Obama’s Cairo speech heralded a decisive shift in the strategy of US imperialism, away from the dangerous Islamophobic rhetoric of the Bush regime to a policy highlighting the necessity of rebuilding America’s image in Muslim countries.
A few months after the speech, the image of America and its allies appears to be floundering as the Afghan conflict gets bloodier. If the speech marked a rhetorical shift and hinted at change, it did not chart new ground in terms of US foreign policy.
There is a danger that the Afghan conflict may become another quagmire of violence reminiscent of Vietnam unless a change is made. According to critics, this may be the time for Obama to start implementing some of the recommendations that were made in a report called “Changing Course — A New Direction for US Relations with the Muslim World,” on which he partly relied on for his Cairo speech.
The report, the initiative of the “US Muslim Engagement Project” included high-profile political figures such as Madeleine Albright former US secretary of state and Richard Armitage, former US deputy secretary of state. It highlighted the need for the West to include grass-root Islamist organizations in the political discourse in the hope their experiences and know-how in Muslim countries may help resolve some global conflicts.
As the death toll of British and American troops in Afghanistan begins to rise, the conflict which is costing the tax payers millions of dollars a year is now being questioned and criticism of the war is increasing.
In Britain, a recent poll for The Guardian showed that 56 percent want all British troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, and 60 percent by 2011.
The war with the Taleban is now fast turning into a counterinsurgency as more and more Afghans have joined the once despised extremist group and the conflict is being dubbed by those aware of Afghanistan’s history, as the “unwinnable war.”
There has been very little in the mainstream media about why the Taleban — which after the war in 2001 was a weak, small and dispersed group — has now grown in strength and numbers. What the media have failed to highlight in its reports may be an unpalatable fact but it is still a fact that the Taleban today have popular support and the West’s boast to implement Western-style democracy and change in Afghanistan has failed.
Illiteracy and the position of women are worse than before the war in 2001.
The warning signs that the situation was getting worse were ignored; news report after news report about drone attacks and bombs killing innocent Afghans at wedding parties, in madrasas and villages failed to alert the British and American governments that a change of policy and strategy was needed.
Less than a year ago Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith who completed a six-month mission in Afghanistan advised the governments and NATO allies that “We are not going to win this war” and he advised that the new aim should be to change the nature of the debate so that disputes were settled by negotiation and not by violence.
Support for President Hamid Karzai has never really been there; the government is seen as corrupt and his international backers are viewed as the same people who continue to bomb the country, killing innocent women and children.
According to the average Afghan on the street this once loathed group, the Taleban, is today fighting to rid their country of foreign intruders who are attacking Muslims. The Taleban have grown in strength as many people joined them to avenge the civilian victims who, if not dead, are either homeless or wounded. As recently as May, nearly a whole village was annihilated by an American bomb in Afghanistan. The battle for “hearts and minds” has been lost by the West and the Taleban are now in a favored position.
One of the main Islamist groups that the “Changing Course” report recommended dialogue with was the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and as the Afghan conflict spirals out of control, there is a school of thought which believes that consulting these organizations may help to resolve the problem.
Kamal Helbawy, a Ph.D. in political science, who runs the “Center for the Study of Terrorism” argues that the Muslim Brotherhood operated in Afghanistan in the 1980s at the time of the Soviet occupation and is well acquainted with the tribal laws of the country. It also, he says, has the ability to advise the West on methods that could be implemented to diminish the violence and lead to peace. The group renounced violence years ago and has condemned the approaches adopted by violent groups, including Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s second in charge has criticized the MB for discouraging the queues for jihad and encouraging voting queues.
Helbawy has for the past few decades been the spokesperson for the MB and through this association was, and still is, an active figure in Afghan politics. He is well known by all the key players such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, former Prime Minister Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, former minister Deljoo Hossaini, former President Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ayatollah Asif Mohseni. He resigned as the MB’s spokesperson in 1997 but is still playing an active role “dealing with the rise of extremism from the East and the West.” Kamal believes that Western leaders can learn a great deal from the MB’s experiences in Afghanistan. An opponent of extremism, he defends the Brotherhood’s position, which is against violence. “Even during the Mujahedeen’s fight against Soviet occupation, the Brotherhood was there as a support system supplying teachers, doctors and coordinating between Mujahedeen leaders.”
He is very critical of Western policies affecting the region: “I believe that America owes a debt to the Afghans for shedding their blood to get the Soviets out; soon after this the Soviet empire collapsed and so made America the only world power. No American blood was spilt in the accomplishment of this task.”
He doesn’t believe the reason for the war is to keep streets in Britain and America safe from terrorism. Kamal: “None of the perpetrators of 9/11 was Afghan. What has killing poor dispossessed Afghans to do with keeping the West safe? This war is creating bitterness among the people as they watch innocents being bombed and made homeless. This will surely create a backlash.” He argues that several steps are essential for the prevention of further conflict.
Firstly, he argues the West should seek proper channels for dialogue with the Taleban. “If you have a problem with the Taleban, then try and talk to them directly, instead of talking to someone you have no problem with, like Karzai.” Secondly, he believes the West has to draft a plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan and prepare the ground for free and proper elections devoid of rigging and vote purchasing.
Finally, he argues the West should plan for peace rather than war. “If Britain and America used the money they were spending on war on developing infrastructure, the Afghan people would never forget the favor. In the same way, if they continue the war, the Afghans will never forget the killing of their kith and kin and this will fuel extremism and may finally spill over to the West.”
