Skip to main content

Crony Capitalism: the sole heritage of the disastrous Western invasion in Afghanistan

Afghanistan has revealed to us the emptiness and hypocrisy of many of our beliefs, and that we may be returning from there also haunted by Mujahideen ghosts, knowing that, underneath, we believe in nothing.


America and the coalition forces invaded Afghanistan not just to find those behind the attacks on America, but also to transform Afghanistan into a modern democracy. It was a grand plan but the logic behind it was simple: if the innocent people of Afghanistan could be liberated from the evil forces that had terrorised them, then they would become free individuals. And out of that, a democracy, like those in the West, would grow naturally.

Tens of thousands of Americans and Europeans would pass through the country over the next ten years - soldiers, diplomats, experts, political advisers and journalists. All of them trying to build this new society. But few of them stopped to think whether what had happened to the Russians 20 years before might also happen to them. That, in a strange way, Afghanistan has revealed to us the emptiness and hypocrisy of many of our beliefs, and that we may be returning from there also haunted by Mujahideen ghosts, knowing that, underneath, we believe in nothing.

After the shock of the attacks in September 2001, the greatest fear was that the American economy might collapse as well. In response, the politicians, advised by their economic experts, cut interest rates to almost zero. This allowed cheap money to flood through the system and avoid disaster. The banks lent money to anyone and everyone. It was the politicians looking to the financial system to stabilise the country.

At the same time, thousands of experts and advisers flooded into Afghanistan. Their aim was to transform the country into a modern Democracy. This optimistic vision of a future Afghanistan was celebrated in the Kabul Stadium. It was the same stadium where the Russians had celebrated their new model for Afghanistan 20 years before.

All kinds of groups came to Kabul to help the project. It was like a snapshot of what those in power in America and Britain believed made democracy work. Underlying it all, was a belief that the battle was to create a good society, one that would be strong enough to stand against the bad, anti-democratic forces that had overwhelmed Afghanistan.

But then, it began to get confusing. The Americans discovered that was it was very difficult to know exactly who was good and who was bad. When they had invaded, they had been helped by Afghans who were already fighting the Taliban. The Americans had assumed they would help to create the new democracy, and appointed many of them to run the country. But now it turned out that many of them were actually the very same corrupt and violent warlords who the Taliban had overthrown, and they were using their new power to terrorise the country all over again.

Gul Agha Sherzai had been made Governor of Kandahar. But he was also alleged to be making a million dollars a week from running the opium trade, while at the same time siphoning off millions from the Americans in inflated contracts. When President Karzai was persuaded to remove Sherzai, he simply made him governor of another province. But he was not alone.

Throughout much of Afghanistan, the warlords had returned to power. But this time it was worse. The massive influx of American money allowed them to extend their networks of bribery and corruption to every corner of Afghan society. But the money was not just corrupting individuals. It was undermining the whole structure of society, above all the police. Rather than enforcing the law, the police had become transformed into violent militias who worked for the warlords. They organised a massive expansion of the drug trade and they also terrorised the local people. Ordinary Afghans came to hate the police and they saw them as the enemy.

And the Americans also weren't as good as they appeared. Jack Idema had been portrayed as a hero, working with the US Special Forces to hunt down bin Laden. He had arrived in Kabul three years before and become a legendary figure. CBS television had made an hour-long special about the secret world of terror that Idema had discovered in the mountains. It showed a tape that he said he had found of the Al-Qaeda group training. But then Idema was arrested. The Americans said that he was a fake. He had nothing to do with them, and had conned CBS. They alleged that Idema had a dungeon, hidden underneath his house in Kabul, where he tortured innocent Afghans. Idema was put on trial in Kabul. He insisted, though, that he had been working with the highest levels of the US military and government. Jack Idema was found guilty and sent to jail. But then it got even more confusing because reports emerged that the real American military had been doing exactly the same as Jack Idema. They had set up a special torture centre in an old Soviet hangar at Bagram Air Base. Ordinary Afghans were shackled to the ceiling and subjected to all kinds of violent abuse. But they went further than Jack Idema. The reports said that two of the victims had been tortured to death.

