On the issue of “agreement” between US and Taliban.

All thru the recent history, the love for US in a twisted way, or exaggerated , deeply settled myth of US have always looked for some excuses for its defeat, refusal of the defeat, and in most cases somehow resulted in creating a “victory out of defeat.”  The defeat in Afghanistan is not an isolated one but the latest example upon which so many “scenarios” have been created in order to deny the defeat. Although, In general an “agreement” by itself  without serious economic and political concessions does not defy the fact of defeat, in this particular, the referred agreement used to defy it , actually proves the defeat when it is studied in connection with its origin and following events.

Marxist Leninists are not afraid of stating the facts just because it may sound and/or appear to be defending a reactionary government. An analysis should be based on the facts with the interests of laboring masses and their struggles in mind, and always subordinating the particular to the general interests. One cannot conceal the facts just because it may be or actually is negative in particular, and thus conceal the fact that it is positive for the interests of the general.

Since this comment is directed to those with a sufficient level of Marxist Leninist theoretical knowledge, I will not have to dwell on the question of subordinating the interest of part (particular) to the interests of whole ( general).

Let’s study the duration and  of referred agreement right before and after till the date Taliban acquired the power.

Before this agreement of February 2020, Taliban was a minority in numbers and in the areas it controlled, US implanted Government with a World Bank employee at the head had the power institutionally, militarily and locations it controlled. In other words, as far as the US is concerned her economic, political, and strategic interests in Afghanistan were guaranteed with the puppet government.  US and the puppet government was so confident that they rejected the proposals coming from other Afghan groups and some international observers for  the formation of an interim government, arguing that the Taliban’s continued refusal to recognize the Afghan government might create problems in the future.

US preferred to reach an agreement with Taliban on behalf and for the interests of its implanted government, so it started the process. Contrary to the “impression” that has been tried to dish out, the main purpose of the “agreement “ was to guarantee the power and continuation of its puppet regime. It was not an agreement between the US and Taliban for Taliban to take the power, neither was it an open door for them to attempt for such an endeavor, but  to avoid that possibility.

Reading the “agreement”, it is surprising that the Taliban leaders agreed to sign the referred agreement, other than the  possible reason that they have become smarter and vise in politics, strategy, and tactics. Already there were doubts of  the Taliban’s trustworthiness and concerns were expressed that, without the  U.S. military pressure, the group will have no incentive to comply with the terms of agreement. Others were "right on the money" when they presented their worries that the Taliban was trying to “run out the clock on the withdrawal of American troops,” and  remain in negotiations long enough for U.S. withdrawal to a degree that will not be hindrance for them to seize control of the country by force.

The United States began withdrawing forces before the agreement signing day of February 2020. Taliban played the politics of “being modernized”. September 2020, Taliban deputy political leader Mullah Abdul Ghani was saying  “We seek an Afghanistan that is independent, sovereign, united, developed and free.”

On January 15, 2021, the number of U.S. forces had reached the lowest level of 2,500, since the invasion.

The same month the conflict between US and Taliban started to sharpen. A joint statement released on January 31, 2021, holding Taliban responsible  for the    assassination of female Supreme Court judges in Kabul and other attacks in which Taliban denied any involvement, added more flame to the Taliban’s initial fire. Yet, Taliban still kept on playing smart politics. In February 2021, Taliban was saying that they are committed to protecting certain rights with conditions in the areas they controlled.

One important event that may have been the igniting effect on Taliban was the publishing of an undated letter and a draft report from U.S. that asked President Ghani urgently to form “united front” with other Afghan political leaders. The report included the changes to the Afghan parliament and provincial councils by either adding Taliban members to the current bodies or suspending them during the transitional government. This was a serious blow to the so called “agreement”.

On April 13, the report of  President Biden’s decision to maintain U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond May 1 was published.  Taliban’s reaction was;  “until all foreign forces completely withdraw from our homeland we  will not participate in any conference that shall make decisions about Afghanistan.”

On April 14, President Joe Biden announced that the United States would begin a “final withdrawal” on May 1, to be completed by September 11, 2021. Same report mentioned  the US intention to continue “over-the horizon” counterterrorism efforts even after U.S. troops leave Afghanistan, Biden was saying; “We will  reorganize our counterterrorism capabilities and the substantial assets in the region to prevent reemergence of terrorists” in Afghanistan. This did not make Taliban happy.

On April 15, Taliban on “Voice of Jihad”, accused the US of breaching the February 2020 agreement and stated that the U.S. decision to stay beyond May 1 “in principle opens the way for Taliban forces to take every necessary countermeasure, hence the American side will be held responsible for all future consequences.”

