Air offensive in Afghanistan means U.S. is losing

Air missions in Afghanistan are up 31 percent in 2008, meaning that opposition to the colonial occupation of Afghanistan is growing more intense and spreading.

USA Today points out that “The growing reliance on air power raises the risk of injuring civilians and their property and reflects a shortage of ground forces needed to protect civilians and root out insurgents, ground commanders and military experts say.” (Nov. 5) U.S. and NATO troop strength has not increased significantly.

The political impact of these civilian casualties has been devastating. The more civilians that die, the more the resistance grows.

A good example of this effect is an early November air strike on a wedding party near Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan. The first report from the Pentagon put the number of casualties at 20, with 26 wounded, and claimed that the Taliban was using civilians as human shields. (Globe & Mail, Nov. 5) But the Karzai client government claimed that there were 37 civilian casualties, and further reports from the Thai Press Agency put the number of deaths at 40. The Canadian Press (Nov. 5) quoted the governor of Kandahar Province as reporting 90 deaths and 30 injuries. Pashto-speaking Afghans living in New York say that news reports from home claim 300 people died.

What is more significant is the political defeat of U.S. forces. The people of this district, and indeed of the whole province of Kandahar, are enraged by this attack and the similar ones that preceded it. This rage is moving them to support the armed opposition to the colonial occupation of their country.

Political defeats in Afghanistan, along with military casualties, are going to make it harder for the NATO allies of the U.S. to sustain their commitment, especially in a period of financial crisis. An Oxfam International report (March 2008) notes that “The U.S. military is currently spending nearly $100 million a day” in Afghanistan.

While Britain, France, Holland, Canada and Germany have much smaller troop contingents in Afghanistan, these countries have smaller economies and their costs are significant. For example, Canada has already spent between $7.7 and $10.5 billion ($ Can.) on its commitment.

The NATO allies are also facing growing domestic opposition. In September, the left in the French parliament—mainly the Socialist and Communist parties—voted against supporting French troops in Afghanistan (France24.com). In addition, there was a nationwide demonstration against Canada’s presence on Oct. 18. The Dutch have announced their withdrawal in July of 2010, but it could be sooner.

The U.S. has not been able to build a coalition in Iraq and if the one it has built in Afghanistan falls apart, its position in the region will become more isolated and precarious.