America is performing its familiar role of propping up a dictator
As in Vietnam, Karzai is going to rule over an equally tiny island of corruption
Could there be a more accurate description of the Obama-Brown message of congratulations to the fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan? First the Palestinians held fair elections in 2006, voted for Hamas and were brutally punished for it - they still are - and then the Iranians held fraudulent elections in June which put back the weird Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) regard as a dictator. But now we have the venal, corrupt, sectarian Karzai in power after a poll far more ambitiously rigged than the Iranian version, and - yup, we love him dearly and accept his totally fraudulent election.
And now we are still trying to persuade his opponent to join a national unity government, an administration led by the man whose vote-stuffing was the very reason that same leader of the opposition - the good pseudo-Pashtun Abdullah Abdullah - refused to run in a second round of elections. And Karzai got his fawning congrats from the Obama-Brown twins. So that's OK then. Wagons Ho. For Westmoreland, read McChrystal. Send in the brave 40,000 to join the rest of the US cavalry as it fights its way west - or rather south-west - to the Khe Sanh of Afghanistan in Year Eight of the War on Terror.
The March of Folly was Barbara Tuchman's title for her book on governments - from Troy to Vietnam-era America - that followed policies contrary to their own interests. And well may we remember the Vietnam bit. As Patrick Bury, a veteran British soldier of our current Afghan adventure, pointed out yesterday, Vietnam is all too relevant.
Back in 1967, the Americans oversaw a "democratic" election in Vietnam which gave the presidency to the corrupt ex-General Nguyen Van Thieuman. In a fraudulent election which the Americans declared to be "generally fair" - he got 38 per cent of the vote - Thieu's opponents wouldn't run against him because the election was a farce.
In 1967, Washington needed the elections to give legitimacy to this revolting dictator - and thus provide credibility to its own military occupation of Vietnam in the war against Communism. As in Vietnam - where Saigon was a lonely kingdom of brutal power totally isolated from the rest of the country - Karzai is going to rule over an equally tiny island of corruption, protected by US mercenaries while the Americans perform their familiar role of propping up a dictator.
As ex-Lieutenant Bury sagely points out, the Afghan war is "campaigning on a par with the 19th-century British colonial army trying to manage the unwinnable... What was or is the strategy behind these long, bloody conflicts?" Well, in 1967, it was the possible communisation of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Now it is Pashtunistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan. For us, the vast ignorant "plebes", it's supposed to stop the Taliban/al-Qa'ida beasts from attacking our looming towers all over again, albeit that the 2001 murderers in question largely hailed from that friendly, moderate, brutal, oligarchical monarchical dictatorship called Saudi Arabia where - thank the good gods - they don't hold elections.
But it's part of a dreary pattern. US forces were participating in a civil war in Vietnam while claiming they were supporting democracy and the sovereignty of the country. In Lebanon in 1982, they claimed to be supporting the "democratically" elected President Amin Gemayel and took the Christian Maronite side in the civil war. And now, after Disneyworld elections, they are on the Karzai-government side against the Pashtun villagers of southern Afghanistan among whom the Taliban live. Where is the next My Lai? Journalists should avoid predictions. In this case I will not. Our Western mission in Afghanistan is going to end in utter disaster.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZVideos
Books
Re: America is performing its familiar role of propping up a dictator
By P, D at Nov 09, 2009 08:23 AM
I read through these comments and I am in utter disbelief. Alla and Andre you have picked on the least significant parts of this TIMELY article, in it Fisk is talking about the current illegal war in Afghanistan and its comparison to the American invasion of Vietnam. Alla Nikonov - to pick of his quote about Iranian views on Ahmadinejadand ignoring the focus of the piece is totally disingenuous and simply shows you as someone trying to prove their own distorted view of others. Stating that Fisk is 'firmly rooted in Western Imperialism' is frankly absurd. He already stated in this very piece that the US was propping up a Dictator in Vietnam, that it was an occupation and that Washington was a central part in fraudulent thus illegal elections – how does this support Western Imperialism? Anyone with a clue about international politics and mainstream Western media know what Fisk is saying is the diametric opposite. He is clearly not portraying the Vietnam adventure as the US were only participating, to say so simply ignores the two previous paragraphs and all of Fisk’s previous work.
Andre Guimond - Fisk was in Iran throughout the disputed elections process and was reporting widely from there, you should read some of his work, he is not and never has been ‘embedded’ and is often the only western journalist who reports from the Middle East at street level. I think this gives him some credibility in making judgements about the mood of Iran. In addition this is an newspaper article, not an essay – do you think he has enough space to discuss the specifics of power in Iran when writing about Afghanistan?
Nikonov - how on Earth can you read Fisk and believe that he is supporting Western Imperialism, every stroke of his pen is steeped in anti-imperial wit and scorn. He is presuming that you - the reader are read enough to keep up with his humour and sarcasm. His piece is a commentary on how bad the mainstream press is in both the US and Britain - can you really not see this? I am truly amazed, soon I will be expecting to see you write Noam Chomsky is a pro capitalist agent for the rich.
Best
Reply this comment
Re:
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Nov 11, 2009 07:17 AM
Like Peter Devin, I can't seem to reconcile the comments written here by Alla Nikonov with what I read in Fisk's commentary. I also find the "scandalized" tone of the comments rather misplaced.
I'll concede that Fisk uses hyperbole ("everyone" thinks Ahmadinejad is a dicator, etc.). It's not my favorite choice of style by far, but that's his way of writing. One does oneself a real disservice by taking this figure of speech literally!
My own preference would be if people focused their critique on the main points of the article instead of all these side issues.
Fisk's analogy between the current state of affairs in Afghanistan and the early stages of the Vietnam war seems plausible to me.
My maind criticism, is more fundamental, namely that his piece is rather depressing. I'm more interested in articles highlighting potential solutions than repeating how everything is rotten -- however true and necessary this may be. The former is more conducive to action, the latter to depressive apathy.
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
Questions...
By Guimond, Andre at Nov 07, 2009 13:07 PM
Mr. Fisk,
Could you please provide the evidence for the claims of "everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) [regarding Ahmadinejad] as a dictator"? Evidence aside, I also find this a highly problematic formulation as he wouldn't, or couldn't, be a "dictator" if the Supreme Council didn't want him to be - thus perhaps making the Supreme Council the more powerful body in Iran, no? What I'm trying to get at as that locating the source of authoritarian power (and, presumably, most of the countries' problems) in Ahmadinejad, rather than identifying the problem as the system of control imposed by the entire governing body, is reductive and, frankly, too easy. The people of Iran deserve more thought than that.
Otherwise, I agree that the "mission" (how is it "ours," by the way? Did we as Canadians, Americans or Brits vote on it and come to an agreement?) is going to end in utter disaster - but only if it keeps going this way, if we don't demand a stop to it and all wars, demand reparations for the Afghan people, demand that we listen to Afghanis and do as they ask (as is "our" moral and legal obligation as an occupying power). I would also add that it started and continues as a disaster, it doesn't just have the potential to end that way.
And, as Alla noted below, portraying the US as "participating in" the Vietnam war - not starting, not provoking, not planning, but "participating!" - and the Vietnam war as a "civil war," as if it was already happening with no American involvement whatsoever and the US just popped in and participated, is disgustingly dishonest and a gross reinterpretation of the history of American imperialism and aggression. Perhaps you should revisit the Pentagon Papers, sir, or countless other works that address the facts.
Alla Nikonov,
I would ask the same question of your claim: if it is true that only about 10% of Iranians do not see Ahmadinejad as a "legit prez," could you please provide support for that claim?
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
The user who created this comment no longer exists.