Afghan people who despise the Taliban of course. But then the far Left loons we see on here care nothing about them.

Still its good in a way to see these scum outing themselves here - no one can now say "oh but noone on the Left supports the Taliban".

MMN,

We'll have to disagree, I think the Left should be supporting the working classes and the poor, not cheering on gun totting Taliban.

I think the Left should want the 'least worst situation' for the poor and others in Afghanistan, and certainly not welcome any circumstances where the Taliban gain power again.

The crude pseudo anti-imperialism which is being articulated here has little to do with socialism.

Rather that attitude has more in common with Henry Kissinger's doctrines than any positive socialist values, it is a vulgar "Guns before butter" mentality, which is completely detached from the real existence of real people.

It treats the people of Afghanistan as if they are no consequence, it doesn't care or worry about them when the Taliban returns.

It is essentially a reverse colonialist mentality, Cecil Rhodes or Neville Chamberlain would have understood it perfectly.

It doesn't treat the people of Afghanistan as if they are as human as us, with all the same wants and needs.

In this crude pseudo imperialist scenario they are considered expendable. It is an anathema to socialist internationalism, because it distinctly treats the Afghans as expendable, whereas no one, not even SPP or Paddy Garcia, would welcome the Taliban running Britain or parts of Europe, but they are perfectly happy for them to be inflicted on the Afghans.

In many ways it is a form of political Nimbyism.

blimey.

I have some sceptism that "the taliban" that NATO are actually fighting are exactly the same Taliban of Mullah Oomar who previously ruled Afghanistan. i think it is just shorthand for anyone fighting NATO forces.

Nevertheless, the current situation seems to be two equally appalling bunches of misogynist and reactionary warlords, some of whom are political Islamists, some of whom are just criminals.

But NATO troops are fightiing to keep one reactionary group as the government in Kkabul, depsite the fact that this government has almost zero legitimacy, and no prospect of restoring the rule of law or unifying the country.

In this context, the Britsh government shoudl recognise that its military coontribution cannot resoolve the situation, and the loss of British lives is unjustified. So Britain should withdraw.

On the entirely different question, what will happen in Afghanistan - there seems to be no force currently in Afghan society capable of resolving the nation's problems; and nor can a despised Western military force impose a solution from outside, particularly when that western force has effectively sided with one group of warlords aganst another.

At some stage there needs to be some form of stabilisation based upon a truce between the contending parties, and perhaps a regional conference involving the neighbour countries.

But there will be no quick solution, and NATO tropps are more part of the problem than part of the solution.

I agree with Andy. Largely, anyway. That must be a first ...

I'm about to offer up a lengthy post.

MoreMediaNonsense said:

"Still its good in a way to see these scum outing themselves here - no one can now say "oh but noone on the Left supports the Taliban"."

Well, MMN, you've satisfied yourself that somebody on the left 'supports the Taliban'. So what? Does that mean 'everybody on the left supports the Taliban'? If, to you, it does, then your views are foolish, if it doesn't, then you have said nothing.

Harry's Place beckons, go there, you'll be amongst friends. There you will find warriors who believe in the total defeat of the Taliban. It's not going to happen, of course, ugly compromises will be made. No doubt you'll feel let down by those who have failed to support your valiant war from the keyboard.

"Well, MMN, you've satisfied yourself that somebody on the left 'supports the Taliban'. So what? Does that mean 'everybody on the left supports the Taliban'? If, to you, it does, then your views are foolish, if it doesn't, then you have said nothing."

No not everybody on the Left supports the Taliban, I don't for a start. But George Galloway does and some say he's part of the Left. What do you think of his disgusting stance ?

See here :

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2990

"George drew his speech to a close with an emotional account of how the grieving mother and father of a Soldier killed in Afghanistan had approached him recently at the end of public meeting. He explained their anger and confusion how they blamed the Taliban, and with pride how their son had died with a “picture of the Queen in his breast pocket”. George said how difficult it was to tell them that the “Queen didn’t have a picture of their son, didn’t attend his funeral” and they should blame the the government that sent their son to his death not the people of Afghanistan who have a right to resist the occupation of the country."

For the record as I said above I think the solution in Afghanistan is to involve more countries in a stabilzation force and train the Afghan army to take over from foreign forces. What I don't think is at all sensible is immediate unconditional withdrawal of all NATO forces like Dave O and Andy Newman seem to want as I think it would have dire consequences.

As for your Harryophobia - I suggest you try to grow out of it.

Andy/Dave,

Not being rude, but did you actually read the thread? Did any of the arguments mean anything to you? Or sink home?

Because if your argument is that British lives are more important than Afghans, then we come back to turn-of-the-century thinking, where British leaders considered the lives of foreigners to be lesser than that of the British.

