I didn't know Ramsey Clark did that! That's great! I love Ramsey Clark - he's an amazing man. I have one of his books - "The Fire this Time".. it's a great book! Yes I agree that it's very grassroots and I will say I've been rooting for them all along. :-)
kaukab siddique wrote: > > > This could signify that some among the Left have seen through the US > propaganda against the Taliban. > > There couldn't be anything more grassroots than the Taliban but the > Left has a long history of knee jerk opposition to Islam. > > They should talk to Ramsey Clark, my friend, who is on the Left, but > defended the Blind Shaikh's rights pro bono. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To: > From: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:57:42 -0700 > Subject: [bangla-vision] Should the left call for Taliban victory? > > > > > Should the left call for Taliban victory? > > > Socialist Worker > > > AS SOCIALISTS, we support the right of oppressed peoples to fight for > self-determination unreservedly, just as we oppose imperialism, > without caveat. > > This perspective is generally accepted by the left without question in > contexts such as Latin America or Africa, where bitter fights against > U.S. and European imperialism have been fought and, in some cases, won. > > Yet, when it comes to the Middle East and Afghanistan today there is > suddenly much less clarity about what radicals and Marxists should be > saying. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of Afghanistan, > which has suffered under the yoke of U.S. imperialism since 2001 (with > active U.S. interference in the country since at least the 1970s). > > The idea that the Taliban, as a movement fighting against U.S. > occupation, is a force we should be supporting is, unfortunately, a > somewhat controversial position to hold, even on the far left. This is > a serious mistake and speaks both to the extent to which Islamophobia > has penetrated the left, as well as to the lack of understanding of > the social dynamics of an oppressed and devastated country like > Afghanistan. > > We are all familiar with the lies and excuses used to justify the > invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 > attacks. Bush and his coterie of crooks and warmongers told us that > only a military invasion could liberate the people, and especially the > women, of Afghanistan from the brutal, misogynistic and "medieval" > Taliban movement. > > There was no mention, of course, of the substantial support offered to > the Taliban regime in the late 1990s when Clinton was president and in > the early days of the Bush presidency, nor of the long and ugly > history of U.S. intervention in Central and South Asia, which was an > important precondition for the rise of Islamism. > > We should condemn unreservedly the oppression of women and the general > social conservatism of the pre-2001 Taliban regime, as well, of > course, as their efforts to cut deals with regional and global > superpowers against the interests of the vast majority of Afghans. > However, we must also unreservedly condemn the racism and Islamophobia > used as an ideological fig leaf to justify invasion and imperialism, > and it is the left's weakness on this issue, which has blinded many to > the new realities on the ground in Afghanistan. > > Before addressing the important question of who the Taliban actually > are, it is important to understand the material conditions Afghans > face. Afghanistan is a devastated country. It is ranked at or near the > bottom of a broad range of social indicators, such as levels of > poverty, infant mortality, literacy, per capita income, prevalence of > easily preventable diseases and so forth. Most major cities in > Afghanistan, including the capital Kabul, are in ruins (despite claims > of "reconstruction" by NATO imperialists) and decent roads, > electricity, clean water, sanitation and basic social services are > unheard of for most of the population, especially in the rural areas. > The majority of the population ekes out a living on a subsistence > basis, and the struggle for survival is the overarching concern for > most Afghans. > > In a nutshell, there is no Afghan working class or progressive petit > bourgeoisie to speak of, and the major social classes (aside from the > puppet regime and it's assortment of bandits and thugs) are the poor > peasantry and the Islamic clergy. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > THE SIGNIFICANCE of this to a discussion of anti-imperialist > resistance in Afghanistan should be obvious to any serious historical > materialist. This question cannot be thought about in the abstract, it > must be considered in light of the material realities on the ground. > Such realities necessarily shape the kinds of social forces and the > character of class struggle in that country and make it highly likely > that any grassroots resistance will have a strongly religious > character, given that the rural clergy are the only force capable of > uniting the peasantry against the comprador ruling class. > > The following point cannot be stressed enough; whilst the U.S. remains > in Afghanistan, economic and social development will not occur much > beyond current levels. This in turn means that the Taliban, as a > broad-based movement of poor farmers and lower clergy, is the face of > anti-imperialist resistance in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. > > To put it another way, if we, as avowed anti-imperialists, intend to > wait around for a resistance movement that agrees with us on every > issue, including the need to fight the oppression of women, gays, > racial and religious minorities, etc., we'll be waiting a long time. > The Taliban is the resistance in Afghanistan and we must support it, > critically, but unreservedly. > > The Taliban that ruled Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion no > longer exists. The U.S. and NATO routinely refer to any act of > resistance as the work of the "Taliban" (meaning the followers of > Mullah Omar), much as every act of resistance in Iraq was the work of > "Baath loyalists." > > To be sure, there are attacks being carried out by people who support > the former regime, but many, perhaps most, resistance fighters have no > particular loyalty to the former leadership and some are actively > hostile to it. > > Anand Gopal, one of the few independent journalists actively trying to > find out what is actually happening in Afghanistan has written some > very useful and insightful work on this, and as he points out, the > ranks of the Taliban have been swelled in recent years by rural > peasants who have been radicalized as a result of US/NATO brutality, > including the indiscriminate air attacks which have killed thousands > of Afghans. > > The Taliban are increasingly espousing a strong nationalist message > and, in some cases, have substantially moderated their social > conservatism in order to build a more broad-based and effective > resistance movement. > > It is also the case that the "Taliban" is effectively a blanket term > for a coalition of groups, some drawn from the tiny strata of educated > middle class Afghans, which aim to eject foreign troops from their > country. In short, when the U.S. and its allies use the term "Taliban" > they want us to think of public stonings, music bans and > ultra-conservative clerics--and if we follow their lead we do a grave > disservice to the Afghan resistance and only help to perpetuate > Islamophobic caricatures of "crazed, bearded extremists." > > There is no fundamental difference between the liberation theology > movements in South America and the popular Islamist resistance > movements in the Middle East and Asia, movements such as Hezbollah, > Hamas and the Taliban. To be sure, the former were less socially > conservative, but as religiously colored grassroots resistance > movements they are essentially the same kind of manifestation of class > resistance. > > The left needs to ask itself why it is much more critical of Muslims > expressing class anger in a religious form than of South American > Christians; to my mind, unexamined Islamophobia explains much of this > discrepancy. > > Every U.S. and NATO tank that the Taliban destroy, every > Karzai-appointed stooge they assassinate and every town or village > they liberate is a victory for our side and a grievous blow to U.S. > imperialism--we would do well to remember that and to offer our > solidarity and support for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. > > Nick K., from the Internet > > Link: http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=57087&s2=19 > <http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=57087&s2=19>. > -- > Linda > *http://freedetainees.org <http://freedetainees.org/> > "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, > and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd > here While these visions did appear..." > - William Shakespeare > * > > > > > -- Linda *http://freedetainees.org <http://freedetainees.org/> "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear..." - William Shakespeare * --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bangla-vision" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bangla-vision?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
