Opportunity for peace movement in Afghanistan debate

While the U.S. war in Iraq has been widely opposed since well before it was launched, its intervention in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 was opposed only by the left and peace movement. But now, for the first time since then, space is opening up for a broad debate on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. The trigger, ironically, is the pledge of a so-called "peace candidate" to further escalate that war.

In his debate with John McCain about Iraq policy over the last two weeks, Barack Obama has reaffirmed his promises to withdraw U.S. combat brigades, except for a residual force, from Iraq by 2010. While the residual force, and failure to mention Blackwater's mercenary armies, gives enough wiggle room for him to betray his promise after taking office, his criticism of a "misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq" indicates that a struggle to reduce U.S. expenditures and reclaim the ability to redeploy U.S. interventionist armies elsewhere is really underway.

Obama makes clear that one main reason he favors force reductions in Iraq is to be able to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, calling for "more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance". He also repeated his reckless call last week for intervention in Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda targets. Obama's escalation plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan continue the Democratic tradition of trying to out-hawk the Republicans, instead of tapping the deep well of popular revulsion to war to support a non-militaristic foreign policy. In no other way than this do the Democrats exhibit so clearly their allegiance to U.S. empire rather than to the will, and the interests, of the American people.

Liberal bloggers Dan Kovalik and Robert Scheer criticized this stance in the Huffington Post today. In an "Open Letter to Barack Obama", Kovalik pointed out that Obama's call for "changing the mindset which leads us to war" is inconsistent with his call for escalation in Afghanistan (as well as with his pledge to increase the size of the armed forces and expand the "drug war" in Latin America).

Yesterday, centrist foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski, purported architect of U.S. support for the Afghan anti-Soviet resistance in the 1980's, also came out against Obama's call to expand the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan . "We run the risk that our military presence ... will gradually turn the Afghan population entirely against us", he told the Financial Times. Brzezinski cautioned Obama to avoid a four-front "war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran at the same time." The realist Brzezinski's decision to criticize Obama from the left illustrates how limited is Obama's break with establishment foreign policy doctrines.

With Obama calling for escalation and Brzezinski suggesting caution, there is now an opportunity for the peace movement to get a hearing if it calls for withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan in opposition to the Obama escalation plan. However, the peace movement is currently focused on heading off a Bush administration strike on Iran. While the danger of such a strike has recently receded somewhat, it does remain a possible last-ditch move by neocon hardliners. But it would be shortsighted for us to oppose only the administration's Iran saber-rattling and ignore the hawkish plans of the Democratic frontrunner.