Advertisement

Exiting Afghanistan – damned if you do, but damned if you don’t

The helter-skelter witnessed in Afghanistan last week and into this week reminds one of America’s exit from South Vietnam in April of 1975. There was a mad rush to get out then and a very tragic scene of South Vietnamese citizens trying to escape at the last minute as American planes were taking off. The Fall of Kabul is very reminiscent of the Fall of Saigon. The same kinds of circumstances led to both.

America, and the French before them, had no business being in what started out being called Indo-China. The basis of it was global capitalism, or economic imperialism, or neo-colonialism, however one chooses to label it. The French had been there exploiting the country and its people. As an ally of France and the major champion of global capitalism, America stepped in as France was being driven out in 1954. It evolved into the Vietnam War. In the course of the Vietnam War, many Vietnamese made themselves traitors or “uncle toms” by fighting with the American forces who claimed to have been protecting and promoting democracy but were endeavoring to prop up local officials who allowed the continued exploitation.

It was because those Vietnamese had been viewed or labelled as traitors that they were fleeing in 1975. Hundreds of thousands fled to America and other allied countries.

When one fast forwards to Afghanistan in 2021, much of the same can be seen. The George W. Bush administration sent troops to Afghanistan in order to capture Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the process, they drove out the Taliban, the militant political organization that was friendly toward Al-Qaeda. After bin Laden was killed and the Taliban were supposedly driven from power, American troops remained to protect the new Afghanistan government rather than return home. Suspicion is that the traditional American exploitation hid under the guise of democratic reform.

Advertisement

Just as in South Vietnam, a large contingent of local people worked with the Americans as interpreters, intelligence agents, and other supportive roles. It is they who have been scrambling to get out of Afghanistan as it rapidly fell to the Taliban.

In both cases, one can witness the hand of western or global capitalism leading to intervention into the countries but under the guise of promoting or protecting democracy. In both cases, they have created cadres of “uncle toms” or cooperating economic imperialists who were then “marked for death” by local fighters. In both cases, when things came to a head, American leaders found themselves between a rock and a hard place.

When decisions are made to send troops, inevitably there are criticisms because there have already been too many wars and too many lives lost for no good reasons. On the other hand, when decisions are made not to send troops, there are criticisms for not offering to help to halt human rights abuses. When decisions are made to pull troops from areas where they have been, there are criticisms of abandoning allies or those who need our help. On the other hand, when decisions are made to leave troops in areas, there are criticisms that America cannot be and should not be expected to be the police of the world.

Regarding the current exit from Afghanistan, there was/is no perfect way to get out. Yet, America is obligated to do whatever it can to save the lives of the people whom it has put in jeopardy. Beyond that, human rights matters should also be of concern. Exactly how to handle them is something else again.

There are/will be the expected criticisms from political opponents. To put it another way, in the area of foreign relations, it is likely that the president will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. It is the nature of the beast. But it does not have to be that way. America can get to a position wherein its leaders can act morally and responsibly without being between a rock and a hard place.

Advertisement

The three biggest obstacles to such optimal American foreign relations are known by all of the experts. The problem is a lack of commitment to them.

(1) There has to be an abandonment of support for global capitalism, as it leads to exploitation/economic imperialism. Protecting capitalists/imperialists lead to virtually every war in which America has participated. Without it, there would be no reason for most foreign interventions; there would be no corrupt foreign leaders opening the door to exploitation; there would be no local traitors to help carry on a war.

(2) There has to be an unqualified commitment to the United Nations, whether as currently constituted or improved, as the instrument to deal with foreign problems. Americans and others cannot continue to ignore the UN when it does not act as they would prefer. They cannot continue to circumvent it by creating their own sets of allies when it is convenient.

(3) There has to be a commitment to transparency. Too often there is an attempt to curse the darkness or obscure the truth of why military actions are contemplated or taken. In these situations, we must continue to be a democratic country. As it now operates, the people learn the truth only generations later, if ever.

We are not naïve enough to believe that either of these three changes will occur tomorrow. Nevertheless, the more they are presented, the more they are demanded, the sooner we may approach a new era.

Author

Ivory Phillips was born in Rosedale Mississippi in the Summer of ‘42.  He attended and graduated from what was then Rosedale Negro High School in 1960.  From there he went to Jackson State University on an academic scholarship and graduated in 1964 with a B.S. in Social Science Education.  After years of teaching and graduate studies, Phillips returned to JSU in the Fall of 1971, got married, raised a family and spent the next 44 years teaching social sciences there.  In the meantime, he served as Chairman of the Department of Social Science Education, Faculty Senate President, and Dean of the College of Education and Human Development.  While doing so, he tried to make it a practice to keep his teaching lively and truthful with true-to-life examples and personally developed material.

In addition to the work on the campus, he became involved in numerous community activities.  Among them was editorial writing for the Jackson Advocate, consulting on the Ayers higher education discrimination case, coaching youth soccer teams, two of which won state championships, working on political campaigns, and supporting Black liberation struggles, including the Republic of New Africa, the All-Peoples Revolutionary Party, Mississippi Alliance of State Employees, and the development of a Black Community Political Convention. 

In many ways these activities converge as can be detected from his writings in the Jackson Advocate.  Over the years those writings covered history, politics, economics, education, sports, religion, culture and sociology, all from the perspective of Black people in Jackson, Mississippi, America, and the world.

Obviously, these have kept him beyond busy.  Yet, in his spare time, he loved listening to Black music, playing with his grandchildren, making others laugh, and being helpful to others.

error: