Oct 7, 2007

Afghanistan: the story so far.

by Dave Riley

Andy Newman has a considered and thoughtful post (Afghanistan -- what happened) on the recent history of Afghanistan which takes to task some of the left's preferred telling of the narrative.

He also integrates that history with a polemic against all this hue and cry about secularism as a political principle today.

While I'm little rusty on all the historical details -- nonetheless I concur with Andy's major arguments and note that at the time of the Soviet involvement/'invasion', how hard it was to stand firmly in defence of it while the US continued is savage backing of the landlord led resistance to the Kabul government of the PDPA.

Andy reminds us of a few salient facts:
had there not been a coup in 1978, the PDPA would have been wiped out, and in those circumstances surely socialists in the West have to back the judgement of socialists on the ground faced with that threat? Also, what Neale describes as a “revolution from above” was actually an urban led series of reforms against landlordism and oppression of women, why should western socialists oppose that? Neale opposes the reformist government because the changes were “top down”, how could it be otherwise? The population were 1.5 million, of which only 30000 to 50000 industrial workers. The rural population were poor and dispersed, with a per capita income of $116, and only one telephone per 10000 inhabitants, and one car per 500 inhabitants. To say there should be no reform from above in such circumstances is to say there should be no change for the better at all.
And this was indeed the contradiction of the stance embraced unashamedly by a section of the far left who could only see the Soviet presence devoid of its naked and US imperialist context.

While today the Soviet Union is out of the picture -- there still exists another ready compromise being embraced in regard to Islamism that has clouded the positioning of some sections on the far left.

I had contributed* to a debate on Polizeros on the topic of:The Left quiet about Ahmadinejad? which is part of this ongoing exchange I think.

This may seem contradictory as on the one hand you have this advocacy of supporting the PDPA because it was progressive, and on the other you have the argument that we should support Iran against imperialism despite the fact that the mullahs are definitely not progressive.

It is not our job to shore up imperialistic propaganda for the sake of beating the war drum, promoting Islamophobia and maybe invading Iran. And the core question in regard to the Soviet 'invasion' of Afghanistan and Iran vis a vis the US killing machine is taking sides. I know it's not neat nor comfortable nor a simple exercise. Nor does it presume that you remain blind (or lie) to what's happening on the ground in Iran.

As Tariq Ali pointed out to me in 2003 the clerics are so hated in Iran that you'll probably have more people welcoming any US troops than you got in Iraq if an invasion occurred. But it will still be a mess and not a pushover. And Iranian nationalism will be incited.

And that's the key point: no matter what element of Iran any one thinks may warrant changing -- it has to be the work of the Iranian masses themselves in making that change come about -- without interference.

Thats' the same issue for Iraq even today isn't it? Regardless of what you lor I may think of any element in the resistance?

The whole modern history of Afghanistan is a brutal lesson in that precept. Where in the instance of being blinded by one or two elements of the mix -- the Soviet 'invasion' / the PDPA 'coup'-- a section of the left found themselves in the contradictory position of political alignment with US imperialism. Just as today, a laudable penchant for trumpeting secularism and supporting gay rights is embraced devoid of that overbearing imperialist context.

If you think that warps and contains our discourse somewhat -- of course it does.

All I can say is: stiff chedder. Politics & history ain't neat.

*Are you serious, Bob? Correct me if you think I’m in any way incorrect in my assessment., but hasn’t the US administration of George Bush been aggressively talking up an invasion of Iran for some time? Is this something that Polizeros wants to fall in behind in any way? In any way?

No one can “totally support” the resistance in Iraq or “totally support” the resistance in Afghanistan or “totally support” the resistance in Palestine…but that doesn’t mean that you are duty bound to fuel Bush’s warmongering machine by softening up the anti war opposition. Afterall, this “left” you refer to is not , I hope, a bunch of liberals.

That’s the difference. I always thought that between what makes up the left and what makes up the liberals: the left takes side. Liberals procrastinate. And in the situation of Iran versus the might of the US killing machine the side taking is, I’d hope, self evident.

Last time I looked Iran hadn’t invaded anyone. Last time I looked the US was dead set keen to invade Iran. And to do that this same US was whipping up as much Islamophobia it could muster to facilitate that and its other concurrent invasions.

The same problem occurred during the Iran/Iraq war of the eighties. When the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein dutifully did the US’s bidding in trying to destroy the Iranian revolution. This was a massive slaughter towards which some side taking was warranted I’d think. There was even a dedicated section of the Iranian left — the Mujahedeen — who sought to invade with Saddam’s troops.

That was indeed ’side taking’…but how smart was it,despite that lefts’ justified abhorrence of the Tehran regime. But hey! weren’t the Mujahedeen being as you’d prefer them to be in way of a thoughtful left?

Then on we go to the 1982 British incursion against the Argentinian occupation of the Falklands. No one in a purple fit could have offered “total support” to the Argentinian dictatorship — but who's side should we “of the left” have been on?

History is like that big time.It’s never neat. And you never have the easy option of selecting the degree to which you’d prefer to offer ’support’.

Let’s go way way back to the French Revolution and angst over the Thermidor and maybe replay the same sort of thing you’re writing here in regard to Ahmadinejad and instead allude to Napoleon Bonaparte. We could then ask the question: why is the Left quiet about Napoleon? Or Robespierre?

Or go back to the American Revolution and denigrate George Washington for being a slave owner. To paraphrase: “Just because someone opposes the British Empire does not automatically make them a friend - or even an ally. The foe of my foe is not necessarily a friend. Lefties who oppose slavery should oppose slavery in the American Colonies too. Solidarity need not and should not be unquestioning.”

FYI –Here is some background to Ahmadinejad’s visit from a left POV:
Lost in Translation: Ahmadinejad and the Media
Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Transcript of Ahmadinejad’s U.N. Speech NPR.org, September 19, 2006
Behind the media frenzy over Ahmadinejad