I'm not saying that's your argument, but that's how it seems to come over, perhaps you would care to clarify?

And *if* you are arguing for a precipitous withdraw of NATO troops, then you have to spell out what the consequences would be for the Afghans.

That's a key issue.

But surely you know what the consequences would be ? The return to power of the Taliban.

Now it strikes me if you wouldn't want the Taliban running Stoke Newington or Swindon then why inflict them on the Afghans?

You know what they would do, they've done it before. They would instigate a regime so barbaric and brutal that the collected human rights abuses of Burma, China and Saudi Arabia will pale by comparison.

The Taliban will force all aid workers to leave and the economy will collapse, only subsidised by the produce of drug production, not much else.

The infrastructure will fall apart, women will be treated to 13th century medievalism and the death rates will increase. Expenditure on education will become nonexistence and the money spent on arms increase exponentially.

Because *if* you are arguing for a precipitous withdraw that's what would happen.

Modernity.

The scenario you describe is pretty much what is already happening in the areas controlled by NATO.

Karzai's government is an alliance of all sorts of warlords, islamists, rapists and kidnappers, war-criminals and drug traffickers.

If the Taliban came to power again in Afghanistan (a highly unlikely outcome by the way, it was several years after soviet withdrawl before a unified government emerged, and even then it only controlled 0% of the country) then it would not be Britain "imposing" that upon the afghans.

In any event, Britain doesn't have the responsibility, the capability, nor the moral credibility to solve the problems in Afghanistan.

Andy Newman wrote: "If the Taliban came to power again in Afghanistan (a highly unlikely outcome by the way, "

**If** they came to power? Surely that is their goal.

But lets look at the situation, if NATO forces and the Afghan's are currently having a problem subduing the Taliban, then how will the Afghan forces managed to do that all on their own?

They won't.

The NATO forces provide thousands and thousands of troops, which to a degree prop up the existing Afghan government. Thus, the precipitous withdrawal of NATO would likely mean the fall of the Afghan government and a takeover by the Taliban.

Again, at the moment it is difficult enough to fight the Taliban, that is ***with*** all of the NATO resources in Afghanistan, therefore, without those resources it is less likely that the Afghan's would-be successful in defeating the Taliban.

Rather it would be the other way around, the Taliban would win, and I suspect fairly quickly by bribes and threats.

I've only just read these pro-Taliban comments by Paddy Garcia: all I can say is that, come the revolution, Mr Garcia will have to be imprisoned, re-educated, isolated from sociey or executed.

Well, that is what is likely to happen with any revolution. Successful revolutions hardly ever lead to tolerant attitudes to dissidents, though the intensity of the purge may vary.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Paper18.gif

A Russian newspaper clipping from 1918, "Answer to White terror"

It states that the Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) shot three people in one night in September 1918 for "counter-revolutionary activity" and as a reprisal for the assassination of Uritsky and Voldarsky, and the attempt to assassinate Lenin.

Well, there's sectarian vainglory, and then there's Jim Denham keeping lists of all the people he'll have shot when the AWL take power. Jim would have done rather well in the NKVD.

Yes, I rather think he would. Already meditating on who is to be shot when his groupuscule is less than a hundred strong.
Revolutions and wars can let the inner animal out. JD's inner animal is already out, tearing through the zoo and heading for the exit.

The problem with Denham is he will have shot all his potential allies!

Any he has the front to slag off Stalinists!!!

More a case of personality type transcending ideology.
Gerry Healy was another example. Very loud-lunged anti-Stalinist, brandishing Trotsky's works at every opportunity, but...

News just in:

"KABUL — A massive suicide car bomb killed 10 Afghan civilians and wounded another 55 in Kabul on Thursday in an attack that also left six Italian soldiers dead, an interior ministry spokesman said.

"In the suicide car bomb attack today, 10 civilians were martyred and another 55 civilians were wounded," the spokesman Zemarai Bashary told AFP.

"Twenty-one shops have been destroyed, seven vehicles have been destroyed," he said, condemning the attack.

In Rome, the Italian defence ministry confirmed that six Italian soldiers died in the blast. They were part of the NATO-led force deployed in Afghanistan to fight against a Taliban insurgency."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jjRRqSS3SundnbIS9Km8mqCKOvvQ

The blast was probably directed at the soldiers, if only they had not been there.

So collateral killings are acceptable?

Absolutely. Unfortunately mod is only concerned about casualties caused by the resistance, he doesn't give a toss about the thousands of civilians killed by NATO forces. BTW what's your opinion of the TUC Palestine resolutions mod?

My last post was in response to JimD agreeing with him that any civilian deaths are unfortunate but the blame lies with the occupation forces who caused the situation in the first place.
Unfortunately it came up out f sequence, so am clarifing this before mod and his mates jump on it.