From the beginning, U.S. imperialism's war against Afghanistan had the logic of establishing a protectorate in the country. After carrying out a brutal military assault and overthrowing the Taliban regime, there is currently no prospect for a cohesive national government to administer the country. Karzai remains dependent on the imperialists for military support, financial backing, and development of basic infrastructure, say officials in both Washington and Kabul.

Reluctantly, Washington is turning its attention to what will be needed for the imperialists to keep the country from splintering. A CIA report released at the end of February warned of the "threat of Afghan chaos" and argued for steps to "restrain the competition for power among rival warlords."

"There are tensions between the central and regional authorities and competitions for power within the regions," said a CIA official. Referring to proposals to equip and train an Afghan army, the official said, "If it takes six months or more than a year to create a single army what do we do in the meantime to deter war among the warlords?"

"Chaos" and "warlords" are terms routinely used by U.S. government officials and military personnel to describe the political situation in other countries to justify their supposed "enlightened" intervention. In reality, the "warlords" are regional leaders and rival groupings in Afghanistan who retain armed men at their disposal as one of the ways to advance their interests.

U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld laid out four options being considered in Washington at a Pentagon press conference February 21. According to several news wire reports, the first option outlined by Rumsfeld was the deployment of as many as 30,000 U.S. troops to "police the whole country." AP reported they would "essentially occupy Afghanistan." At present some 4,000 troops are stationed in the country, backed up by tens of thousands more in surrounding countries and on ships in the Arabian Gulf.  
 
Resistance to foreign occupation
"A disciplined and well-armed force"--meaning U.S. troops--"could keep Afghanistan's internal rivalries from exploding into nation-threatening violence," wrote the Associated Press. On the "minus side" for the U.S. rulers was Afghanistan's "centuries-long history of resisting foreign occupations. Public opinion could unite against a one-country peacekeeping force," the article warned.

Rumsfeld said the U.S. administration is also considering a plan to carve Afghanistan into zones to be administered by several imperialist powers.

This is the course followed in both Bosnia and Kosova, where France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States each has a region within both countries under their military control. A total of some 42,000 troops are in Kosova, backed up by 7,500 more soldiers in Albania and Macedonia. U.S.-dominated NATO has also stationed some 60,000 troops in Bosnia, a territory one-twelfth the size of Afghanistan.

The U.S. defense secretary said Washington is also looking into expanding the British-dominated forces stationed in Kabul, and reinforcing it "to police the entire country." The force presently carries out 24-hour patrols in the capital and is slated to reach a maximum strength of around 5,000 soldiers. But there are growing signs from both London and Paris that neither wants to pursue this option, partly because the force is under U.S. military command.

The final "option" outlined by Rumsfeld is to build up an Afghan army, a course that few see as viable since there is no authoritative central government for the army to serve. The AP report dryly noted that "training and equipping such a force would take time, which would give warlords and remaining Taliban and al Qaeda forces opportunities to regroup, strengthen, and attack each other."

With the momentum from the September 11 attacks largely behind them, and the justifications for their military action in Afghanistan under the banner of the "war on terror" wearing thin, defending the government in Kabul is becoming Washington's major preoccupation in the country. On February 16–17, for example, U.S. aircraft were dispatched to deal blows to forces opposed to the Karzai administration. The U.S. pilots dropped bombs on "enemy troops" near the southeastern city of Khost.

A Washington Post editorial argued that "the Bush administration needs to shift the weight of relationships whenever possible from local Afghan commanders to Karzai's allies and appointees."  
 
'An American imperial endeavor'
Seeking to maintain the veneer of an "international coalition," the February 26 New York Times called on Washington to "lead the way in persuading the international community to expand the [ISAF] peacekeeping force beyond the capital." At the same time, wrote the editors, the U.S. rulers should "leave open the possibility of playing a more direct role later."

"Turning peacekeeping over to the Pentagon now," noted the editorial, "might...reinforce the mistaken view that the reshaping of Afghanistan is an American imperial endeavor."

Karzai and other representatives of the interim government have pleaded with the British government and other imperialist powers represented in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to bolster the numbers and range of the occupation force.

Preparing for discussions with British foreign secretary Jack Straw in New Delhi, Afghan foreign ministry spokesperson Omar Samad said that Karzai would "probably be asking the British and others for expanding that [the ISAF's] mandate and expanding that force to other cities." Until an Afghan army is set up, he said, "we feel there is a need for a limited presence of international forces under the UN umbrella."

Samad also said that the country needs $15-20 billion over the next decade for reconstruction. To date, the imperialist powers and others have said they will contribute around $5 billion.  
 
London reluctant to expand force
London has responded less than enthusiastically to calls for the expansion and reinforcement of the ISAF occupation force. Although the force is presently commanded by British general John McColl, final authority rests with the U.S. command in Afghanistan. On February 23 McColl reported that British troops in Kabul had come under fire.

While reviving memories of the outcome of past British attempts to occupy and rule Afghanistan, the British Defense Ministry has complained that its forces are overextended worldwide.

"It is hardly encouraging," wrote Anatole Lieven in a commentary published in the February 25 London-based Financial Times, "that in April Britain is supposed to hand over leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to a very hesitant Turkey and withdraw most of its troops, after only three months."

Lieven said that imperialist troops should be kept in Afghanistan for "as long as the country is still threatened by renewed civil war." Otherwise, he wrote, "both western diplomacy and the United Nations might as well shut up shop and leave such countries to the sophisticated diplomatic attentions of the U.S. Air Force."

In a February 15 statement, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Paris was willing to keep its troops in Kabul beyond April. However, the statement also reminded other powers of the June 30 deadline established by the United Nations resolution under which the force was established. That resolution, said the ministry, also "stipulated that the force should be deployed in Kabul and its environs."

The German government, on the other hand, is looking for ways to start putting troops on foreign soil. Berlin said that it is prepared to keep its troops in Kabul for several years. Whatever the exact outcome, all the European imperialist powers remain heavily dependent on the Pentagon for logistical support and transport aircraft to ferry troops and supplies into and out of the country.

In another sign of its scant resources and total reliance on U.S. support, the Afghan government is reportedly discussing the adoption of the U.S. dollar as its official currency. Officials of the Washington-led International Monetary Fund have encouraged the move.

Karzai's finance minister, Hedayat Amin Arsala, a former economist at the World Bank, said in late February that "we are able to finance only 3 or 4 percent of our current budget from domestic resources."  
 
Deployment of U.S. forces in Georgia
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has announced that it has received the agreement of the government of Georgia to send up to 200 Special Operations forces, or Green Berets, to the former Soviet republic. A senior military official said that the number could grow "depending on how the operation unfolds," according to the New York Times. The troops' role would be limited to training and the provision of military equipment, said another defense official.

Officials presented the planned deployment as another move against "terrorism." The troops will join operations against guerrilla fighters in the Pankisi gorge, an area northeast of Tbilisi, the capital. They may also assist with a crackdown on Chechen forces, claimed by Moscow to have found haven in Georgia.

In broader Central Asia, the Pentagon has already stationed troops and aircraft in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, as well as in the semicolonial countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan itself.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home