[Marxism] Supply-line problems critical for imperialists in Afghanistan

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.juancole.com/

Sunday, February 08, 2009
Obama May Postpone Afghan Surge; 
Severe Problems in Supply Routes Afflict Aghanistan War Effort 

While the attention of the US public and the news media here has been
consumed (understandably enough) by the congressional debate over the
economic stimulus plan, America's war in Afghanistan has nearly collapsed
because of logistical problems.

First, the Taliban destroyed a crucial bridge west of Peshawar over which
NATO trucks traveled to the Khyber Pass and into Afghanistan. 75% of US and
NATO supplies for the war effort in Afghanistan are offloaded at the
Pakistani port of Karachi and sent by truck through the Khyber Pass into
Afghanistan. Then the Taliban burned 10 trucks carrying such materiel, to
demonstrate their control over the supply route of their enemy. The Taliban
can accomplish these breathtaking operations against NATO in Pakistan in
large part because Pakistani police and military forces are unwilling to
risk much to help distant foreign America beat up their cousins. That
reluctance is unlikely to change with any rapidity.

Well, you might say, there are other ways to get supplies to Afghanistan.
But remember it is a landlocked country. Its neighbors with borders on the
state are Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan;
Kyrgyzstan is close enough to offer an air route. Pakistan is the most
convenient route, and it may be at an end. China's short border is up in the
Himalayas and not useful for transport. Tajikistan is more remote than
Afghanistan. The US does not have the kind of good relations with Iran that
would allow use of that route for military purposes. A Turkmenistan route
would depend on an Iran route, so that is out, too.

 

So what is left? Uzbekistan and (by air) Kyrgyzstan, that's what. 

More bad news. Kyrgyzstan has made a final decision to deny the US further
use of the Manas military base, from which the US brought 500 tons of
materiel into Afghanistan every month. It is charged that Russia used its
new oil and gas wealth to bribe Kyrgyzstan to exclude the US, returning the
area to its former status as a Russian sphere of influence. (Presumably this
would also be payback for US and NATO expansion on Russia's European and
Caucasian borders).

Then there was one. The US has opened negotiations with Uzbekistan, which
had given Washington use of a base 2002-2005 but ended that deal after it
massacred protesters at Andizhon in 2005. Some Uzbeks charged that the US
had promoted an "Orange Revolution" style uprising similar to the one in the
Ukraine against Uzbek stongman Islam Karimov. But even if the US could get a
stable relationship with Karimov, the Uzbeks are not offering to be the
transit route for military materiel, only for nonlethal food, medicine and
other items.

In the light of these logistical problems (which are absolutely central to
the prospects for success of the Afghanistan War), and given that no clear,
attainable, finite mission in Afghanistan has ever been enunciated by US
civil or military leaders, it is no wonder that President Barack Obama is
reported to be putting the "Afghan surge" or the sending of 30,000 new
troops to Afghanistan on hold until a clearer mission can be formulated.
TheTimes of London writes:


' The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting
with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in "the tank", the
secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: "What's the endgame?" and
did not receive a convincing answer. ' 


and adds, 'Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama's "Vietnam
quagmire".'

This is a warning that I have voiced, in Salon.

And make sure to read Tom Engelhardt's essential essay on Afghanistan as the
graveyard of empires.

Aljazeera English reports on the blocking of the supply routes in Pakistan
used by NATO to send materiel to Afghanistan, by Taliban in Pakistan. Just a
note on the high quality both of the report and the discussion, which
includes former State Department South Asia analyst Marvin Weinbaum, former
head of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Lt Gen (Ret.) Asad
Durrani, and former Afghan/Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Mulla Abdul Salam
Zaeef. You would almost never get this range of opinion in expert comment on
such an issue on American corporate news. Aljazeera's philosophy, of
allowing all sides of an issue to be heard, seems to me far superior to the
American approach of having a US centrist debate a US far-right conservative
about foreign policy (typically even an American left voice is absent over
here).




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu