The month of September 2023 marked the anniversary of two events key to understanding U.S.-led imperialism targeting Afghanistan and the Afghan masses. The first, September 11, was the 22nd anniversary since hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. With no evidence linking these actions to Afghanistan, the Bush administration launched a full-scale invasion of the country the following month–initiating the U.S./NATO’s so-called “Global War on Terror.”
The second date, September 14, marked the one year anniversary of the establishment of the “Afghan Fund,” a Switzerland-based fund set up by the United States after its withdrawal from Afghanistan to steal away part of Afghanistan’s sovereign assets. To this date, not a single cent of the $3.5 billion has gone to the Afghan people who face a dire humanitarian crisis. The devastating impacts of the United States’ international asset freeze and sanctions campaign against Afghanistan could not be clearer, yet they are choices which continue to be pursued.
This month’s Afghanistan News Update includes an interview with military veteran and anti-war activist Matthew Hoh who held a number of positions with the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department in Iraq and Afghanistan variably from 2004 to 2009. In September 2009, he resigned from his position with the U.S. State Department to protest the war on Afghanistan. Since then, he has worked with a number of foreign policy and anti-war organizations, both formally and informally. Hoh is Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, a certified Peer Support Specialist for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder for veterans, and a former U.S. Senate candidate for the Green Party of North Carolina.
You were one of only a few U.S. State Department officials to resign in protest over the lies told to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you summarize the false justifications used during the U.S./NATO-led war on Afghanistan specifically?
I think the first lie was that the Taliban were involved with the 9/11 attacks and the United States had no choice but to invade Afghanistan. This was closely followed by the lie that the Taliban refused to negotiate and would not have surrendered. Within this conventional understanding, the United States and the West generally diminished the importance of the decades-long civil war in Afghanistan and assumed the Taliban government had no support among the population.
During the occupation, the United States’ official position whitewashed those it had installed into power. It redefined warlords and drug lords as aspiring democrats and human rights defenders. These lies, which persisted throughout the 20-year U.S. occupation, enabled all U.S. administrations to say they had no choice but to escalate and continue the war. In my opinion, other lies that sustained the war included:
The U.S. military, particularly after Obama's “surge,” was making progress on the battlefield–“hard-won gains” was the oft-heard rhetoric, even as the Taliban grew militarily and politically stronger every year.
The U.S. reconstruction effort was yielding great economic, development and human rights gains, often referring to women's rights and education, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Afghanistan was a progressing democracy even as each election was more fraudulent than the previous.
Corruption could be controlled and did not dominate the installed Afghan government, which was the definition of a kleptocracy.
The Taliban were running a criminal nexus with narcotics producers and international terrorism, whereas it was the Afghan government and military that dominated the illicit drug trade.
The Taliban were a fringe revolutionary movement despite clear evidence that they had legitimate grievances and a constituency that grew every year in support of insurgency and resistance.
The Afghan people, especially non-Pashtuns, would never welcome a Taliban return to power, although they did just that in province after province when U.S. money disappeared; Afghans often saw the Taliban as a much better option than the cruel and predatory Afghan security forces supported by the United States.
Skipping ahead to today, what lies continue to justify U.S. sanctions on Afghanistan? Why do you think the sanctions continue?
The U.S.-led sanctions policy imposed on the country since August 2021 depends on the narrative and lies I outlined above, as well as a popular misunderstanding in the United States that sanctions punish "rogue” regimes and “help” oppressed people. The narrative and lies dominate with the help of compliant Western vassals and media that are subservient to their corporate sponsors and government interests.
For the U.S. government, sanctions ideally force suffering populations to overthrow their governments and replace them with leaders more compliant to U.S. and Western interests. In reality, sanctions rarely produce these outcomes, especially unilateral U.S. sanctions applied to many countries, which is a violation of international law, as can be shown for nations such as Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela.
The myth that sanctions are effective, follow international law, and support human rights is nevertheless foundational to U.S. foreign policy-making and thinking. In Afghanistan, the sanctions are designed to punish the Taliban for its victory over the United States. They save face and rebuke the Taliban and Afghans for humiliating them.
Given your experience, can you more broadly explain why U.S. foreign policy works the way it does today? In other words, what systems are at play here which serve to embolden the demands of U.S. foreign policy and military officials?
While people in other countries should not listen to U.S. demands, most do not get to decide. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, when the United States established itself as the hegemonic world power, many political leaders saw it as to their benefit to side with the United States. While there may have been some benefits, the United States was quick to punish nations that dared to maintain their political and economic independence. This was the case in the 1990s with Iraq and Serbia, which were made examples of by the U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively.
George W. Bush continued such policies with the U.S. invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. After 9/11, Bush declared: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” President Barack Obama vastly expanded the reach of the so-called “Global War on Terror,” most notably in the U.S. wars on Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as through expansion of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). The results have been unmistakably catastrophic.
As the economies of the “collective West” diminish with the rise of the Chinese, Indian and other economies, including through the formation of the BRICS organization by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, many countries suffering from Western colonialism and imperialism are rising up against demands that keep them poor and flout international law. New options are becoming available to less powerful countries to forge transnational relationships and pursue policies that may more effectively serve their people’s interests.
ADDITIONAL READINGS
August 31, 2023 by Michael Galant for Center for Economic and Policy Research
The United States continues to pursue economic policies designed to isolate Afghanistan, despite no evidence of any positive results. Women and children continue to be the most severely impacted, and a drought is expected to upturn the country’s already fragile agricultural sector.
Why Won’t the United States Close Guantanamo?
August 21, 2023 by Maha Hilal for Middle East Eye
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2024 passed by the U.S. Senate once again prohibits the closure or transfer of political prisoners from the U.S.-controlled Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Dr. Hilal argues for its closure, as well as reparations to survivors, a disproportionate amount of whom are Afghan.
Western Arms Proliferate in Afghanistan, Spike Violence
September 15, 2023 by Amitabha Roychowdhury for Peoples Dispatch
When the U.S./NATO fled Afghanistan in 2021, they left behind a huge cache of arms, ammunition and sophisticated military equipment which found its way into the black market, leading experts to fear risks of increased transnational terrorism and regional instability.
China Becomes First to Name New Afghan Ambassador Under Taliban
September 13, 2023 by Mohammad Yunus Yawar and Charlotte Greenfield for Reuters
While the Taliban have not been officially recognized by any foreign government, China’s new ambassador to Afghanistan aims to continue advancing dialogue and cooperation between the two countries. A step which could prevent further international isolation of Afghanistan's ruling government.
No Compromise, No Retreat!
BAP Solidarity Network’s Afghanistan Committee
Banner photo: Some armed men have pledged to support the Afghan army in defending Kabul against the Taliban (Courtesy Reuters)