Læsetid: 4 min.

’Lad os nu være i fred ...’

Vesten bør trække sig helt ud af Afghanistan, både militært og økonomisk, mener landets mest kendte kvinde, tidligere parlamentsmedlem Malalai Joya, der har levet under jorden i næsten ti år af frygt for attentater
Malalai Joya mener ikke, at de vestlige besættelsesstyrker i Afghanistan har været meget værd. Tværtimod nævner hun, at de fejlagtigt bombede Læger uden Grænsers hospital og bare sidste år dræbte 3.545 civile ifølge FN.

Sigrid Nygaard

9. marts 2016

Sikre huse i Kabul, Herat, Mazar og Jalalabad. Som en spion i sit eget land gemmer den 38-årige kvindeaktivist Malalai Joya sig bag tonede ruder og burkaens blå net, så snart hun begiver sig udenfor. I næsten ti år har hun agiteret mod den afghanske regering, landets magtfulde krigsherrer, religiøse autoriteter, kvindediskriminerende love og imod de internationale styrkers tilstedeværelse i hendes land. Først som yngste medlem af Afghanistans underhus Loya Jirga og senere som en af landets mest højtråbende kvindeaktivister.

Da Informations første gang mødte Joya i et sikkert hus i nærheden af Kabuls gamle kongepalads, var hun omgivet af sikkerhedsvagter, sov kun sjældent to nætter samme sted og så stort set aldrig den mand, hun netop havde giftet sig med. I dag er situationen stort set den samme, selv om Joya ikke længere sidder i parlamentet og er blevet mor til en dreng på tre år, som af sikkerhedshensyn må bo hos hendes familie. Af samme grund har hun hverken kontor eller træffetid, og offentlige optræden er begrænset til få minutter.

Verdens værste

Fem attentatforsøg er det foreløbig blevet til, fortæller Malalai Joya, der i disse dage besøger Danmark for at fortælle om afghanske kvinders vilkår i forbindelse med 8. marts. Og det ser sort ud, både for hende selv og for de afghanske kvinder generelt, siger hun.

»Afghanistan er stadig det værste sted i verden at være kvinde«, siger hun og disker op med en lang række rædselsberetninger; fra lynchningen af den mentalt forstyrrede Fakhunda i 2015, som gik verden rund til steningen af 19-årige Roxanna, der var flygtet fra et tvangsægteskab for at leve med sin elskede, til 16-årige Shakila, der angiveligt blev voldtaget og dræbt af et provinsrådsmedlem i 2012. Sager er der nok af, og Malalai Joya fortæller, at hun ofte engagerer sig i dem for at hjælpe pigerne eller deres pårørende.

I vil have, vi skal skabe demokrati sammen med Mullah Omar! Det er helt umuligt, han er jo vores Pinochet, vores Hitler!

Malalai Joya

»Jeg prøver at hjælpe dem, får måske en rig familie til at betale for hospitalsbehandling og skabe opmærksomhed omkring deres sager,« siger hun. Andre gange holder hun møder i private hjem for at diskutere kvindespørgsmål med andre aktivister. Og der er nok at tale om, understreger hun. »Det kan godt være, at Afghanistan har 25 procent kvinder i parlamentet, men hvad betyder det, når vi har et parlament, der kan finde på at foreslå at legalisere stening af kvinder for utroskab,« siger hun og mener, at de fleste kvindelige parlamentsmedlemmer blot er »smukke dukker, som aldrig siger deres mening«.

Læs også: Leder: Den uendelige krig

Er der én ting, man ikke kan beskylde den halvanden meter høje Joya for, så er det at tie. Tværtimod er hun nærmest en vulkan af ord, når hun først får talt sig varm. Og yndlingsemnet er den afghanske regering, som bl.a. består af en række tidligere krigsherrer med grove menneskeretskrænkelser på samvittigheden og et meget traditionelt kvindesyn.

»Det er det, der er hovedproblemet i Afghanistan. I har givet magten til en flok korrupte, reaktionære, kvindehadske krigsforbrydere, som burde være i fængsel for de forbrydelser, de begik under borgerkrigen,« siger hun og navngiver dem en for en; Dostum, Qanuni, Hekmatyar, Atta, Mohaqiq, Sayyaf, Sherzai, og endnu flere.

»At sætte den slags folk i spidsen for mit land er roden til alle vores problemer; uden dem ville vi have det meget bedre. Hvis I havde givet os en demokratisk regering i stedet for, ville afghanske kvinder have haft bedre vilkår, der ville været mindre korruption, mindre opiumsproduktion, et bedre uddannelsessystem og bedre sundhed,« siger hun med insisterende alvor.

Nok er nok

Faktisk synes hun ikke, at det internationale samfunds indsats i Afghanistan har været meget værd, selv om mere end 3.500 vestlige soldater har mistet livet i kampen for at holde Taleban fra magten.

»Jeg har stor respekt for de danske familier, der har mistet deres sønner. Jeg føler med dem, men jeg er nødt til at sige, at de har givet deres liv for en forkert sag,« siger hun og opfordrer til, at Vesten trækker de sidste 13.000 soldater ud af landet hurtigst muligt, og at det internationale samfund holder op med at give international bistand til Afghanistan.

»Det er glimrende, hvis I vil støtte humanitære projekter, uddannelse og civilsamfundet, men I bør ikke støtte den korrupte regering, vi har. De stikker alligevel størstedelen af pengene i egen lomme,« mener hun. Hvordan Afghanistan skal finansiere et uddannelsessystem, hospitalsvæsen, politi og hær uden den internationale bistand, der udgør over 85 procent af statsbudgettet, har hun ikke noget svar på. Men de vestlige besættelsesstyrker skal ud.

»I har gjort så megen skade i mit land,« siger hun og nævner sidste års fejlagtige bombning af Læger uden Grænsers hospital i Kundus-provinsen og de 3.545 civile, som ifølge FN blev dræbt sidste år. At langt hovedparten af tabene tilskrives Taleban går hun let hen over.

Heller ikke det enorme genopbygningsarbejde, som det internationale samfund har finansieret fra 2001 og frem får mange positive ord med på vejen.

»Der er da bygget nogle skoler, hospitaler og sundhedsklinikker, men hvis alle de penge, I har brugt i Afghanistan var blevet anvendt ordentligt, så havde mit land for længst været genopbygget. Men Vesten ønsker ikke et stærkt og uafhængigt Afghanistan,« mener hun.

Malalai Joya er også indædt modstander af den afghanske præsident Ashraf Ghanis forsøg på at få gang i fredsforhandlingerne med Taleban og afslutte den efterhånden 15 år lange krig.

»Det vil være en katastrofe for Afghanistan og for Afghanistans kvinder, hvis det lykkes,« siger hun.

»I vil have, at vi skal skabe demokrati sammen med Mullah Omar! Det er helt umuligt, han er jo vores Pinochet, vores Hitler! Forestil jer lige, at det var Danmark, der skulle slutte fred med Hitler og måske lade ham sidde med i jeres regering. Så kan I måske forstå, hvordan vi har det med Taleban,« siger hun.

Bliv opdateret med nyt om disse emner på mail

Vores abonnenter kalder os kritisk, seriøs og troværdig.
Få ubegrænset adgang med et digitalt abonnement.
Prøv en måned gratis.

Prøv nu

Er du abonnent? Log ind her

Forsiden lige nu

Anbefalinger

  • erik mørk thomsen
  • Erik Karlsen
  • Kurt Nielsen
erik mørk thomsen, Erik Karlsen og Kurt Nielsen anbefalede denne artikel

Kommentarer

Torben Lindegaard

Malalai Joya behøver ikke sige 2 gange, at vi skal trække alt og alle ud af Afghanistan.

Det kan ikke ske hurtigt nok.

Flemming Berger, erik mørk thomsen og Kurt Nielsen anbefalede denne kommentar
Touhami Bennour

Den sætning Malalai Joya kom med"vesten vil hverken et frit eller velstående Afganistan" bør sættes på højde med en anden sætning som "vand koger I 100 grader", sandheds værdi er det samme.

Når danskere - politikere og militærpersoner - beskriver vores indsats som positiv, fremhæves kvindernes forbedrede forhold.
Joya og hendes beskrivelse af det parlamentariske skuespil for vestens galleri lyder troværdigt.

Dan Johannesson

Så længe Afghanistan er både rig på mineraler og verdens største producent af råopium / heroin, ser jeg ingen amerikansk exit forude. Det er hele to honningkager, og USA elsker honning.

Kurt Nielsen, Flemming Berger, Torben Selch og John Andersen anbefalede denne kommentar
Torsten Jacobsen

Et par spørgsmål til journalist Charlotte Aagaard og/eller Information. Spørgsmål, som opstod i mit sind i forbindelse med læsningen af denne artikel:

1.
Er der tale om et interview med Malalai Joya, eller har Charlotte Aagaard blot været tilhører ved et arrangement, hvor Joya har været på talerstolen? Det synes jeg ikke er klart deklareret i artiklen:

Indledningsvis får vi som læsere at vide, at dette ikke er første gang Information møder Joya. Altså antydes det, at der også i forbindelse med denne artikel er tale om et 'møde', hvilket får mig som læser til at formode, at der her er tale om en form for interview, hvor Joyas udsagn er svar på Charlotte Aagaards spørgsmål. Men denne formodning udfordres så længere nede i teksten, hvor Charlotte Aagaard pludselig skriver følgende:

"[...] At langt hovedparten af tabene tilskrives Taleban går hun let hen over..

Hvis der er tale om et interview, er det vel op til journalisten at sikre, at der ikke 'gås let hen over' relevante indvendinger mod det narrativ, som Joya opstiller? Og da jeg ikke er i tvivl om, at Charlotte Aagaard er en kompetent journalist, må jeg følgelig nu formode, at Joyas bemærkninger om de dræbte civile er faldet i en sammenhæng, hvor Charlotte Aagaard ikke havde mulighed for at stille kritiske spørgsmål?

Jeg er kort sagt forvirret.

2.
Er den kommenterende og lettere patroniserende tone i artiklen tilsigtet?

Det tror jeg ikke den er, men alligevel kan jeg ikke gøre mig døv for den. Derfor spørger jeg.

Hvorfor oplever jeg artiklen som kommenterende og lettere patroniserende, kan man så spørge. Det er svært at svare entydigt på, da det mere er det samlede indtryk efter endt læsning, snarere end enkeltstående konkrete passager i teksten, som jeg har problemer med. Skal jeg alligevel forsøge at fremdrage eksempler, må det blive disse:

Alalai Joya er en højtråbende aktivist, som disker op med rædselsberetninger. Det er, hvad der står i teksten. Nu er det muligt at jeg er overdrevet sensitiv, men for mig er en sådan karakteristik problematisk. At beskrive en person som 'højtråbende' er ikke i sig selv en negativ karakteristik, men jeg synes at man må anerkende, at begrebet primært har negative konnotationer. Så hvorfor anvende det? På samme måde er det at 'diske op med noget' ikke et uladet begreb, med mindre man da taler om en, der serverer en lækker salat eller lignende. At 'diske' betyder ifølge ordnet.dk at dække op med; at servere. Vi har altså at gøre med en højtråbende aktivist, som serverer rædselsberetninger for os. Serverer man noget, har man forberedt 'retten' på forhånd, med blik for den effekt det serverede har på publikum. Et skær af forstillelse sniger sig altså ind her. Er det et bevidst valg? Igen er jeg forvirret.

Værre bliver det i to afsnit, længere nede i teksten. Først dette:

"Faktisk synes hun ikke, at det internationale samfunds indsats i Afghanistan har været meget værd, selv om mere end 3.500 vestlige soldater har mistet livet i kampen for at holde Taleban fra magten."

Det er ganske enkelt ikke et historisk faktum (hvis vi antager at en sådan størrelse overhovedet eksisterer), at 3.500 vestlige soldater har mistet livet i en kamp for at holde Taleban fra magten. Det er tale om en fortolkning, der som alle andre fortolkninger har politiske og ideologiske forankringer. Derfor er det dybt problematisk, at Charlotte Aagaard fremfører påstanden med så stor selvfølgelighed. Var der her tale om en artikel i en af de borgerlige aviser, ville jeg ikke være overrasket, men her i 'Den Mindst Ringe' forventer jeg ærligt talt bedre.

Og så er der det før omtalte afsnit, hvor Charlotte Aagaard mener, at Alalai Joye 'går let hen over', at det store antal dræbte civile hovedsagligt tilskrives Taleban. Hvis Alalai Joye 'går let hen over' et så væsentligt spørgsmål, underminerer det i en vis grad hendes kritik af forholdene i Afghanistan. Enten er hun uvidende om de faktiske forhold, eller også har hun en agenda, som rækker ud over samme forhold. Hun er jo, må vi huske på, en 'højtråbende' aktivist, som 'disker op' med (mere eller mindre troværdige?) rædselsberetninger fra sit hjemland...ikke?

Kurt Nielsen, Flemming Berger, Jørgen M. Mollerup, Lars Bo Jensen, Niels Duus Nielsen og Dan Johannesson anbefalede denne kommentar

"Enten er hun uvidende om de faktiske forhold, eller også har hun en agenda, som rækker ud over samme forhold."

Eller også gengiver artiklen ikke alt, hvad hun har sagt.

Torsten Jacobsen

Erik Karlsen,

Nej, det gør den utvivlsomt ikke. Men det, som er kommet med i artiklen, er jo udtryk for en journalistisk prioritering. Det er netop den, som jeg spørger ind til.

Har du hørt "Velkommen til Medina" sangen? Det her er "Velkommen til Charlotte Aagaard". :) Hvis du regner med at læse en tekst der ikke passer ind med hvad den amerikanske udenrigsministeriet mener, så vil du blive skuffet i noget tid frem.

Det jeg personligt bider mærke i er at Malalai Joya der selv er et produkt af vestlig terror i Afghanistan, kan finde på at sige: "... Hvis I havde givet os en demokratisk regering i stedet for ..." Det er en joke der vil noget, faktuelt passer det, men at hun har en sådan mentalitet er en joke.

Mon Malalai nogensinde har hørt udtrykket "beggars can't be choosers"?? Efter at have solgt sit land, har hun nu fået kolde fødder? Vil hun virkelig nu have at vesten trækker sig ud af Afghanistan ved at damen spørger os pænt? Naivitet har ingen grænse, og nu hvor jeg kan læse at hun sidder buret inde det meste af hendes liv, så burde hun begynde at læse historie, og her burde hun læse vestens historie og den adfærd overfor stater som Afghanistan. Det kan være hun vil skamme sig næste gang hun i et andet land udstiller sit land som tigger.

Sandheden er at det var vestlige agenter iført afghanske klæder der dannede grobund for Taleban. Det var CIA der skabte narko industrien og det korruption det medfører i Afghanistan for at kunne finanser "mujahedinerne" mod sovjet. Den dag i dag er det vestlige olie penge der går til at finanser Taleban og hjernevaske afghanerne med wahabisme.

Masserne og medierne er alle senile i vesten og de fører deres senilitet, hvis man kan sige det, videre til deres neo kolonier hvilket Afghanistan har valgt at være en del af.

Velkomme til 1984!

Kurt Nielsen, Kim Houmøller, Torben Selch og Niels Duus Nielsen anbefalede denne kommentar
Ahmad Wesal Zaman

On the verge of Malalai Joya's arrival in Denmark and her call in Danish media for a complete Western withdrawal from Afghanistan, I would like to take the opportunity to express my thoughts on the matter.

I respect Malalai’s struggle for Women’s Rights and her fight against the so called ‘warlords’ and the injustices that Afghan people suffered from. However, I understand her call for a complete withdrawal of West from Afghanistan an ambiguous, dangerous, misleading and a call that will put Afghanistan and the West’s future interests at stake. Furthermore, I completely disagree with her that any Danish soldier or any other Western troop has lost his/her life for a false cause.

I believe the cause to eliminate Taliban era’s dictatorship, hardships, (a regime that brought the Afghan nation and the world to its worst nightmares), was one of the most valuable causes. However, I do realize that the proportion of the use of military technology and power by the Coalition Forces compared to that of Taliban fighting power was extremely inappropriate. I also realize that through this process and the fourteen years of war against terror the Western coalition, along with their Afghan allies, have committed mistakes that have put hundreds of families in danger and resulted in loss of a great number of civilian lives. None of those lives can be forgotten and none of the mistakes can be forgiven. Nevertheless, we need to hold back for a moment, think out of the box, think about the alternatives, be realistic and put the history and the context of the country; its geography, its neighbours, the geopolitical environment of the country and the region into consideration.

This being said, I would like to pose some questions that I find very important to be answered, before we even think about a complete Western withdrawal.
Looking back at the modern history of Afghanistan; what happened when the West abandoned us after the 1950s? What happened when the West abandoned us after 1989 and at the point of withdrawal of Russian troops? What happened when the West ignored us during the civil war in 1990s? What will happen if the West completely withdraws from Afghanistan now?

From 1950s and onwards, and after the creation of Pakistan, is one of the most important eras of Afghanistan’s modern history. During this period, our politicians failed to convince Western powers, especially U.S., to form strong alliances. This resulted in the West choosing Pakistan as a better regional ally than Afghanistan that pushed Afghanistan into the arms of Soviet Union. Subsequently, this had devastating consequences for our country’s economy, military, politics and the international society’s interests and wellbeing.

At the time, Pakistan choked Afghanistan through closing its trading routes to seaports, they started funding militia fighters in Afghanistan, and they basically cut Afghanistan off from global trade, global wealth and global arena. With West backing Pakistan, Afghanistan had little or no chance of making a case against Pakistan in an international arena. On the other hand, the Soviet Union easily managed to make Afghanistan dependent through construction projects, trade agreements and other bilateral agreements. Through this process, Afghanistan soon found itself as the battleground of two super powers, while its neighbours enjoyed unprecedented aid, military support and trade agreements. Therefore, a Western withdrawal now is nothing more than taking us back to 1950s-1980s. The Western withdrawal will push Afghanistan into becoming a Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s terror experiment laboratory, as in the past Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations and networks built safe havens there. It will further make Afghanistan prone to China, Iran and Russia.

Russia, during their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, destroyed the country’s infrastructure and caused a human disaster, it also threatened the international community’s trade routes with Asia. A complete withdrawal of the West from Afghanistan now will only result in the repetition of history within a few decades. China has no interest in Afghanistan’s stability, their interest is only economic and that can always be achieved with their strong trading relations with any other country in the region. There is no guarantee that China will ever choose Afghanistan over Pakistan. This will leave the West without a strong ally in the region, as Pakistan will continue its double standard games, and Afghanistan will be left in the hands of its brutal neighbours again.

After 1989 and the withdrawal of Russian troops, the West did what Malalai’s is asking for today, they completely abandoned Afghanistan and focused elsewhere, while leaving us to our bloodthirsty neighbours. The results were a human catastrophe and a civil war that accounted for the death of thousands of men, women and children. It further resulted in one of the largest displacements in Afghan history, where millions left the country. Therefore, the complete withdrawal now, will intensify the migration flows to Europe, increase conflict in the country, which is neither in the interest of Demark nor Afghanistan. The human costs of the withdrawal will be unprecedented. With the enemies at the gates – the ISIS and Taliban - the Afghan civilians will face a horrible massacre, as Iraqis are currently experiencing.

On the concluding remarks, I would like to state that Afghans and the West are better off as allies in all levels; military, economic, social and political than being allied at only one level or no level at all. Pakistan has not been a trustworthy ally for the West; they have always been the masters of double games, which have put Western and the region’s interests at stake. Furthermore, taking Ukraine, Syria and Iraq into consideration, Russia - West relations are not to be expected to be getting better soon, so better not to push Afghanistan into the Russian or Chinese arms again. Additionally, looking back at the history, the non-alliance of Afghanistan with the West on all levels will not only cause human catastrophes, but will also put the International Community’s interests at risk, which is why I consider Malalai’s call dangerous, ambiguous, misleading and risky.

Kurt Nielsen, Johan Clausen og Jørgen M. Mollerup anbefalede denne kommentar
Henrik Plaschke

Torsten Jacobsen:

Tak for en god og præcis kommentar. Jeg havde den samme oplevelse som dig, da jeg læste interviewet – eller hvad det nu ellers er. Yderligere et eksempel på en uprofessionel form for gengivelse af Malalai Joyas synspunkter finder vi følgende citat:

”Hvordan Afghanistan skal finansiere et uddannelsessystem, hospitalsvæsen, politi og hær uden den internationale bistand, der udgør over 85 procent af statsbudgettet, har hun ikke noget svar på.”

Det er da muligt, hun ikke har noget svar på dette spørgsmål. Men fik hun stillet det? Eller er det blot interviewerens tolkning af hendes synspunkter – en tolkning som Joya måske slet ikke er præsenteret for?

Alt i alt bærer artiklen præg af, at Charlotte Aagaard ikke deler Malalai Joyas synspunkter. Det er hendes ret. Men derfor kunne jo godt forsøge at gengive disse på lidt mindre farvet vis.

