Convenient Villains: Kathleen Folbigg’s Miscarriage of Justice

They – being the howling press, the screeching vox populi, and anybody…

Deserving Each Other: The PGA Tour-LIV Golf Merger

Described as acrimonious, divisive and disruptive to golf, the LIV Golf Tournament,…

Phil Lowe Builds A Cubby House!

Some of you may remember a photo of Scott Morrison building a…

Diluted Sovereignty: A Very Australian Example

Australian concepts of sovereignty have always been qualified. First came the British…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

The bottom feeders

There are a number of species in the animal world that survive…

National Museum of Australia launches environmental sustainability action…

National Museum of Australia Media Release The National Museum of Australia has launched…

Ticketing Woes: The Patchy Record of Myki

What is it about government contracts that produces the worst results and…


Inevitable Withdrawal: The US-Taliban Deal

It took gallons and flagons of blood, but it eventuated, a squeeze of history into a parchment of possibility: the Taliban eventually pushed the sole superpower on this expiring earth to a deal of some consequence. (The stress is on the some – the consequence is almost always unknown). “In principle, on paper, yes we have reached an agreement,” claimed the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on the Afghan channel ToloNews. “But it is not final until the president of the United States also agrees to it.”

The agreement entails the withdrawal (the public relations feature of the exercise teasingly calls this “pulling out”) of 5,400 troops from the current complement of 14,000 within 135 days of signature. Five military bases will close or be transferred to the Afghan government. In return, the Taliban has given an undertaking never to host forces with the intention of attacking the US and its interests.

Exactitude, however, is eluding the press and those keen to get to the marrow. Word on the policy grapevine is that this is part of an inexorable process that will see a full evacuation within 16 months, though this remains gossip.

The entire process has its exclusions, qualifications and mutual deceptions. In it is a concession, reluctant but ultimately accepted, that the Taliban was a credible power that could never be ignored. To date, the US has held nine rounds of talks, a seemingly dragged out process with one ultimate outcome: a reduction, and ultimate exit of combat forces.

The Taliban was not, as the thesis of certain US strategists, a foreign bacillus moving its way through the Afghan body politic, the imposition of a global fundamentalist corporation. Corrupt local officials of the second rank, however, were also very much part and parcel of the effort, rendering any containment strategy meaningless.

A narrative popular and equally fallacious was the notion that the Taliban had suffered defeat and would miraculously move into the back pages of history. Similar views were expressed during the failed effort by the United States to combat the Viet Cong in South Vietnam. An elaborate calculus was created, a mirage facilitated through language: the body count became a means of confusing numbers with political effect.

Time and time again, the Taliban demonstrated that B52s, well-equipped foreign forces and cruise missiles could not extricate them from the land that has claimed so many empires. Politics can only ever be the realisation of tribes, collectives, peoples; weapons and material are unkind and useful companions, but never viable electors or officials.

Even now, the desire to remain from those in over-funded think tanks and well-furnished boardrooms, namely former diplomats engaged on the Afghan project, is stubborn and delusionary. If withdrawal is to take place, goes that tune, it should hinge on a pre-existing peace agreement. An open letter published by the Atlantic Council by nine former US State Department officials previously connected with the country is a babbling affair. “If a peace agreement is going to succeed, we and others need to be committed to continued support for peace consolidation. This will require monitoring compliance, tamping down of those extremists opposed to peace, and supporting good governance and economic growth with international assistance.”

The presumptuousness of this tone is remarkable, heavy with work planning jargon and spread sheet nonsense. There is no peace to keep, nor governance worth preserving. Instead, the authors of the note, including such failed bureaucratic luminaries as John Negroponte, Robert P. Finn and Ronald E. Neumann, opt for the imperial line: the US can afford staying in Afghanistan because the Afghans are the ones fighting and dying. (Again, this is Vietnam redux, an Afghan equivalent of Vietnamisation). In their words, “US fatalities are tragic, but the number of those killed in combat make up less than 20 percent of the US troops who died in non-combat training incidents.” All good, then.

