'US to continue its colonial exercise in Afghanistan'
The US will continue to pour money into Afghanistan to prop up its puppet military and government, so as to maintain some kind of dominance in the region, Michael Prysner, Iraq war veteran and member of the anti-war ANSWER Coalition, told RT.
RT: Has the mission in Afghanistan really been accomplished? Is it no longer a Taliban stronghold?
Michael Prysner: Well, “mission accomplished” was used by (David) Cameron because politicians don’t really say: “Hey, you know that wildly unpopular war that we have sent you and your children to die and lose legs for over a decade. Well, we messed up and it was all a waste”. They are not going to say that. “Mission accomplished” by Cameron means that “we died for years in a colonial exercise that was a total blood soaked disaster due to the arrogance of rich politicians who thought they could dominated the land and resources of the poor people of Afghanistan using the blood of working class people from the United States and from the UK.”
For Cameron to assert that there has been a so-called progress against the insurgency there, is an absolutely fantasy. In fact, just very recently the US and NATO retreated from the key area in Helmand province and handed over a US-controlled area to the Taliban. In an area where in 2010, after soldiers were weary after a decade of war, President Obama told the country: “We know you are tired of war, we know you want everyone to leave Afghanistan but just stick it out for a couple more years because of the fight in Helmand province”, and they flew in over 30 thousand new soldiers into Helmand province because they were told that that's where we needed to fight. Hundreds died, hundreds lost limbs and now this area, they are saying, wasn't that important and they left it.
RT: Generally speaking, there were some positive aspects as well. Well, lives have been lost, soldiers have died but the situation, they would argue, is better now than before.
MP: The mission for the US and NATO in Afghanistan is domination of the country’s government, domination of the country’s resources and ability to operate when they are not under constant attack. That is absolutely not the situation in Afghanistan today. The resistance in Afghanistan has forced this multi-year withdraw of the US and NATO forces. So this withdraw we are hearing of, is a retreat, but a retreat in a slow motion, because the forces in Afghanistan, not just the Taliban, but over a thousand of different organizations were fighting the occupation and have been successful militarily.
RT: When these troops do leave, funding from abroad would still exist for the Afghan army and also police. Would it help to keep some sort of order?
MP: Order means propping up an unpopular puppet government that's really run by war lords and drug lords. This is the only option really for the US and NATO powers who want to maintain some kind of victory in the country, some kind of victory of dominance in the country, knowing that is nearly impossible for them to keep troops in the country because of the success of the resistance and insurgency there. They think that they have just a key point, billions of dollar to prop up this puppet military, this puppet government, they can maintain some kind of dominance in the region whatever government comes next.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.