WikiLeaks Shreds 'Myth' of Western Moral Superiority
"One
of the cornerstone myths of modern Western ideology may have been destroyed -
the myth of a fundamental difference between 'inhumane' Russia and the 'humane'
West. … Russians have every reason to gloat, but let's face facts: no one
today, except perhaps for bin Laden, wants to see NATO's Afghan campaign end
the way the USSR's did."
For the last few days, newspapers
around the world have been discussing this question: Will the publication by
the Internet resource WikiLeaks
of 92,000 classified documents pertaining to the actions of NATO forces in
Afghanistan, harm those participating in the operation. Most experts agree that this
is unlikely. Because what's at issue are documents that don't pertain to the Taliban
or NATO operatives on the ground, but to the policies of the U.S. and its
allies. Little additional harm will be done to people’s lives. On the other
hand, it could result in tremendous harm to the propaganda offensive. And one of
the cornerstone myths of modern Western ideology may have been destroyed - the
myth of a fundamental difference between “inhumane” Russia and the “humane”
West. At the very least, serious harm has been done to the notion of this
difference on the battlefield.
For many years, Western
politicians and human rights activists lectured Russians that the war in Chechnya isn't
being conducted according to the rules, and that in a similar situation,
American and British soldiers would act in strict adherence to the “rules of
engagement,” which allegedly exclude losses among the civilian population.
This myth of a “surgical war,” ostensibly possible in the modern world, can now
be relegated to the relatively harmless vestiges of the Cold War. But the
trouble is, the 2001-2010 policy of the United States and its allies, calling for a total reform
of Afghanistan, was based on this myth. Bush Jr. was convinced
that America would succeed where from 1979-1989, the Soviet Union could not: The
creation of a “new” Afghanistan, which suddenly and miraculously would leave
behind the remnants of thousands of years of feudalism, tribal tradition, and militant
Islam.
Why will the United States
succeed at this? Because the U.S. isn't Russia. They are so much better.
The published documents show
that throughout the period of occupation, which as of now corresponds exactly to
the length of the Soviet occupation (nine and
a half years), Americans and their allies, one by one, have repeated every mistake made by
of the USSR. Confronting similar difficulties, they reacted exactly the same
way as did Soviet political and military leaders, and achieved precisely the same
result.
First, a “limited contingent”
is introduced (commenting on the WikiLeaks materials to Der Spiegel,
German military officials noted that they had underestimated the enemy - first
intending to do with only 1,200 soldiers and officers, but to date having to raise the number to 5,000). Then - there is an attempt to finish off the mujahidin
with bombing attacks and a huge surge in troops - victory in one fell swoop.
Then - without fail! - there is an attempt to broaden the political base of a
loyal regime through elections and dialogue with the “moderate” opposition.
That is followed by resentment toward Afghanistan in neighboring Pakistan, which
covertly aids the mujahedin and the realization that there's really nothing
that can be done about it. Then finally - the troops withdraw and the loyal
regime collapses.
The allied troops in
Afghanistan have yet to reach the final stage, thank God, but the defeatist
mood in Western Europe and the United States got impetus with the
publication of the WikiLeaks documents.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
"In total, the U.S., its
allies and private security firms have almost 200,000 soldiers stationed in the
country, roughly equal to the number the Soviets stationed there in the 1980s.
It wasn't enough then, and it won't be enough now," Der Spiegel comments on the situation. "We
are no longer a part of the solution; increasingly, we have become part of the
problem." Of course, American conservatives respond to such defeatists
with the gnashing of teeth. But without noticing it, they talk of the head of
Wikileaks, Julian Assange,
in the same way that Russian military officials spoke of Russian human rights
activists who were enamored with ShamilBasayev. And while in their time, Defense Ministry
criticism of Sergei
Kovalev and Andrei Babitsky
evoked outrage among the "global public," hawks at the Pentagon are
easily forgiven for similar comments.
"Mr. Assange says he is
a journalist, but he is not. He is an activist, and to what end it is not
clear," Andrew
Exom writes threateningly in the pages of The New York Times. "He
has been throwing around the term 'war crimes,' but offers no context for the
events he is judging. It seems that the death of any civilian in war, an
unavoidable occurrence, is a 'crime.'" Exom also writes that Assange is
"muddying the waters between journalism and activism."
Russians have every reason to
gloat, but let's face facts: no one today, except perhaps for bin Laden, wants
to see NATO’s Afghan campaign end the way the USSR's did. It is necessary to avoid
a repetition of the last phase of the “Soviet scenario” in Afghanistan. But for
this to happen, the U.S. and its allies must finally rid themselves of their
superiority complex in respect to its chief potential asset: Russia.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
In Afghanistan, dozens of projects
built in Soviet times remain and could provide employment to Afghans. But out
of principal, the international coalition ignores them. Russia has experience
creating state institutions in Afghanistan. It's enough to recall the attempts
to build a multiparty system with former Afghanistan President Najibullah. But the
United States has ignores this experience, again based on the same principle, even
though recent elections in Afghanistan repeated the scenario of “national
reconciliation” - Gorbachev’s favorite idea. One can only hope that recent
popular comparisons between Obama and Gorbachev don’t turn out to be completely
true.
*Dmitriy
Babich, a political analyst for the 'Novosti News Agency', wrote this
article exclusively for 'Izvestia'
