The history of Afghanistan according to John McCain

Watching the Presidential debates, it’s obvious that John McCain either has a very poor grasp of history, or wants to deceive us so that we don’t notice the contradiction of his beliefs. Or maybe he deceives himself to reconcile his inner contradictions. Either way, I noticed that his version of the history of Afghanistan is a little lacking. Here’s what he says happened:

1) In the 1980’s, we helped Afghan “Freedom Fighters” drive the USSR out of Afghanistan.

2) We thought we had won and took off.

3) The Taliban government and Al Qaeda popped up out of nowhere after we had turned our back.

4) Today we’re involved in Afghanistan because we didn’t “finish the job” in the 80’s.

BULLSHIT. Bully bully bullshit. Here’s what John McCain either doesn’t realize, or doesn’t want you to realize: the “freedom fighters” and the Taliban/Al Qaeda are the same people. Ideologically they are exactly the same. Some of them are literally the exact same people.

Let’s take a look at the real history of Afghanistan during the 70’s and 80’s. The April 1978 “Saur Revolution” led to the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. This government was apparently communist but was hardly a carbon copy of the Soviet Union; its ideology was more of an Islam-influenced social democracy. The Afghan government then committed its most terrible sins: banning forced marriages, giving women the right to vote and be elected to office, teaching women to read, replacing Islamic law with secular rule, promoting the cultural revival of ethnic minorities, and providing electricity and infrastructure to the countryside.

The Afghan “Freedom Fighters”/Terrorists preceded the presence of the Soviet Union. So did “Operation Cyclone”, the massive campaign of support that the United States gave to the Afghan rebels. The movement that eventually led to the Taliban government, which would become the protectors of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, was launched in response to the secular and modern policies of the People’s government. They did not arise as a response to a foreign occupation. Likewise, the United States did not have to wait until the Soviet Union stepped on Afghan soil; the establishment of a Soviet-ish government was reason enough to back some very unsavory elements.

Naturally the young government of People’s Afghanistan did not have the might to fight off US-backed insurgents. The only recourse they had was to ask for help. So it came to be that the Soviet “invaders” — invaders who were invited — entered Afghanistan to help the legitimate Afghan government fight a US-backed radical Islamist insurgency. At first the Afghans, with the help of their Soviet comrades, were successful in turning back the terrorist rebels, but as US aid poured in the war became costly at the USSR eventually pulled out. The extremists did not stop at “liberating” their soil from the “invaders” though, they continued to fight a three-year civil war against the People’s government until they succeeded in establishing their own radical theocracy: the Taliban. That government, which we helped to establish, gave Osama bin Laden’s terrorists safe haven to train and plot the September 11th attacks.

I have no problem with the principle of our war in Afghanistan because we’re responsible for making the mess over there in the first place. If we had just let the Soviets take care of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban movement in the first place we wouldn’t have to go in there and fix it. But to suggest that we’re back there because we didn’t “finish the job” is a complete and total lie. We finished the job alright. We got exactly what we wanted. In the eyes of our leaders during the climax of the cold war, an extremist, fundamentalist theocracy was better than a workers’ state. Our government wanted the Taliban to take power and they got their wish.

In the midst of this bloody conflict, in 1983, John McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. You’d think he’d know a thing or two about it. Sadly this latest example of his trademark “straight talk” is about par for the course.

Why everyone hates America

It’s no secret that the U.S. has image problems abroad, but there’s something about it that a lot of people don’t grasp. First, a lot of it is our doing. There are plenty of countries out there that have a legitimate reason to disagree with us. Some of them have a legitimate reason to be downright pissed off at us. But disagreeing with someone, or being pissed at them, can be rational and is not the same as hatred. The reason it seems that so many people just hate our guts and want us all to die is that if the powers that be in Washington and the media let us see that our “enemies” might actually have a point, it would undermine our government’s political agenda. In order to hide the legitimacy of some of our opponents complaints, and undermine any sympathy the masses might have for the other side, it is important to smear them: make them seem unreasonable and unwilling to change their extremist views.

So what legitimate reasons would another country have to be mad at the good ol’ U.S. of A? For started, some are angry at us because of a perceived wrong we’ve committed against them. Sure, some of these are imagined, but some of them are very real. It might seem like a long time ago, but Iran is still a little bitter about our good buddy the Shah. It’s also understandable that North Korea could be a little sore over the fact that 50 years ago or so our bombers pretty much destroyed their entire country (and that’s no exaggeration).

Another reason for a country to have strained relations with us is that they may be suspicious of us because of something we’ve done to someone else. Going back to the North Korea example: we demand that they disarm. You know they have to be looking at the example of Iraq: Washington demanded Iraq disarmed, Iraq complied, and once they were defenseless the U.S. invaded and overthrew their government. It isn’t illogical to think that if you want the U.S. to not invade your country you should probably build a nuke as quickly as possible since letting your guard down will apparently get you killed. The truth is that our government has invaded so many countries, propped up so many horrendous leaders and overthrown so many others that any smaller country has a good reason to be suspicious of our intentions.

The third one — and this is an important one — is that most countries are willing to cooperate with one another as equals, but a lot of them feel that the United States uses its might to push little countries around and take advantage of them. A lot of Americans feel like our country is the greatest thing that ever happened, and that people all over the world want their countries to be just like ours — or even better, be annexed by us! Well here’s a newsflash for you: Iraqis love Iraq, and Vietnamese love Vietnam, and Cubans love Cuba, just like Americans love America. Sure, you have a handful of people who “defect” (who’s keeping track of American defectors?) but for the most part, people all over the world all love our homelands despite their flaws. Obviously, then, the last thing anyone wants is for their neighbor to barge into their house and start telling them how to run their lives.

When we went into Iraq a lot of people there were surely glad to see Saddam gone. But then we said, “We’re America, we’ve got it all figured out! This is how you’re going to run your country. If you don’t like it, too bad! We’ve got thousands of our soldiers here ready to overthrow your government again as soon as it strays too far from what we want for you.” Can you see why there would be a lot of people in Iraq that wouldn’t stand for that?

So, you see, some people in the world have a legitimate reason to disagree with us. In other words, just because we’re America doesn’t mean we’re always right. But of course our leaders think we are, or they wouldn’t pursue these policies. So instead of looking at the other point of view, they have to smear their opponents abroad. They say things like, “They hate freedom”. They are insane (can you give me the name of the psychiatrist who sat down with Kim Jong Il and diagnosed him?). They are aggressive (and we’re not?).

The best example I can think of is the remarks of Iran’s President which were taken to be something along the lines of “wiping Israel off the map”. I’m no linguist but I understand that translating between languages can be messy. For example, there is no word in Spanish for “papercut”. You have to say, “I cut myself with paper”. Even then, sarcasm, tone, slang, and stuff like that don’t always come across, so even with the best translators there is no such thing as a direct translation.

It turns out that what the President of Iran said was more along the lines of “remove the Israeli regime from the pages of history”, but one translator hears it a different way. He says, “wipe Israel off the map!”. Well, the Bush administration likes the latter one because it falls into their agenda, and the media likes it because it’s sensational, so guess which one history will remember? Obviously “regime change” is an inflammatory remark, but not one our current administration has much room to criticize anyone for.

Another habit our leadership has is to always assume the worst about another country. At risk of overusing North Korea and Iran as examples: “If they build nuclear power plants, they’re automatically going to build nuclear bombs. And if they build nuclear bombs, they’re probably going to use them…and if they use them, they’re probably going to use them on us!” History shows the fallacy of this argument: the only country ever to use nuclear weapons against people is the United States, and since WWII there have been numerous other occasions where we’ve been close to using them. We almost nuked the Chinese in the Korean War and we almost nuked the Vietnamese to allow the French to hold Dien Bien Phu. We like to think that our leaders saw the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and swore to never use nuclear  weapons when unprovoked again, but not everyone in power has learned that lesson. If anyone is too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons it is the United States.

But why would our leaders lie to us? These lies may be intentional or unintentional. There are certainly plenty of schiesters in Washington who would lie to advance their agenda. Any government, even the worst totalitarian regime imaginable, needs some measure of public support to operate. If the people saw things from the other side they might sympathize with the “enemy”, so the leadership has to discredit their opponents and pressure the public into avoiding any attempt at seeing things differently.

The other possibility is that the leaders themselves “drank the Kool-Ade”. You have to understand that George W. Bush has spent his entire life surrounded by Reaganites. Although he may seem like he’s full of shit to the rest of us, he’s been living in Plato’s Republican War-Hawk Cave his whole life and the shadows on the wall are all he knows.

The problem is that people tend to see the world in black and white. Not all of our allies are good. Look at Pinochet, look at Batista, look at the Saudis. Not very good regimes for us to be buddies with, wouldn’t you say? At the same time, not all of our enemies are bad. We did some terrible things to the Vietnamese, but they ended up whipping our asses. Despite all of this, somehow we’ve managed to grow to have fairly good relations. What changed? They’re still a socialist country. The difference is that we no longer see a benefit in making them out to be the enemy.

Our country has its own problems. Do you agree with the government 100%? I don’t know anyone who does. If they do they probably have a complete and total lack of political awareness, and those people don’t usually care about foreign affairs anyway. But if you accept the fact that our government is not always completely and totally right, is it that hard to understand that other governments might disagree with them as well?

There’s nothing un-American about trying to see things from the other side. They may be George Bush’s enemy but that doesn’t mean they have to be yours. Look at it like this: if our country is doing something wrong, is it better to bury your head in the sand and shout “USA #1 #1 #1!!!!!”, or to expose our wrongdoing and try to correct it? Which is more patriotic?

Our unwillingness to correct our mistakes only makes our image problems worse. When we refuse to accept that it is even possible for us to be wrong, we go from being misguided to being childish assholes. We, the people, have to understand that the words of media and the government shouldn’t be accepted on blind faith. They have agendas and biases, and in a capitalist country those agendas and biases are typically not what’s right for working people. It only makes sense, then, to be skeptical of them.

America’s Forgotten Vets

[NOTE: I was originally going to write this for Veterans Day, but got sidetracked and shelved it. I've been searching for something to write about as of late, so I figured I'd just go for it. Better late than never...]

On November 11th, the United States (and other countries as well) sets aside a national holiday to honor those who have served in its armed forces. However, while we take the time to remember the sacrifices made by those in the uniformed services, there is one group of American soldiers that is often completely ignored: the Lincolns.

Beginning in 1936, thousands of Americans volunteered to fight against the fascism during the Spanish Civil War, which could be considered one of the opening salvos of WWII. While the rest of the world ignored the plight of the people being threatened by fascism, these brave souls left their homes in a noble struggle to save the Republic from General Franco’s dictatorship. Their fight was not only against Franco but also against his allies, Hitler and Mussolini.

The members of the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade”, as it was popularly known back home, constituted a cross-section of the American Left. However, spearheading the recruitment effort was the Communist Party USA, who called upon members of its youth league to serve. The American contingent joined International Brigades from around the world, and distinguished itself in the Battle of Jarama Valley. Over 1000 of our volunteers would give their lives in what was our country’s first battle against Fascism.

Unfortunately, the Lincolns have largely been cast aside when we remember our veterans. This is mostly due, I suspect, to the fact that the brigades were mainly composed of Communists and other leftists. A portion of their marginalization is likely also a result of the fact that they were not official members of the United States armed forces. However, that to me makes their battle all the more heroic: while our government did nothing to support the Republic, and surely many politicians delighted in its destruction at the hands of fascist hordes, these brave soldiers took it upon themselves to fight. For that I believe that they should be honored as heroes.

Long Live the Great October Revolution!

Today’s date marks the 90th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, the date the Bolsheviks seized the Winter Palace and established the world’s first socialist state in what would become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On November 7, 1917 (October 25th on the Julian calendar, which Russia used before the revolution, hence the name “October Revolution”) Soviet power was established and the workers’ state reigned supreme for over 70 years.

Is “Long Live!” a stupid thing to say about a revolution that was put to death by the likes of Yeltsin and Gorbachev a decade and a half ago? Hardly. What those bourgeois who delighted in the dismantling of the proletarian state fail to understand is that they cannot roll back the wheel of history; and although they dealt the workers of the world a serious blow by destroying the center of the world communist movement, they can never erase its history and its inspiration.

In the hearts of class-conscious workers around the world the red flag still flies high. I, for one, am not afraid to say: Long live the great October Revolution!

The Lynching of Frank Little

I had the privilege recently to attend a Communist Party conference on Party and Press Building in Oakland, CA. During one of our small group discussions, I was chastised by a comrade for referring to Butte as “the middle of nowhere”. “There’s some great labor history there, man!” he told me. And although I was referring to Butte in terms of Party membership, he’s absolutely right: one need only to look around the streets of Butte to see all sorts of great relics from the rough and tumble days of the labor movement.

One of the most notable figures of Butte’s labor history is Frank Little, a union organizer who was lynched by henchmen in the interests of the Anaconda Company 90 years ago this fall. Little was an organizer for the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), or the “Wobblies” as they were often called. Their radical version of unionism had many similarities to Soviet Socialism; they realized that class struggle was unavoidable and that “the working class and the employing class have nothing in common”.

Little came to Butte in the summer of 1917 to organize the miners of the Anaconda Company into the “one big union”. In addition to his union organizing, he was also outspoken against the Great War. According to Little, working people had no interest fighting a war for the imperialist interest of capitalist powers. Needless to say, it wasn’t long before Frank’s outspokenness made him unpopular amongst Butte’s bourgeois elements.

On the morning of August 1st, six masked henchmen busted into Little’s hotel room and kidnapped him. He was tied to the bumper of their car and dragged down to the railroad trestle where the tracks cross Centennial Drive. There he was hanged, with a cryptic note pinned to his chest, apparently as a warning to other labor leaders in the city.

No real effort was made to determine who was behind the slaying of Little; he undoubtedly had many enemies among Butte’s Copper Kings and well-to-do folk. Regardless of who initiated his murder, however, it is obvious that he was killed for being an outspoken leader of the proletariat. His tombstone in Butte says it best: “Slain by capitalist interests for organizing and inspiring his fellow men.”

Catholic Church embraces Fascist past

During the Spanish Civil War between the elected Republican government of Communists, and the Nazi-backed Fascists of General Franco, the Vatican took a clear stand on one side and against another. The Church was not on the side of the workers, but instead on the side of the Fascists.

Obviously not ashamed of their Fascist past, the Vatican today beatified almost 500 “victims” of the democratic Republican state, who lost their lives during the civil war which saw the rise of Franco’s brutal regime.

Why would the Church do such a thing?

Because the current government, dominated by socialists who have inherited the legacy of the Republicans, has dared to whittle away the Church’s domination of the Spanish state: pushing for laws legalizing divorce and gay marriage, and, most importantly, eliminating the provision by which a portion of each citizen’s taxes were given directly to the Vatican (taxpayers now have the option to subsidize the Church). So what should the Church do? Try to turn the Catholics of Spain against the government by portraying them as monsters.

Of course, no mention is made of the monsters that the Vatican supported all those years ago. Let’s not talk about that, it’s ancient history after all.