|
|
|
|
US scatters bases to control
Eurasia
By Ramtanu Maitra
The United
States is beefing up its military presence in
Afghanistan, at the same time encircling Iran. Washington
will set up nine new bases in Afghanistan
in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh,
Khost and Paktia.
Reports also make it clear
that the decision to set up new US military
bases was made during Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld's visit to Kabul last December. 
Subsequently, Afghan President
Hamid Karzai accepted the Pentagon diktat. Not
that Karzai had a choice: US intelligence is of
the view that he will not be able to hold on to
his throne beyond June unless the US Army can
speed up training of a large number of Afghan
army recruits and protect Kabul. Even today, the
inner core of Karzai's security is run by the US
State Department with personnel provided by
private US contractors.
Admittedly, Afghanistan is far from stable, even
after four years of US presence.
Still, the establishment of a rash of bases would seem
to be overkill. Indeed, according to observers,
the base expansion could be part of a US
global military plan calling for small but flexible
bases that make it easy to ferry supplies and can be used in
due time as a springboard to assert a presence far
beyond Afghanistan.
Afghanistan under
control?
On February 23, according to the
official Bakhter News Agency, 196 American
military instructors arrived in Kabul. These
instructors are scheduled to be in Afghanistan
until the end of 2006. According to General H Head,
commander of the US Phoenix Joint Working Force,
the objective of the team is to expedite the
educational and training programs of Afghan army
personnel. The plan to protect Karzai and the
new-found "democracy" in Afghanistan rests on the
creation of a well-trained 70,000-man Afghan
National Army (ANA) by the end of 2006. As of now,
20,000 ANA personnel help out 17,000-plus US
troops and some 5,000-plus North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) troops currently based in
Afghanistan.
In addition, on February 28,
in a move to bring a large number of militiamen
into the ANA quickly, Karzai appointed General
Abdur Rashid Dostum, a regional Uzbek-Afghan
warlord of disrepute, as his personal military
chief of staff. The list of what is wrong with
Dostum is too long for this article, but he is
important to Karzai and the Pentagon.
Dostum has at least 30,000 militiamen,
members of his Jumbush-e-Milli, under him. A quick
change of their uniforms would increase the ANA by
30,000 at a minimal cost. Moreover, Dostum's men
do not need military training (what they do need
is some understanding of and respect for law and
order). Another important factor that comes into
play with this union is the Pentagon-Karzai plan
to counter the other major north Afghan ethnic
grouping, the Tajik-Afghans.
Since the
presidential election took place in Afghanistan
last October, Washington has conveyed repeatedly
that the poison fangs of al-Qaeda have been
uprooted and the Taliban is split. There was also
reliable news suggesting that a section of Taliban
leaders have accepted the leadership of two fellow
Pashtuns, Karzai and US Ambassador Zalmay
Khalilzad, and are making their way into the Kabul
government.
With al-Qaeda defanged and the
Taliban split, one would tend to believe that the
Afghan situation is well under control. But then,
how does one explain that a bomb went off in the
southern city of Kandahar, killing five people on
March 17, the very day US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice landed in Kabul on her first
visit to Afghanistan? And why has Karzai pushed
back the dates for Afghanistan's historical
parliamentary elections, originally planned for
2004, and then to May 2005, now to September 2005?
One thing that is certainly not under control,
and is surely the source of many threats to the
region, is opium production. During the US
occupation, opium production grew at a much faster
rate than Washington's, and Karzai's, enemies
weakened. In 2003, US-occupied Afghanistan
produced 4,200 tons of opium. In 2004, US-occupied
and semi-democratic Afghanistan produced a record
4,950 tons, breaking the all-time high of 4,600
tons produced under the Taliban in the year 2000.
Though the problem is known to the world,
the Pentagon refuses to deal with it. It is not
the military's job to eradicate poppy fields, says
the Pentagon. Indeed, it would antagonize the
warlords who remain the mainstays of the Pentagon
in Afghanistan, say observers.
Back on
the base
When all is said and done, one
cannot but wonder why the new military bases are
being set up. Given that al-Qaeda is only a shadow
of the past, the Taliban leaders are queuing up to
join the Kabul government, and the US military is
not interested in tackling the opium explosion,
why are the bases needed?
A
ray of light was shed on this question during
the recent trip to Afghanistan by five US senators,
led by John McCain. On February
22, McCain, accompanied by Senators Hillary
Clinton, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham and Russ
Feingold, held talks with Karzai.
After the talks, McCain, the No
2 Republican on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, said he was committed to a "strategic
partnership that we believe must endure for many, many
years". McCain told reporters in Kabul that
America's strategic partnership with Afghanistan
should include "permanent bases" for US military
forces. A spokesman for the Afghan president told
news reporters that establishing permanent US
bases required approval from the yet-to-be-created
Afghan parliament.
Later, perhaps
realizing that the image that Washington would
like to project of Afghanistan is that of a
sovereign nation, McCain's office amended his
comments with a clarification: "The US will need
to remain in Afghanistan to help the country rid
itself of the last vestiges of Taliban and
al-Qaeda." His office also indicated that what
McCain meant was that the US needs to make a
long-term commitment, not necessarily "permanent"
bases.
On March 16, General Richard Myers,
chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said no
decision had been reached on whether to seek
permanent bases on Afghan soil. "But clearly we've
developed good relationships and good partnerships
in this part of the world, not only in
Afghanistan," he added, also mentioning existing
US bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
A military pattern
But this is mere word play. Media reports coming out
of the South Asian subcontinent point to a US intent that
goes beyond bringing Afghanistan under control,
to playing a determining role in the vast
Eurasian region. In fact, one can argue that the landing
of US troops in Afghanistan in the winter of
2001 was a deliberate policy to set up forward
bases at the crossroads of three major areas: the
Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. Not only
is the area energy-rich, but it is also the
meeting point of three growing powers - China,
India and Russia.
On February 23, the day
after McCain called for "permanent bases" in
Afghanistan, a senior political analyst and chief
editor of the Kabul Journal, Mohammad Hassan
Wulasmal, said, "The US wants to dominate Iran,
Uzbekistan and China by using Afghanistan as a
military base."
Other recent developments
cohere with a US Air Force strategy to expand its
operational scope across Afghanistan and the
Caspian Sea region - with its vital oil reserves
and natural resources: Central Asia, all of Iran,
the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the
northern Arabian Sea up to Yemen's Socotra
Islands. This may also provide the US a commanding
position in relation to Pakistan, India and the
western fringes of China.
The base set
up at Manas outside Bishkek, the capital
of Kyrgyzstan - where, according to Central
Asian reports, about 3,000 US troops are based -
looks to be part of the same military pattern. It
embodies a major commitment to maintain not just
air operations over Afghanistan for the
foreseeable future, but also a robust military
presence in the region well after the war.
Prior to setting up the Manas Air
Base, the US paid off the Uzbek government handsomely
to set up an air base in Qarshi Hanabad.
Qarshi Hanabad holds about 1,500 US soldiers,
and agreements have been made for the use of Tajik
and Kazakh airfields for military operations. Even
neutral Turkmenistan has granted permission for
military overflights. Ostensibly, the leaders of
these Central Asian nations are providing military
facilities to the US to help them eradicate the
Islamic and other sorts of terrorists that
threaten their nations.
These
developments, particularly setting up bases in
Manas and Qarshi Hanabad, are not an attempt by
the US to find an exit strategy for Afghanistan,
but the opposite: establishing a military
presence.
Encircling Iran
On February 28, Asia Times Online pointed out
that construction work had begun on a new NATO base
in Herat, western Afghanistan (US digs in
deeper in Afghanistan ). Another
Asia Times Online article said US officials
had confirmed that they would like more military bases
in the country, in addition to the use of bases in
Pakistan (see The remaking
of al-Qaeda , February 25).
Last
December, US Army spokesman Major Mark
McCann said the United States was building four military
bases in Afghanistan that would only be used by the
Afghan National Army. On that occasion, McCann
stated, "We are building a base in Herat. It is
true." McCann added that Herat was one of four
bases being built; the others were in the southern
province of Kandahar, the southeastern city of Gardez
in Paktia province, and Mazar-i-Sharif, the
northern city controlling the main route to
central Afghanistan.
The US already
has three operational bases inside Afghanistan;
the main logistical center for the US-led coalition
in Afghanistan is Bagram Air Field north of Kabul
- known by US military forces as "BAF". Observers
point out that Bagram is not a full-fledged air
base.
Other key US-run logistical
centers in Afghanistan include Kandahar Air Field,
or "KAF", in southern Afghanistan and Shindand Air
Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand
is about 100 kilometers from the border with Iran,
a location that makes it controversial. Moreover,
according to the US-based think-tank Global
Security, Shindand is the largest air base in
Afghanistan.
The US is spending US$83 million
to upgrade its bases at Bagram and
Kandahar. Both are being equipped with new
runways. US Brigadier General Jim Hunt, the commander
of US air operations in Afghanistan, said at
a news conference in Kabul Monday, "We are
continuously improving runways, taxiways, navigation aids,
airfield lighting, billeting and other facilities
to support our demanding mission."
The proximity of Shindand to Iran could
give Tehran cause for concern, says Paul
Beaver, an independent defense analyst based
in London. Beaver points out that with US ships in
the Persian Gulf and Shindand sitting next to Iran, Tehran
has a reason to claim that Washington is in the process
of encircling Iran. But the US plays down the
potential of Shindand, saying it will not remain
with the US for long. Still, it has not been lost
on Iranian strategists that the base in the
province of Herat is a link in a formidable chain
of new facilities the US is in the process of
drawing around their country.
Shindand is not Tehran's only worry.
In Pakistan, the Pervez Musharraf government
has allowed the commercial airport at Jacobabad,
about 420km north of Karachi and 420km
southeast of Kandahar, as one of three Pakistani bases
used by US and allied forces to support their
campaign in Afghanistan. The other bases are at
Dalbandin and Pasni. Under the terms of an
agreement with Pakistan, the allied forces can use
these bases for search and rescue missions, but
are not permitted to use them to stage attacks
on Taliban targets. Both Jacobabad and Pasni bases
have been sealed off and a five-kilometer cordon set up around
the bases by Pakistani security forces.
Reports of increased US operations in Pakistan go
back to March 2004, when two air bases - Dalbandin
and Shahbaz - in Pakistan were the focus for
extensive movements to provide logistical support
for Special Forces and intelligence operations.
Shahbaz Air Base near Jacobabad appeared
to be the key to the United States' 2004 spring
offensive. At Jacobabad, C-17 transports were
reportedly involved in the daily deliveries of
supplies. A report in the Pakistani newspaper the
Daily Times on March 10, 2004, claimed that the
air base was under US control, with an inner ring
of facilities off limits to Pakistan's
military.
Ramtanu Maitra writes
for a number of international journals and is a
regular contributor to the Washington-based EIR
and the New Delhi-based Indian Defence Review. He
also writes for Aakrosh, India's defense-tied
quarterly journal.
(Copyright 2005
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Central Asian Sex New
|
|
|
