[A-List] Analysis: The Afghan Impasse And The Great Game For 'Eurasian Balkans'

[Rick Rozoff <r_rozoff@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?msg_id=3883348

Russian Information Agency (Novosti)
February 4, 2004

THE AFGHAN IMPASSE
Viktor LITOVKIN, RIA Novosti military observer

-The main question in Afghanistan just as in Iraq is
the meaning and price of US and Nato losses. Financial
expenditures are another controversial issue: the
Pentagon spends about $1 billion every month
maintaining its forces in Afghanistan. As many as
8,500 GIs and 5,000 peacekeepers under NATO command
are stationed there. However, the situation has still
not stabilised.
-The Kremlin has not welcomed the United States'
aspirations to establish itself in Central Asia for
good. There is no end in sight for the coalition
forces' anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan, which
allegedly required temporary military bases in Hanabad
and Manas. Nor has a timeframe for pulling out US and
Nato forces from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan been set.
According to military experts, this pushed Moscow to
set up a Russian military base at Kant aerodrome near
Bishkek. Along with the 201st motorised infantry
division in Tajikistan, which has not received the
status of a military base yet, it is designed to
counterbalance the US and Nato forces in these
republics and on the outskirts of Kabul.
-US military presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia,
its ambition to deploy bases in Azerbaijan and
preserve its presence in Georgia by forcing out
Russian troops, is all part of the ultimate goal to
prepare a stronghold for comprehensive pressure,
including the military factor, on Tehran. The issue
does not even concern fighting against terrorism or
creating favourable conditions for Caspian oil and gas
transportation.
Besides the desire to gain easy access to the richest
oil deposits, the war in Iraq and Saddam's overthrow
were motivated by the same long-term target. To all
appearances, George Bush and his successors will be
unable to solve their problems in Baghdad, Kabul and
the Middle East in general without replacing the
incumbent anti-American authorities in Iran.
However, Moscow and many other capitals are determined
to provide no support for these ambitions. And this
"muted" standoff is the reason for the present
uncertainty in Afghanistan.





In late January, the central command of the US armed
forces announced the deaths of seven US servicemen in
Afghanistan in an explosion at an ammunition depot in
Ghazni, 100 km southwest of Kabul. In addition to the
dead, three soldiers were wounded and another was
reported missing. The cause of the explosion has not
been made public, but it is clear, though, that
Taleban members were involved in the incident.

On the two days prior to this tragic event at the
Ghazni depot, two similar attacks took place: a
Taleban suicide bomber killed a Canadian serviceman
and wounded three others in Kabul, while the next day
a Palestinian blew himself up, though an Algerian
passport was found later among his remains. A British
soldier was fatally wounded, and his five colleagues
were only saved thanks to British surgeons working in
a field hospital.

These are just a few of the latest reports from
Afghanistan that have broken the silence over the real
situation for the US and Nato armies in this country.
In stark contrast to the events in Iraq, the media
hardly devotes any coverage to developments in Kabul
and its surroundings. This is perhaps due to the fact
that no palpable progress has been made in
establishing peace and stability either in the capital
or in the provinces. Another possible reason is that
the international community is focusing on other, more
significant events, such as the guerrilla war in Iraq,
where between 20 and 25 people, including US
servicemen, die every day. The US has received over
500 coffins from Iraq in comparison to 100 from Kabul.
The presidential campaign in the United States and
many other events have diverted the public's attention
as well.

The main question in Afghanistan just as in Iraq is
the meaning and price of US and Nato losses. Financial
expenditures are another controversial issue: the
Pentagon spends about $1 billion every month
maintaining its forces in Afghanistan. As many as
8,500 GIs and 5,000 peacekeepers under NATO command
are stationed there. However, the situation has still
not stabilised. Although al-Qaeda and Taleban members
do not hold any leading posts in the country, they
still play a huge role in the country's life,
especially in the provinces.

Indeed, democracy remains a distant prospect. A
constitution has not been agreed, as the debates in
the national Jirga hit a deadlock due to constant
disputes and ethnic controversies. Provincial
feudalists and leaders of tribal armies are not going
to disarm and obey the central government. Moreover,
the flows of drugs out of the country has not abated
and new terrorist groups are being trained.

The task of eliminating the social roots of the
terrorist threat, i.e. crushing poverty, illiteracy
and the local population's lack of rights, is an
unfeasible task for military contingents. A long-term
comprehensive international action plan is required
for dealing with Afghanistan as one of the most
problematic countries in the world. To this end, it
would be sensible to return to the starting point of
international Afghanistan-related efforts.

Moscow backed the US and NATO campaign against the
Taleban and al-Qaeda not only because it was
authorised by the UN and its Security Council. Moscow
expected the military operations and other measures to
stop the spread of the Taleban ideology to Central
Asia and consequently to the heart of Russia.
Therefore, Moscow shared intelligence information with
its partners, supported Washington and Brussels'
request to allow their bases to be temporarily
stationed in Central Asia, and provided the Nato
military with an air corridor over its territory.
Moreover, it lent its hardware and weapons and
ammunition to the Northern Alliance, which, along with
the Americans, took an active part in the toppling the
Taleban regime. How does Russia assess the result of
these efforts?

It does not like most of the developments on the
southern boundaries of the former Soviet Union. The
main point is that the anti-Taleban forces have taken
no active measures to prevent drug trafficking, and
therefore the flow of heroin from Afghanistan across
CIS borders is continuing unabated. Every year, about
ten tonnes of heroin are confiscated in Tajikistan
alone, while the rest of it goes to Russia and other
CIS countries and to Europe. Drug trafficking remains
the most important source of financing for terrorists,
including in Chechnya.

The Kremlin has not welcomed the United States'
aspirations to establish itself in Central Asia for
good. There is no end in sight for the coalition
forces' anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan, which
allegedly required temporary military bases in Hanabad
and Manas. Nor has a timeframe for pulling out US and
Nato forces from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan been set.
According to military experts, this pushed Moscow to
set up a Russian military base at Kant aerodrome near
Bishkek. Along with the 201st motorised infantry
division in Tajikistan, which has not received the
status of a military base yet, it is designed to
counterbalance the US and Nato forces in these
republics and on the outskirts of Kabul.

Proceeding above all from the same considerations,
Moscow and Dushanbe made proposals to India's military
leaders to modernise the air base in Aini, Tajikistan,
and to station Indian aircraft there.

However, the high death toll in Afghanistan and the
complications in Iraq might prompt the United States
to pull out from Kabul, moving its forces closer to
Baghdad and leaving its Nato allies to complete the
operation to search for and eliminate bin Laden,
Mullah Omar and other al-Qaeda and Taleban terrorists.


For many experts, including the former chairman of the
third State Duma defence committee, General Andrei
Nikolayev, the crux of the matter is obvious. They
claim that the US military presence in Afghanistan and
Central Asia, its ambition to deploy bases in
Azerbaijan and preserve its presence in Georgia by
forcing out Russian troops, is all part of the
ultimate goal to prepare a stronghold for
comprehensive pressure, including the military factor,
on Tehran. The issue does not even concern fighting
against terrorism or creating favourable conditions
for Caspian oil and gas transportation.

Besides the desire to gain easy access to the richest
oil deposits, the war in Iraq and Saddam's overthrow
were motivated by the same long-term target. To all
appearances, George Bush and his successors will be
unable to solve their problems in Baghdad, Kabul and
the Middle East in general without replacing the
incumbent anti-American authorities in Iran.

However, Moscow and many other capitals are determined
to provide no support for these ambitions. And this
"muted" standoff is the reason for the present
uncertainty in Afghanistan.







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/