Adding to this, openly blaming Taliban for a May 8, 2021, attack targeting schoolgirls in  Kabul which they vehemently denied, increased the activity of already started Taliban offensive in May which prompted the United States to launch airstrikes in support of Afghan government forces in various areas. Air attacks against Taliban continued for weeks, from its Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and from its carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf, hitting Taliban targets. On top of the US air strikes, the reports and commentaries such as ;” U.S. airstrikes were helping to slow down the Taliban advances across Afghanistan”, “Pentagon warns American air power alone will not be enough to push back the insurgent offensive”, were not hidden from the eyes of Taliban.  Probably for that reason, a permanent ceasefire offer by the Afghan government flatly rejected by the Taliban and continued its offensive, seized several border crossings. That followed by its  direct assaults on multiple urban areas, including Kandahar and Herat.

Yet, the assessments  and expectations like “The Taliban is, at best, a guerrilla insurgency without the capacity to capture the entire country” continued to be dominant in the press and on media. US was convinced that the 300,000-strong Afghan army with an air force was capable of keeping the Taliban at bay.

However, Taliban  took its first provincial capital on 6 August - and by 15 August, they were at the gates of Kabul.

On August 10, Biden was saying that the  “Afghan leaders must 'fight for their nation', the Afghan government, has what it needs to beat back the Taliban advance.”  

By August  17 Taliban was in the Kabul palace.

Admitting the defeat  Biden was promising: ‘We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately and sensibly.’ And against the correlation of Saigon, he said: ‘There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of the embassy.’

Unfortunately  though, the world witnessed people falling off the airplanes not from the roof of the embassy ….

As a conclusion, for subjective, liberal, and opportunistic reasons to deny the defeat of aggressive, invader imperialism is NOT an attitude of Marxist Leninists. Especially in order to justify the opportunist approach, to take an “agreement” out of its context and present it as the base for the defiance, disregarding all the rest of  concrete events and developments is not and cannot be a Marxist Leninist analysis of any given event or situation. The defeat is an undeniable fact  and a plus in “general”, regardless of how it happened and who benefited in “particular”. In reality, again, regardless of the “quality” of the winner as a government, it is a win in particular too for it eliminates the first and foremost  obstacle in the development of that given country and of its people. The focus on “women rights” issue, although it is an important concern, is NOT the main concern of that given country since the emancipation of women is inseparably connected to the economic and political issues are being faced. “Emancipation from the yoke of capital” says Lenin “ is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it.” In Stalin’s words, "every step towards liberation, even if it contradicts the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow to imperialism.”

Erdogan A

August 2021

From my short comment on FaceBook related to the focus on "women Question" and presenting the old RAWA as feminist in one statement.

Even Taliban with its "rotten mind" is capable to see that the question of women rights is not something to be solved simply by introducing from top to bottom, but it is a question of social, cultural changes- meaning both from top to bottom and below to top changes. 

When the bottom large section of society is not ready for an "implantation" solution from top to bottom, would create more problems not only for women, for the government that introduced it. That rotten-minded man was able to see this fact when he said, "the guidance to stay at home would be temporary, until the situation gets back to a normal order and women related procedures are in place."

Then, what is the source of this unrealistic, hasty approach? 

Reading one of such article clearly reveals the source of approach. 

It is not Marxist approach but "feminist" approach that isolates the women question from the economic and social question. There is an inseparable connection between the social and human position of women to the economic political system- and thereby to the dominant culture. Marxists look at the big picture and to the source of the question, especially in a fanatically religious, feudal country with Shariat rules, the feminist "utopian" calls of reformism are not and cannot be the answer to the liberation of women. At best these calls distract the attention from the overall issue, at worse, they become a part of the propaganda that "women were emancipated under the US invasion, now that they left, it will be reversed." 

That by itself is grossly covering up of the historical fact. The fact that women of Afghanistan had a place in social and economic life between 50s and 80s and have been reversed during the years of US support of "Mujahedeen" and its puppet Taliban government and together with the invasion. In all accounts, during the years of invasion, the rape of and sale of women as slave was at its apex. 

For some, due to the "love, sympathy " relationship with US, they cannot comprehend and cannot admit the defeat of US and come up with the oddest scenarios to cover it up. 

As for others, the fear of "appearing to be defending the Taliban" is causing the dodging of fundamental questions of Marxism and its approach and thus tailgating them with abstract phrase making, without any concrete analysis of and solutions to the question.

By the way neither the founder of RAWA Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women, Meena Keshvar, nor the Association was feminist, but both were revolutionary. Meena was the wife of the leader of Afghanistan Liberation Organization, a Maoist organization.