Ahmad Wesal Zaman

"... Through this process, Afghanistan soon found itself as the battleground of two super powers, while its neighbours enjoyed unprecedented aid, military support and trade agreements."

What about Iran? They enjoyed "unprecedented aid"? They didn’t find them self between superpowers? How come they are in a much better situation than Afghanistan? Could you elaborate on that? (And by the way, Taliban had a not so covert relationship with the west… Its “diplomats” where just as regular guests in capitol hill than any other dictators/ kings/ presidents/ leaders…)

My point is, just like the Kurds, the Nigerians, the Syrians, the Iraqis the Libyans, the Somalis, the Lebanese, the Egyptians, the Pakistanis, the etc. etc. think that if they become slaves of the western world they will get bread crumbs, they are senile or simply illiterate. Cause it has been proven over and over that being a slave makes people even more senile and dumb, and hence give rise to even more slaves mentality.

Pakistan’s alliance with the west or for that matter China is not something good for Pakistan. That is something one will understand the moment they set foot in Pakistan.

I do agree that it’s in no way acceptable that the west "just leaves" after having destroyed Afghanistan, they should pay compensation and then leave! But let us be honest, it does not serve Afghanistan if the people don’t start being realistic about their future. If Afghans keep dreaming of the treasures the west keeps promising them time after time, they will not be able to ever stand on their own feet. So instead of looking out in the horizon after the cowboys, they should start knocking on their neighbours’ doors, and I promise they will find people that respect them for what they are.

Ønsker man mere information om corruption i Afghanistan så kan man med fordel læse denne:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44393.htm

The Bidding War
How a young Afghan military contractor became spectacularly rich.
By Matthieu Aikins

Nogle citater:

"Hikmat, who is in his late twenties, looks disarmingly young and gentle. Slim, with a high brow that he often furrows, he countered the charges against him in grave, deliberate English. “The people who did this investigation were sitting in air-conditioned rooms,” he told me. “They don’t know what was happening in the field.” He offered to explain how he had made his fortune. “I was part of the Special Forces family,” he said. “I was trained by them.”"

....

"The U.S. military had decided to make trucking companies responsible for hiring their own security. As the country descended into violence, the companies were forced to pay off the men who controlled the roads, whether they were crooked officials, warlords, or Taliban. “The whole thing became this inadvertently but inherently corrupt enterprise that, to me, symbolized the failure of the entire adventure,” Lindsay said. “If you have to pay your enemy for the right to be there, something’s gone wrong.”"

Ahmad Wesal Zaman

Dear Arash Shahr,

In order to understand why Iran did not end up as Afghanistan, it is important to take Iran’s demography; geography, population and ethno-religious divides, history, its economic stability and natural resources into consideration. First and foremost and contrary to Afghanistan, Iran does not rely on any neighbour for its trade channels. It is a country with seaports of its own that gives them the advantage of accessing international trade routes without begging another country for it. It is less dependent on aid and foreign support as it is highly rich resource wise. However, Iran did enjoy support from the West, as it was the West (U.S.) that provided them with the Uranium Enrichment Centrifuges. Iran did favour West during the early stages of the cold war. It was the CIA’s money and aid that led to the overthrow of the King. Additionaly, Iran was one of the most important country to Western colonial powers before or prior to the cold war as well. However, things changed during the Iran and Iraq war and the events that led to it.

Iran could have been as equal as India and China now, had they not been sanctioned by the West. They did not do very well after the Western states broke alliance with them, its population suffered and they ended up not as well as they could have. My argument is that Iran did enjoy a period of Western aid and support, but when that was cut they barely survived. However, Afghanistan, very different to Iran, a landlocked country, vulnerable to its neighbours suffered during the period of the cold war and after that.

Regarding your second point; Afghanistan is not becoming slaves to the West, I think that word is far fetched when it comes to the current international environment. However, it is becoming an important geo-political ally to the West, while still respecting regional political sensitivities. Afghanistan needs to be part of the global community, as it cannot survive on its own. It is a country under direct threat from Pakistan and the countries like it. It would be completely unwise to break such an alliance and then be dependent on either Pakistan's ISI or another country like Russia, since the history clearly illustrates the consequences of that.

Regarding your third point, Pakistan’s alliance with the West has been very fruitful for Pakistan. During the process, they became a nuclear power, which would have been impossible without U.S.A’s financial support. They enjoyed years of trade with Europe and U.S. from cotton, to leather, to any other product available in Pakistan. Pakistan is still enjoying an enormous amount of Western support in all levels of the country and they never think of it to be something bad for them. If we are trying to be realistic, then the realities is, being a partner with international community is always in favour of a country like Afghanistan.

You mentioned about the West destroying Afghanistan, I don’t know what to say about that, because it is not the West that destroyed Afghanistan, it is its neighbours financing Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS and so many other terror groups that have destroyed Afghanistan. Maybe, you need to look at the other side of the coin as well.

Finally, in today’s interconnected world, Afghanistan cannot afford to be unconnected. Definitely that country cannot afford not to be an ally with the West. It is not about the treasures that West offers, but it is about the values and interests they both share. Afghanistan has been the victim of terrorism and so has been U.S., France and others. This partnership is highly important for the future of regional and international security and stability.

Ahmad Wesal Zaman

I dont buy into these thoughts. You are repeating the same talking points as CNN and BBC.

I find it hard for the afghans to ever get out of this hole they have fallen into, if they keep insisting and clinging to this illogical and rewritten history the western propaganda wheel keeps spouting out.

The Iranian alliance with the west did nothing for Iran other than deaths and misery.
The Iraqi alliance with the west did nothing for Iraq other than deaths and misery.
The Egyptian alliance with the west did nothing for Egypt other than death and misery.
The Saudi alliance with the west did nothing for the Saudi other than death and misery.
The Syrian alliance with the west did nothing for the Syria other than death and misery.
The Kurdish alliance with the west did nothing for the kurds other than death and misery.
The Philippine alliance with the west did nothing for the Philippines other than death and misery.
The Indonesian alliance with the west did nothing for Indonesien other than death and misery.
The Indian alliance with the west did nothing for India other than more filth and death and misery.
The Pakistani alliance... the Ukraine alliance... heh..
so on and so on...

If anyone by now still live in this fantasy world where one believe, just like some "believers"
in Justin B, that the western world in any way or in any case thinks about Afghanistan other than how to take advantage of them in short term, they are delusional.

You mention: The trade route through sea. Did you know that Iran for almost 15 years has proposed to transit Afghan commodities to the Persian gulf? Could you tell me why afghans choose not to use the route? Was the proposals not in Afghans national interest? Why did it not happen? Iran has talked about supplying power and gas to Afghanistan, why has those projects never really been taken seriously in Afghanistan, why do you think? The answer is that the afghans are not allowed to have any independent policy on these matters. I call it slavery.

You mentioned Iran and its alliance with the west, and that this period of time helped Iran get to where it is now. And was it not for the sanctions Iran would be a "China" or "India". Heh! Another talking point of western propaganda. If you have EVER read any book about the shah of Iran, even the danish ones, you would know that this thought you are having is simply a joke. Iran did NOT under the shah develop anything for the people. If you again have ever been in Saudi Arabia you would know that Iran under the shah was the same as Saudi today. They had this rich disconnected 1% on top of the population that imported even the food they ate from the west and you call that "developed"? BBC talking points...

How come Saudi Arabia is not China by now? How come Turkey is not China? If you think that Iran could have been?? Lool the joke is that China has big population and they started on having an INDEPENDENT government some decades before Iran did. If Iran had in 1953 done the same, who knows maybe Iran would have been where china is today.

And btw have you ever been in India? And seen how most of the people really live? Im guessing no, cause CNN and BBC talk about this "great India" thought, and again its a joke. India today is the dumpyard of the world. Ask Maersk about their asbestos ships. Maybe you would like to beg Maersk about sending their asbestos ships to Afghanistan?

It hurts me hard when i think about all of these innocent people dying for no reason other than their leaders stupidity and illiteracy. That is what the Afghans don't have right now. People whom have read and studied history, people whom have seen and understood the world they live in. They need wise leaders that know that western money is not always good for their community, for the poor people that have to pay the price.

I find it a joke that an afghan cant even see who their enemy is and who is not. The US pays every year so many millions of $ to Pakistan, and hence to ISI. The same ISI/Pakistan trains and finances the Taleban/Al Qaeda that in turn kills afghans and keeps Afghanistan a unstable state. Now what would any sane afghan person think? Do they wish an alliance with the supporter of terrorists? But how come that is what we are seeing? that Many people in Afghanistan still favor an alliance with the US? The only answer is brainwashing and greed.

Or what about the Saudis, are they not supported by US? Are they not financing all the wahabi schools in Afghanistan? Did they get shut down when the Americans came and bombed everything else? Did they bomb the wahabi madressas in Afghanistan?? The answer is a joke.

About corruption, Im guessing you dident read the link i posted. What the conclusion was and always will be in any country you look at, is that the western world create corruption. In Afghanistan the journalist did the work for us, and he concludes that the western military had made a system where they encourage corruption. They financed willingly the corrupt warlords. They WANTED this system, they did not "accidentally" do this, cause there are a limit on how many accidents you can create.

And Ahmad tell me there are two side of the coin, well Bagram detention center, or should i call it torture center, is the other side of the coin? What are your thoughts on those afghans that got tortured and humiliated by this "great" and "good for Afghanistan" countries? Where is your dignity gone if you cant even pinpoint whom all those Afghans that are killed by UAVs and bombs are? All those countrymen at weddings that where killed, are those forgotten? What about all those night raids in villages and peoples homes, is that what you are advocating for? You want an alliance with those people? Or those that bombed a hospital for some weeks ago, "that was a mistake"? Well if i make a "mistake" and kill people how come i would get punished while the US gets even more fans?

And i find it even more shocking that you are talking like a true western politician when you write: "becoming an important geo-political ally to the West". Somehow i do not think you know what that means. It is a polite way of saying that we are going to have military bases in Afghanistan so we can put fear and terror in the neighboring countries. If they dont do what we ask them to do, we just going to flex our muscles and instill fear that we can bomb "your country too, just the way we did to Afghanistan!" That is the point of an "geo-politicall ally to the west". And its sickening for to read these words.

Lets talk about how they made Afghanistan addicted to heroin? I have seen kids down to 8-9 years addicted to drugs i Afghanistan. How come the US war did not bomb and kill those drug warlords when they came in and bombed all the other crop fields? The answer is that those corrupt drug warlords where and still are the western supporters. They are the slaves that make Afghanistan a slave country. They are the "house slaves", while rest of the people are normal slaves.

And my last point is going to be about how you get rid of this slave mentality. Start reading books and research about world history. When you have done that, and i mean not from BBC or CNN, im talking about real books from AFGHANS not some retard dude from washington, learn your thoughts to another person and ask them to do research and read books. At one point when you are enough people do a revolution and start thinking INDEPENDENTLY and only for your own countries interest. In no way ever allow other countries ever into you government or decision making circles. And dont think EVER that the western world will keep any promises or that you can see eye to eye and have dialog with these people. Its in their DNA, to be "exceptional".

Btw read 1984 by Orwell.

Ahmad Wesal Zaman

Dear Arash Shahr,

I do not find the continuation of this debate useful any more. Our arguments and differences in opinions are well stated in the above comments. Therefore, the readers can be the judges. Furthermore, I am not going to attack you personally on how much you know or don't know, as you did, since such practices extremely harm the culture debate, reduces the margin for learning, and decreases the usefulness of the debate and the focus on subject in matter.

I personally thank you for taking the time and presenting your views.

Ahmad Wesal Zaman

Well im really sorry if you felt hurt personally. Honestly, it hurts me so much when i see death, destruction and misery as i see in Afghanistan. It is hard for me to be polite with people whom advocate for these terrorists that kill so many people. So im sorry for not being polite.

And im again really sorry that you don't have any clue about history and hence believe that this was about "a matter of different opinions/views". Its not. Its about honesty, integrity and factual objective scientific understanding of history!

If you want to learn something in these debates its not going to be factual scientific, its going to be the desire for factual scientific understanding. And here if anyone is interested in learning anything can at any time start questioning all my arguments, as i did with yours. And just like i had to do research before i wrote my comment, they would need to research and see if their points where factual or not. But you see, most people do not have that integrity.

There are so many things that can go wrong in being honest and objective. One is greed (personal short term interest) and the other brainwashing.

In most of my talks with afghans i have realized that they are so badly hit that they dont even know what hit them. They have been living in a state of war for so long that they simply cant understand the science of history. That hurts me, mr Ahmad, aka "becoming an important geo-political ally to the West".

Excuse me, now i have to go and weep for the Egyptians that in time had the same thoughts about Egypt as you do about Afghanistan.