Much of the reformist left rants on about the breaking of the Geneva conventions concerning the recent brutal events at the fort at Mazar-i-Sharif. It suggests that the blame for the brutal atrocity lies with the US and Northern Alliance forces. These protestations are nothing less than the rantings of an ideologically and politically bankrupt reformist left that has significantly failed to mount an effective opposition to the Afghan war.
It is clear that in a war of this nature, the war in Afghanistan, the conditions for atrocities of one sort or another exist. Indeed the entire war is an atrocity. The only way to prevent such atrocity is by abolishing the conditions responsible for all atrocity --capitalism. The slaughter at Mazar-i-Sharif is no more nor less significant than any of the other killings by US and Northern Alliance forces. It is the character of the war that must be highlighted --its imperialist character-- not this or that slaughter. In a war, such as this one, one kind of slaughter is not any more atrocious than another. To suggest otherwise is to promote reformism and thereby imperialism. Such bourgeois politics suggests that imperialism has a progressive character. It logically follows, then, that its wars can be fought in a clean, rational and humane way. It suggests that wars for which imperialism is responsible are more acceptable, even progressive (the Hitchens and Halliday thesis), if they fulfil certain conditions.
The left that expresses outrage at particular brutality is the left that is using the very same hypocritical humanitarianism that has been used by the imperialist bourgeoisie. The commission of brutality has been exploited by imperialism as a pretext for attacking regimes such as the Iraqi and Serbian ones. Imperialist wars, by their very class nature, contain an inherently brutality. This inherent brutality assumes different forms under different circumstances. The inherent brutality is a characteristic of the inherent brutality of imperialist capitalism whether in the form of exploitation, famine, war etc. All these forms of brutality are inherently interrelated.
The communist position, then, is opposition to the imperialist war in Afghanistan by promoting popular opposition to the capitalism that is responsible for it. In the Afghan war communists cannot consider victory by either side as a victory or defeat for imperialism. Is not the concern of communists as to who wins the war since any victory is essentially a victory for imperialism. The only real defeat is success in opposing the war that culminates in the abolition of capitalism. The only real victory is the degree to which communism succeeds in mounting principled opposition to the war that leads to the emergence class consciousness among the working class that culminates in social revolution.
There is a false view among sections of reformism that a victory for US and Northern Alliance forces against the Taliban will further strengthen the self confidence of US imperialism. Such a view misunderstands the entire nature of capitalism and lends support to the view that some capitalist wars are more progressive than others. Whether the Taliban or the Northern Alliance wins the war is essentially irrelevant since only capitalism can win the war. US forces can only be defeated in the Afghan war when the working class forces an end to such wars by overthrowing American capitalism. Revolution, then, is the only condition for the defeat of US forces.
The Taliban regime is essentially no more nor less reactionary than the Northern Alliance. Both sides are reactionary anti-working class products of imperialism. They are forces than lack any real independence. As verified by events they can only exist on the basis of imperialist support.
Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
</backwarded>