General’s report spurs debate over Afghan escalation

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his report asking for as many as 40,000 additional troops for the war on Afghanistan, arguing that they are needed for a U.S. “victory.” President Barack Obama has said he wants time for the administration to examine its strategy regarding Afghanistan.

The battle is now on inside U.S. ruling circles over choosing between withdrawal and a possible Vietnam-like quagmire that could drag on for another decade before ending in a debacle for imperialism.

Within the administration, the Congress, the Pentagon and the corporate media, the opposing sides are revealing their serious tactical differences. The key question is whether they will significantly escalate the U.S.-NATO occupation of Afghanistan.

It would be incorrect to think that one side of this argument represents doves and the other hawks, or that one side has consistently opted for peace and the other for war. Some politicians, no doubt, are looking for narrow advantages or are beholden to their local war industry. But as a look at their records will show, there are militarists on both sides within Congress and the administration. Both have campaigned for wars in the past, and what mainly divides them now is a tactical evaluation of what the U.S. faces in Afghanistan.

Any discussion or debate within the ruling class, especially a sharp one over a key question of war and peace, opens the door for honest anti-war forces to reach the U.S. public with the truth. What is the truth about this war? It is that the U.S. has no right to be in Afghanistan in the first place and that the war is a horrible plague on the Afghans, a burden on U.S. youth who are sent there, and a millstone on working and poor people at home as billions of dollars are handed to the military-industrial complex to be exploded in the mountains of Central Asia.

Divergences at the top

Republican Party leaders and the more rightist media hacks, with few exceptions, are pushing for more troops. These are the same forces that attack Obama at every opportunity. There is no doubt that should the president pull back from his original wholehearted backing of the Afghan intervention, they will blame him for the “loss” of Afghanistan—in other words, for “losing” Afghanistan to the Afghans.

Joint Chiefs Chair Adm. Mike Mullen supports McChrystal’s call for more troops. Apparently this has majority backing at the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—originally a George W. Bush appointee—has yet to speak publicly on the general’s request, but has said he is open to escalation and that withdrawal is no option.

Even among the brass, however, there are dissidents. The Sept. 27 New York Times reported that National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones opposes the escalation. And Bush’s former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star general who organized the 1991 war on Iraq and lied repeatly to provide a pretext for the 2003 invasion there, has reportedly expressed skepticism to Obama regarding the troop increase.

According to the same Times article, opinion at the top levels of the administration is divided. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special “Af-Pak” ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a prime mover of the aggression against Yugoslavia in the 1990s, advocate escalation. Vice President Joe Biden—who early in the Iraq war pushed for dividing Iraq into three parts—now opposes a troop buildup in Afghanistan, fearing a “quagmire” and considering Pakistan a more important U.S. intervention.

By earlier presenting Afghanistan as the “necessary war”—in contrast with Iraq—Obama has restricted his room to maneuver. The bellicose Washington Post jumped on this, chiding Obama in an editorial for having “second thoughts” and quoting heavily from his early statements to push a pro-war position. With a good section of the Democratic Party opposed to escalation, including some of his closest advisers and most of his popular base, Obama has postponed a final decision.

Mass dissent from war drive

The workers, poor and oppressed peoples have no interest in the U.S. military continuing to occupy Afghanistan. Outside ruling-class circles, the latest USA-Today/Gallup poll in late September showed half the people, and 60 percent of Democrats, oppose sending more troops.

Ominous news from Afghanistan on Sept. 27 only encourages this opposition. U.S., British and other NATO troops are being killed at higher rates this year than ever. A top Afghan minister was nearly blown up. As for the people of Afghanistan, a United Nations report stated that civilian deaths associated with the war reached a record high of 1,500 already this year—and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many more are dying from hunger and internal displacement, which leads to infant and maternal deaths at childbirth and many other deadly situations. Contradicting NATO’s propaganda, the occupation has only brought more suffering to Afghan women.

The next step for people in the U.S., as in the other NATO countries, is to demand a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unlike the two sides within Congress and the government, the workers and unemployed of all nationalities and genders here have an interest in stopping the bloody war and the gush of money being poured into it.

Demonstrations will take place on Oct. 5, 7 and 17 opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and demanding that U.S. troops be brought home. While the ruling class and its politicians debate tactics, real opposition to U.S. imperialism will be expressed in the streets.