In a sign of ruthless bargaining, the Taliban continued the bloodletting even as the deal was being ironed of evident wrinkles. This movement knows nothing of peace but all about the life of war: death is its sovereign; corpses, its crop. On Monday, the Green Village in Kabul was targeted by a truck bomb, leaving 16 dead (this toll being bound to rise). It was a reminder that the Taliban, masters of whole swathes of the countryside, can also strike deep in the capital itself. The killings also supplied the Afghan government a salutary reminder of its impotence, underscored by the fact that President Ashraf Ghani played no role in the Qatar talks.

This leaves us with the realisation that much cruelty is on the horizon. The victory of the Taliban is an occasion to cheer the bloodying of the imperialist’s nose. But they will not leave documents of enlightenment, speeches to inspire. This agreement will provide little comfort for those keen to read a text unmolested or seek an education free of crippling dogma. Interior cannibalisation is assured, with civil war a distinct possibility. Tribal war is bound to continue.

As this takes place, the hope for President Donald Trump and his officials will no doubt be similar to the British when they finally upped stakes on instruction from Prime Minister David Cameron: forget that the whole thing ever happened.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. New England Cocky

    The imperialist USA (United States of Apartheid) was defeated in Vietnam after Whitlam sensibly withdrew Australia forces in 1972. The US State Department retaliated with the CIA assistance in the 1975 Dismissal.

    The current defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan is a repeat of the same poor US military strategies.

    I am reminded also that Tobruk fell after the US forces replaced Australians who were withdrawn to defend Australia against the Japanese on the Kokoda Track in 1942. General Rommel was reported as saying, “Give me an army of Australian men and German officers and I will conquer the world”.

  2. Uncle Davy

    The backstory:

    In geopolitics, A’stan is known as ‘The Endgame’;
    The US covertly entered A’stan 6 months before the Soviet invasion and occupation, 1979-89;
    A pic still exists of Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski training a young Osama bin Laden;
    The USSR invaded to safeguard its investments infrastructure and development;
    “[The US] wanted to control Central Asia” – former US Secretary of State, Clinton, see (1:38):
    The mujahideen (who the US funded and supported) morphed into the Taliban (aka the Resistance);
    After the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 SEP 2001, the OCT 2001 invasion and occupation of A’stan was the US’s 1st step of keeping Iran surrounded (on its east) – the next step being the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq (on Iran’s west);
    The invasion and occupation of A’stan also had the desired effect of keeping China contained on its western border (see China Containment policy);
    The Taliban banned the production of opium causing a heroin ‘drought’ in Western nations. 10. After the invasion, the US controlled the poppy fields so as the CIA could maintain supply to US users & addicts. Gary Webb paid with his life attempting to expose the CIA’s role in drug trafficking who was found with 2 bullet wounds to the back of his head – the coroner ruling “suicide” (sic);
    The 1st ‘puppet’ president imposed on A’stan by the US was fomer UNOCAL (oil corporation) exec, Hamid Kharzai;
    Any president of A’stan is little more than a mayor of its capital city, Kabul;
    Having met an Afghani in 2001, he advised [quote] “Afghanis can be your best friend – or can be your worst enemy”. Neighbouring India, holds a similar belief.

  3. totaram

    No one it seems has asked this question or offered an explanation of any kind: where do the Taliban get their weapons and ammunition from? Where do they get the tonnes of military grade high explosive they use on a regular basis? They have been fighting now for decades.

    To my mind, they cannot manufacture these things locally, in sufficient quantity to sustain their fight. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had a solid supply line from the North and China. Who supplies the Taliban?

  4. Uncle Davy

    The Mujahideen (which became the Taliban) was supplied & trained by the US State Dept & CIA, aka ‘The Company’. Gun running & drug smuggling are aspects of de-stabilisation programs during a nation’s subjugation by the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: