Mutiny in the Polish Military? What next for Afghanistan?



Ok, I admit, I'm guilty of hyperbole by using the above title. But news that a number of Polish soldiers had refused to go on patrol in Afghanistan, just a week after Polish troops took over responsibility from the U.S. in two Afghan provinces, was music to my ears. Soon after initial the reports the Polish military 'clarified' that they had not 'refused' to go on patrol, but rather that they had asked for an earlier rotation to escape the dangerous war theatre and return to Poland as soon as possible. Who could blame them? Their protection zone is at level 2 compared to U.S. troops at level 5.

The last time Poles operated in Afghanistan was under the auspices of the USSR. That invasion and occupation lasted from 1979 - 1989. It proved to be a disastrous war, coined as the USSR's Vietnam by Western commentators, which resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Afghans and approximately 14,000 Soviet troops, with 1/2 a million Soviets injured. Millions more of Afghanistan's population were injured and forced into asylum.

When NATO recently cried out for support from the International community for assistance in Afghanistan, the Polish gvt. jumped at the opportunity and promised 1,000 troops. But no politician should have the right to deploy young men and women to such a pointless and misconstrued mission. The Asia Times reported last September that
the fatality rate of the 18,500-strong NATO force averages about five per week, which is roughly equal to the losses suffered by the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.


News of a NATO air raid which resulted in the deaths of 25 civilians earlier this week was only reported as a snippet in the Irish press and seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the citizens of NATO countries. This shouldn't surprise but should enrage us. As General Tommy Franks commented in 2003 about Iraqi civilian causalties, "we don't do bodycounts!"

We would be wise to heed the warning issued by NATO commander Lieutenant-General David Richards who stated last year that "we could actually fail here." Fact is, they have already failed the Afghan people by invading and occupying their country and committing countless atrocities since 2001.

History often repeats itself, and it doesn't take a Maths genius or military general to figure out that US/NATO forces, with only 1/3rd the strength of what the Soviet force was a quarter of a century ago; with an even weaker Afghan national army ally than the Communists had; and up against a united indigenous resistance, not just Taliban forces on the fringes of Tora Bora - are doomed to failure. Interventionist military might has a long history of failure in Afghanistan - just ask the British.

A few of the following would surely be of more value to the Afghan public good: Compensation to Afghan families that have been forced to flee war zones; investment in civilian infrastructure like schools, hospitals, homes; support towards sustainable agriculture to combat an over-reliance on cash crops like opium, which should in turn be legitimised and utilised to help locals escape poverty; the official cultivation of the poppy would facilitate the manufacturing of much needed medicines in the locality if the pharmaceutical industry was monitored properly; a major de-mining and demilitarisation process; and the withdrawal of forces which never were and most certainly are not now, a 'peacekeeping force.'

Comments

varus said…
Do you have a link for the Polish Army story? I am interested in reading the full text.

Legitmisation of opium? A dangerous path to tread. Generate viable alternatives, yes! But legal heroin producion?

As for withdrawal - this would undoubtedly result in the imediate collapse of the Afghan government. Granted this is little more than a municipal athourity as it has limmited affect outside of Kabul, but the alternative of a return to the Talaban or perhaps some other thugs gaining unchecked control is surley worse than the present lot.

There are two seperate issuses:
a) was the invasion justified?
b) should NATO stay?

regardless of the answer to a, b is most certainmly yes as not to would result in chaos. Perhaps chaos created by the invasion, but never the less chaos.

Remember, unlike the murkey links between Iraq and terroism, there was an undisputed link between Al Qeada and the Talaban. Afghanistan was most definatley being used to train terrorists.

Ok, perhaps there were other ways to remove the training capability, such as strategic bombing, but the problem would have continued, like it or not the Talaban were providing a safe haven for terrorists. Even Sudan was able to be convinced to kick them out, as its prosperity was threatened, but how do you threaten the prosperity of a ground zero regime. They did more damage to Afghanistan's economy and infrastructure than any embargo or such would do. As for incentives, they were not interested in such.

I remember watching a program about the Talaban and Afghanistan before Sep 11, and thinking, why doesn't the world do anything about these people? - Simple, no invested interest! Cruel as it may be, but Sept 11 provided the necessary impudus for a long overdue action: the removal of the Talaban.
Damien Moran said…
This is where I read it:
http://www.thenews.pl/archives/681-RMF-revolt-in-Polish-units-in-Afghanistan.html

I worked with heroin addicts for a number of years in Dublin and can tell you that those who have been working with addicts in Dublin for decades and have been leading the fight against its misuse advocate legalisation.

Fact is that since the invasion opium growth is at an all time high.You might find this of interest:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2411398.ece
I guess whether it should be legitimised or not is also a distraction from the key point here, and that is how relying on one cash crop so much is unhealthy for the local people and environment.

NATO have made so many fuck ups in Afghanistan that they are fueling a whole new generation of Islamic fundamentalists. An air raid last week killed 25 civilians. This is not a rare occurrence either.

There is a huge imbalance in terms of the minimal financing of civil infrastructure compared to the over-reliance on military might.

There is of course no easy solution. If you can get your hands on Robert Fisk's book 'The Great War for Civilisation' the first 100 pages or so are a good account of how the invasion and NATO's actions mirror the disastrous and horrific deeds of the Soviets a quarter of a century ago.

But sweet fuck all good will start happening in Afghanistan unless the west takes responsibility for its disastrous policies of arming and training the Islamists who they are now fighting and concentrates on supporting progressive civil institutions, continuing to provide money for Afghans to run and to build schools, hospitals, sanitation, energy sources, and other key civilian infrastructure.

Afghanistan has an amazingly rich history which we know little of - they have the intellectual wherewithal and will to deal with their own internal issues once we provide sufficient non-violent support and do not overload them with A-10 Warthogs.

The Mujhadeen that are fighting against NATO and US forces now largely grew up in the refugee camps which arose during the Soviet invasion and occupation. So in order to prevent history from repeating itself, the world has got to wake up and do everything in its power to facilitate and yes, compensate these poor people.
Damien Moran said…
An ineresting piece at this link with extracts below:http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~rparis/Globe_25Oct2006.html

"But much more is needed. This mission is the most under-resourced international stabilization operation since the Second World War. For example, there were 20.5 international peacekeepers in Kosovo per 1,000 inhabitants, 19 in Bosnia, 10 in Sierra Leone and 3.5 in Haiti. The ratio in Afghanistan is a paltry 1 to 1,000. From the beginning, the operation has been hampered by a lack of international forces to help the Kabul government establish its presence throughout the country."

"Afghanistan has also received less international aid per capita than many other war-torn countries, including East Timor, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the Solomon Islands."
Damien Moran said…
And civilians just keep on suffering from both sides activities

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
varus said…
Granted, the facts you quote are telling in themselves. But you were, were you not, advocating the pulling out of troops; and now you are pointing out the lack of troops. Civil infrastructure does ofcourse need funding, but this only has a positive effect if within a secure and nurturing environment and for that we need troops and bloody loads of them. Afganistan would have been a stable society by now if it were not for that little hic-up called the Iraq War. As soon as the attention shifted to Iraq, the troops naturally followed and so we have a situation, where we have two unfinished jobs, rather than one. This would not be a problem in a conventional war as two theatres/fronts was common in both world wars, however, they had the full supports of domestic society. Today alas, we have very little support and so we have the situation you see on the news.
Obviously, one can argue that the western populace as a whole was against the wars and so why should they now throw all their weight behind them? Well what is the alternative, a dragging war of attrition, where we fight asymetrically against a far more motivated foe? If the west wants to end these two conflicts conclusivley and successfully, then we need to approach the wars as if they were 2WW types, where our existence trully depended on the outcome. I am not sure if this is what i would argue for, but i think it is the only thing that would change the situation.

oh well...more thinking later...
Damien Moran said…
I'm not advocating the necessity of more NATO troops, although from a military point of view that is obvious what is required if you take their position as part of the solution. I don't. They are only causing more strife and more breeding grounds for resentment towards the west and sympathy/safe houses for Taliban scum.

I spoke of the need for predominant nonviolent support. NATO are not a peacekeeping force! This a myth continually perpetuated through the media.

But you are right, it is impossible to see how civilian infrastructure could be built/sustained without some form of workable internal/international security. Is the will there amongst civil society to stand up against the Taliban and secure their own local schools, hospitals, energy sources? That's a hard question to answer. First of all we'd have to win the confidence or ordinary Afghans that we actually do valuie their lives. Fact is, Karzai is right - we value their lives as cheap. Winning their confidence would mean huge efforts to support all the progressive organisations working in Afghan society for the improvement of Afghani's lives - from moderate muslims to secular liberals. http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/aid-agencies.html

Others linked here:
http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/countries/afghanistan.htm

When it comes to local NGO peace and women's rights orgs., it's really amazing to see what they achieved even during the Taliban reign. Amazing people who could do untold good with the proper support.

Afghanistan is evidently a very conservative society where women journalists are now again being deliberately targeted all too frequently by patriarchical forces of islamism. The issues are complex and as wide-ranging as the Tora Bora mountain complex is daunting.
The amateur solutions I offer are with holes, indeed quite big ones, but the current impasse - whereby the civilians are once again suffering untold horror from both insurgent and Western forces are only perpetuating the problems.

A new vision and programme is needed. And the military should have as little to do with as possible.

But ordinary adherents of Islam, that is, the ordinary Mahmoud Soap and his wife, etc. probably only give a damn about food on the table and a chance for their kids to grow up without a violent environment encompassing them.

Is a UN force made up on Islamic country recruits a viable solution to safeguard the reconstruction of the country? I don't know but it may very well be - problem is, there is fuck all aid or political will to assist the ordinary ounter get back on his/her two feet.

What did ya think of the heroin arguements.
So? said…
During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there were no other Warpac armies involved.
Damien Moran said…
That's not entirely true. See the following links:


http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034D417-96B6-175C-9DC0DEF083F1BB78&sort=Collection&item=Soviet%20Invasion%20of%20Afghanistan

http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034D5BD-96B6-175C-96660B3E4282A4D6&sort=Collection&item=Soviet%20Invasion%20of%20Afghanistan
Damien Moran said…
From Democracynow.org

UN report that NATO Strikes Kill More Civilians Than Taliban


Independent tallies have confirmed the claim of an Afghan human rights group that the U.S.-led NATO force has killed more civilians than the Taliban in the first half of this year. UN figures show at least three hundred fourteen civilians died in NATO bombings this year. Two-hundred seventy-nine were killed by the Taliban. The NATO figure does not include anywhere from forty-five to eighty-civilians reportedly killed in a NATO bombing in Helman province last week. The Los Angeles Times reports Afghan police recently barred journalists from the scene of a suicide attack on a US military convoy. The police officers explained: “Don’t go close. The Americans might shoot you.”

Withdraw, Withdraw, Withdraw!
Compensate, Compensate, Compensate!
No Justice, No Peace!

Popular Posts