US Pushes Military
Build-up
In Afghanistan
By Peter Symonds
30 August 2005
World
Socialist Web
Under
strong pressure from Washington, a number of countries have been building
up troop numbers to bolster the US-led occupation of Afghanistan. While
nominally to provide security for parliamentary elections due to take
place on September 18, the military build-up is taking place amid a
sharp escalation of armed resistance to the US presence that has led
to a rising toll of casualties.
A US soldier was
killed and four other injured when a roadside bomb struck their armoured
vehicle in Khayr Kot district of Paktika province on Friday. The previous
weekend another four American troops died in Zabul province when a large
remote-controlled bomb exploded under a wooden bridge as their convoy
was crossing. More than 65 US soldiers have been killed so far this
year, most in combatby far the worst toll since the US-led intervention
began in October 2001.
US troops are conducting
extensive operations aimed at hunting down insurgents and intimidating
the local population prior to the poll. After four years of attacks
and aerial bombardment, searches and arbitrary arrests, much of the
Pashtun majority in the south and east of the country is deeply hostile
to the occupation and the US puppet regime headed by President Hamid
Karzai in Kabul.
The US military
last week completed a major offensive in eastern Kunar province near
the Pakistani border and announced that more than 40 enemy
had been killed. The sweep was clearly a reprisal for the killing of
three US special forces troops in an ambush in the same area in June.
Another 16 US military personnel sent to rescue the troops died when
their helicopter was shot down.
According to Associated
Press, the US and Afghan officials claim to have killed more than 750
insurgents over the last six months. Nearly 200 civilians and about
100 Afghan security forces have also died. Many of the so-called enemy
deaths may well have been civilian casualties as US officials routinely
dismiss statements by villagers who have been the victims of US attacks.
On August 12, for
instance, the New York Times reported the results of a raid by a US
warplane on the remote village of Mara Kale in southern Afghanistan.
According to survivors in a Kandahar hospital, four people died in the
attack. Muhammad Yar told the newspaper that his mother had been killed
and his house destroyed in the raid. US military spokesman Colonel James
Yonts responded by declaring that he doubted that there were any civilian
casualties as the area was uninhabited.
Attacks on US and
allied forces in Afghanistan are not on the scale of Iraq and receive
scant coverage in the US and international media. Nevertheless, nearly
four years after the US toppled the Taliban regime, there are large
areas of the country outside the control of US-led military forces and
the armed opposition is becoming more organised. Jean Arnault, UN special
envoy to Afghanistan, recently told the UN Security Council that an
end to violence in the country remains a distant goal.
In response to the
latest wave of attacks, the Pentagon rushed in an airborne infantry
battalion of about 700 troops from Fort Bragg. There are now more than
21,000 troops, including 3,100 soldiers from 19 other nations, under
direct US command in Afghanistan. Another 9,300 troops under NATO command
form the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) based mainly
in Kabul.
Both forces are
due to expand significantly. Britain announced in June that it was preparing
to scale down the number of troops in Iraq in order to play an expanded
role in Afghanistan. Any new contingent will initially join US forces
in the south and east of the country prior to the British military assuming
the ISAF leadership in May. The Australian government has committed
nearly 200 special forces soldiers who are due to arrive in Afghanistan
shortly to take part in US-led operations.
Earlier this month,
NATO has announced that the ISAF would be bolstered by 2,000 more troops
and would assume greater operational responsibilities. The bulk of the
new troops are to be provided the Netherlands, Romania, Italy, Austria
and the US. Initially confined to the capital, the ISAF expanded its
operations into the north and more recently into the west of the country.
For governments
that have been compelled to distance themselves from the US occupation
of Iraq, committing troops to Afghanistan has been a useful means for
mending bridges with the Bush administration and expanding their own
international military role. Out of the media spotlight, the German
government, which, under the pressure of public opinion, was critical
of the US invasion of Iraq, has nearly 2,000 troops in Afghanistancurrently
the largest contingent.
The Spanish Socialist
Party-led government, which pulled troops out of Iraq in April last
year, has about 800 soldiers in Afghanistan. After 17 troops were killed
in a fatal air crash earlier this month, the government in Madrid reaffirmed
its determination to maintain its force in Afghanistan, despite public
opposition and protests calling for their withdrawal.
Fraud of elections
The build-up of
NATO troops is taking place under the guise of protecting parliamentary
elections and helping with in humanitarian projects. Provincial Reconstruction
Teams (PRT) have been dispatched to major cities in the north and west
of the country and are currently being expanded into the south. Canadian
troops have established a PRT in Kandahar and others are to operate
in Nimroz and Hilmand. The Howard government in Canberra has indicated
that it may send several hundred Australian troops next year as part
of a PRT.
As is the case in
Iraq, the Bush administration has declared that the enemies of
democracy are responsible for the escalation of armed opposition
in Afghanistan. Such claims are a farce. With the blessings of the UN
Security Council, Washington manipulated the constitutional and electoral
processes to ensure that political power is concentrated in the hands
of its loyal puppet President Karzai.
Under the constitution,
which was rubberstamped by an undemocratic loya jirga or tribal assembly,
the national assembly has limited control over the president and his
appointed ministers. Elections for the national assembly have been delayed
for more than a year leaving Karzai in complete charge of government
policy. The situation is unlikely to change substantially after the
elections.
Karzai, with the
backing of US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, scrapped the 2004 draft electoral
law against the advice of UN advisers and in May imposed a new voting
system. Under the revised law, political parties will not be able to
display party symbols or run party lists. The Single Non-Transferable
Voting system means that a large vote for a high-profile leader will
undermine the ability of other party candidates to be elected. The system
will benefit those tribal leaders, militia commanders and warlords who
command local support either through bribery, intimidation or ethnic
and tribal loyalties.
By deliberately
undercutting political parties, Karzai is counting on a national assembly
that is deeply divided and thus politically impotent. Around 2,800 candidates
are standing for just 249 assembly seats and another 3,000 are running
for positions on 34 provincial councils. As a result of a lack of resources
and adequate security, campaigning by most parties and candidates has
been limited. As in the presidential poll last October, Karzai and his
allies have the distinct advantage of being in power and thus in command
of the governments resources.
The International
Crisis Group concluded in a report last month: Little groundwork
has been laid for legislative or locally devolved bodies. Instead all
the eggs of state have been put in the basket of one man, the chief
executive, President Hamid Karzai. Indeed the political environment
created over three and a half years of transitional process must call
into question the ability of the new representative bodies to have a
real voice in the future of Afghanistan.
Having installed
their man in the presidency, the Bush administration is now pushing
allies to take over the task of suppressing opposition to the occupation.
Commenting on the current buildup and operations, Lieutenant General
Karl Eikenberry, senior US commander in Afghanistan, told the media
last week: Its not just about election day. We have been
staying on the offensive over the summer months. We will be fighting
all the way through the election and beyond.
Earlier this month,
NATO General Gerhard Back announced that NATO forces would assume responsibility
for security throughout Afghanistan by the end of the year. To deal
with the upsurge of fighting, Back said that NATO would require more
robust rules of engagement. Some US troops would come under NATO
command but increased contingents from other countries will allow the
Pentagon to wind back its numbers in Afghanistan either to bolster its
forces in Iraq or to prepare for new military adventures elsewhere.