By 2006, the British and the Americans realised that their project to bring Democracy to Afghanistan was failing, and large parts of the country were descending into anarchy. In Helmand, in Southern Afghanistan, armed groups had risen up and there was constant fighting. The coalition were convinced that this was the return of the Taliban, and British troops were sent there to restore order and to help protect the regional government. But when the British commanders asked the Ministry of Defence for information about what was happening in Helmand, there was none. There weren't even any satellites looking at it. They had all been moved to look at Iraq. The one thing they did know was that they were going to the very heartland of the tribe that had decisively defeated the British 125 years before, at the Battle of Maiwand.

The British commander called a meeting with the local elders. He reassured them that the British were there to defeat the Taliban and support the regional government. But the elders thought that the British had completely misunderstood the problem. The real enemy was not the Taliban, but the corrupt and vicious government that President Karzai had installed in Helmand and was doing nothing to stop. Before they came to Helmand, the British had forced President Karzai to get rid of its governor. But they didn't realise that he had left behind him a completely corrupted society and nothing was what it seemed. When the British went into towns like Sangin, they tried to support the police, but the police were really the armed militia for the sacked governor. To the locals, this meant that the Western troops were supporting their oppressors. So they started to attack the British. The British thought that this must mean they were Taliban, so, in response, they dropped giant bombs on them.

But this then devastated the town centres, which made even more local people join in the attacks. Seeing their chance, the real ideological Taliban, who were now based in Pakistan, flooded back in and they started attacking the British, too. At the same time, the corrupt militias who worked for the local government also turned against the British. Faced by the chaos, the British still clung to their simple narrative of good and evil. They - the Western forces - were good and all the different groups who were attacking them were Taliban, and were bad.

But this extraordinary simplification had terrible consequences, because if you were an Afghan and wanted to kill a rival, all you had to do was go to the British and tell them that he was a Taliban and the British would obediently wipe him out. The British were being used. The terrible truth was that the British presence did not contain the war, it did the very opposite: it escalated it so much that it ran out of control. And the bodies - Afghan and British - piled up.

But then, the British and the Americans had to face up to the fact that they might not be as good and innocent as they thought they were. In 2009, the Presidential elections were held. Hamid Karzai stood and allied himself with some of the most powerful warlords. But there were allegations that the warlords rigged the vote on a massive scale. This was backed up with videos that seemed to show the warlords' followers stuffing the ballot boxes with hundreds of fake voting papers.

The coalition tried to rerun the election, but Karzai's main opponent refused because he said it would be even more corrupt. So, the British and Americans had no choice but to abandon their great dream of a real democracy in Afghanistan. They gave in and allowed Karzai to become president again.

And at the very same time, as their simple plan was falling apart in Afghanistan, the politicians had to face a crisis at home. They had given power to the banks because the bankers and the financial technocrats had promised that they could hold the economy stable. But in 2008, the whole intricate system of credit and loans that the banks had created, collapsed, and there was growing panic as giant financial institutions faced bankruptcy. The politicians in America and Britain stepped in and rescued the banks. As they did so, they began to discover that most of the major financial institutions were also riddled with corruption. But unlike President Roosevelt in the 1930s, they didn't then try and reform the system. Instead, they simply propped it up by literally pouring billions more pounds and dollars into the banks, hoping that this would somehow spread through the economies. They had no other idea.

And, faced by disaster in Afghanistan, the politicians did exactly the same there, too. The Americans knew that the idea of Democracy was failing. In desperation, they poured even more money into the Afghan economy. The idea was that this would somehow create a simpler, economic form of Democracy and that the free market would liberate people. They would become model consumers following their own rational self-interest, just like in the economies of the West. And in an odd way, it worked. Many of those in charge of the money did behave in their own rational self-interest. They simply stole the money, smuggled it out through Kabul Airport, and used it to buy luxury properties in Dubai. During this period, it was estimated that 10 million dollars a day was being taken out of Afghanistan this way.

The scandal seemed to confirm for many Afghans that the United States had not brought Democracy or free markets to their country, but instead, a corrupt Crony Capitalism that had taken over Afghanistan and its government, which was the very same allegation that was being made against politicians at home, in America and in Britain.


Taken from the documentary Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis.

Related:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 3 - The corporate-backed institutions behind the rapid and artificial ideological transformation of the American society in favor of neoliberalism
In the US case I begin with a confidential memo sent by Lewis Powell to the US Chamber of Commerce in August 1971. Powell, about to be elevated to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, argued that criticism of and opposition to the US free enterprise system had gone too far and that ‘the time had come –– indeed it is long overdue –– for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it’. Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. ‘Strength’, he wrote, ‘lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and n…

Mystery solved: here's why the Western mainstream media suddenly 'discovered' the war in Yemen

globinfo freexchange
Why it took so long for the Western mainstream media to 'discover' the war in Yemen and the war crimes committed by the Saudi coalition in full co-operation with the US?
One might think that the humanitarian disaster there - caused also by the blockade of goods for the relief of the civilians - has become so obvious, condemned multiple times by the UN, that the media finally forced to speak about it.
In previous article we attempted to explain the 'unexplained phenomenon' and the fact that CNN surprisingly returned to the issue to openly condemn the US support to the Saudi coalition atrocities against civilians in Yemen.
Yet, despite that the Saudi regimes have been, traditionally, the best allies of the Western neocolonialists, this time, the US had serious reasons to overthrow the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). And, surprisingly enough, at the center of this underground conflict lies an attempt by the US to privatize Aramco, Saudi Arab…

CIA had an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977

Joel Whitney is a co-founder of the magazine Guernica, a magazine of global arts and politics, and has written for many publications, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. His book Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers describes how the CIA contributed funds to numerous respected magazines during the Cold War, including the Paris Review, to subtly promote anti-communist views. In their conversation, Whitney tells Robert Scheer about the ties the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom had with literary magazines. He talks about the CIA's attempt during the Cold War to have at least one agent in every major news organization in order to get stories killed if they were too critical or get them to run if they were favorable to the agency. And they discuss the overstatement of the immediate risks and dangers of communist regimes during the Cold War, which, initially, led many people to support the Vietnam War.
globinfo freexchange
James Jesus Angleton wa…

Recent US elections confirmed that progressives will have to fight two monsters at once: Donald Trump and corporate Democrats

failed evolution
Nancy Pelosi's speech after Democrats took the House in recent US elections was not just a huge disappointment. Many progressives became furious about her empty speech, which was full of the most obsolete political generalities and cliches.
But it was not just that Pelosi didn't want to committ that Democrats will fight for specific issues - in favor of the vast majority of Americans - that returned in the political debate by Bernie Sanders and the progressive movement.
She actually 'gave the finger' to the progressives straight and clear.
If you don't believe it, just check her own words: “... we will strive for bipartisanship. [...] we have a bipartisan marketplace of ideas that makes our democracy strong ...
Translation: ‘We will do business as usual. The bipartisan dictatorship will remain strong and under the control of the plutocratic elite. Nothing will change, don't bother.
That's all you need to know.
Here is another evidence that the c…

In 1961, US experts knew that the Soviets had only four ICBMs

globinfo freexchange
In a discussion with Paul Jay of the Real News, Daniel Ellsberg revealed that the US discovered - through a top-secret operation -that the USSR had only four(!) ICBMs back in 1961. This meant that the Soviets were very far from becoming a serious threat for the West. However, the false picture of the 'Soviet threat' remained powerful in order to permit the US to justify its frenzy nuclear armament race.
Ellsberg explains:
The estimate of 40 to 60 [Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles] - which was pretty much in 1962 at the time of the missile crisis based on a lot of satellite photography - was much lower than was estimated earlier, from ‘58, ‘59, ‘60.
The Air Force had a higher estimate. Even the CIA official estimate in 1961 was well over 100. The State Department estimated like 160. The Air Force was much higher than that. And in August of 1961, the then commander of Strategic Air Command, Thomas Power, believed that there were then 1000 Soviet ICBMs…

Trump proves he is completely clueless on what's the real reason behind the mass layoffs epidemic in big businesses and how to deal with it

globinfo freexchange
Donald Trump's response to recent General Motors' decision to close plants and slash jobs, proves that he is completely clueless on what's the real reason behind the mass layoffs epidemic in US big businesses and how to deal with it.
The media circulated what Trump thinks to do about it, including threats against GM to impose auto tariffs, or, his most beloved action: penalties on foreign cars.
Yet, perhaps the most hilarious part in the whole story, is that one of the key frontline tools of the global neoliberal capital immediately published an 'in your face' article to make Trump realize that he is completely powerless too, against the forces of the markets. Here are some interesting parts:
... market forces are tough to beat, even if you’re president. Trump captured the White House thanks in large part to the story he told -- that he could reverse America’s industrial decline. He promised to bring back manufacturing and fossil-fuel j…

Another US slow motion coup in Latin America: astonishing details on how the neoliberal-fascist complex destroyed Leftist leaders in Brazil and brought Jair Bolsonaro to power

globinfo freexchange
Greg Wilpert of the RealNews, spoke with Brian Mier, editor for the website Brasil Wire, about the recent developments after right-wing extremist Jair Bolsonaro won the presidential election in Brazil.
Mier revealed astonishing details on how the neoliberal-fascist complex in Brazil (fully backed by the US), undermined and destroyed the most popular leaders of the Workers' Party (PT), Lula da Silva, Dilma Rousseff and even Fernando Haddad, in order to bring Jair Bolsonaro to power.
The purpose of this slow motion coup was what has been always for the US empire, especially in Latin America: to secure and broaden the absolute domination of the US and the Western corporate monopolies and destroy any Leftist resistance against the neoliberal status quo.
As Mier explained:
On the eve of the Supreme Court decision - which ruled on whether Lula should be imprisoned or not, exceptionally, in a moment when his appeals were still going on, contrary to hundreds of other poli…

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 4 - Neoliberalism's second big experiment after Chile: the financial coup by the banking mafia to take over New York
One line of response to the double crisis of capital accumulation and class power arose in the trenches of the urban struggles of the 1970s. The New York City fiscal crisis was an iconic case. Capitalist restructuring and deindustrialization had for several years been eroding the economic base of the city, and rapid suburbanization had left much of the central city impoverished. The result was explosive social unrest on the part of marginalized populations during the 1960s, defining what came to be known as ‘the urban crisis’ (similar problems emerged in many US cities).
The expansion of public employment and public provision –– facilitated in part by generous federal funding –– was seen as the solution. But, faced with fiscal difficulties, President Nixon simply declared the urban crisis over in the early 1…

Exploiting Khashoggi's assassination: the neoliberal predators hang over Saudi Arabia

globinfo freexchange
A month ago we gathered some information to explain the sudden 180 degrees hostile turn by the Western neoliberal status quo against the current Saudi regime.
We discovered that the US corporate dictatorship and the Wall Street mafia heavily invested on the rapid neoliberalization of the Saudi Arabian economy, with the privatization of the state-owned oil company Aramco at the heart of this plan. Suddenly, Mohammed bin Salman decided to step back from the deal.
It would be worth to note that Aramco was standing at the top of the global list of the largest oil and gas companies for 2017 with a revenue of 465.49 billion US dollars.
It seems that the neoliberal regime didn't abort its plans concerning Saudi Arabia and silently seeks to "replace" bin Salman with a more faithful puppet, exploiting, of course, the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.
Digging a little bit more, we found plenty of evidence in the Western mainstream media, in recent years, showing …

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 1 - Construction of political consent across a sufficiently large spectrum of the population
How was neoliberalization accomplished, and by whom? The answer in countries such as Chile and Argentina in the 1970s was as simple as it was swift, brutal, and sure: a military coup backed by the traditional upper classes (as well as by the US government), followed by the fierce repression of all solidarities created within the labour and urban social movements which had so threatened their power.
But the neoliberal revolution usually attributed to Thatcher and Reagan after 1979 had to be accomplished by democratic means. For a shift of this magnitude to occur required the prior construction of political consent across a sufficiently large spectrum of the population to win elections. What Gramsci calls ‘common sense’ (defined as ‘the sense held in common’) typically grounds consent.
Common sense is constructed out of long-standing pr…