Afghanistan: Russia to the Rescue

Vice President Joe Biden offered a new approach at last weekend's annual international security conference in Munich. He met separately with top Russian officials.

In a very positive sign for the US effort in Afghanistan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that transit of US and NATO non-military supplies through Russia to troops in Afghanistan will begin within days.

Ironically, this comes on the 20th anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal from Kabul. And the man who commanded those Soviet forces, retired Lieutenant General Boris Gromov, warned the US today that a military surge in Afghanistan will not solve its problems there.

With our putative ally Pakistan increasingly unstable and jihadists carrying out many successful attacks on supply lines and convoys there -- they seem to blow up the route over the legendary Khyber Pass every other week -- alternative means of supply are increasingly necessary to sustain the US and NATO effort in Afghanistan.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said today that he sees "very positive signs" in the relationship with the Obama administration.

That means, one way or another, Moscow, which can provide transit through its own territory and guarantee transit through Central Asian nations formerly part of the Soviet Union. There's been a major dance underway for weeks on this, unreported by the conventional media, naturally.

Politics in Kyrgyzstan are quite turbulent.

For example, the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan had decided to kick the US out of its remaining base in Central Asia, the Manas air base outside the capital city of Bishkek which has been key to the Afghan war effort. But now the Kyrgyz parliament has delayed a final vote on the move. Other Central Asian countries, all former Soviet republics, seem amenable to providing supply lines into Afghanistan.

General David Petraeus thought he'd secured those Central Asian supply lines, as he reported in person to Obama on the day after the Inauguration. But Petraeus's tour of the region was followed quickly by visits from Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. And those commitments Petraeus thought he'd won evaporated in the sands.

Medvedev, who has just told Russian media that there are "very positive signs" in relations with the new Obama administration, didn't want those Central Asian supply lines granted without benefits for Russia.

Russia has offered to use its own military aircraft to airlift supplies to American troops fighting in Afghanistan.

So, after the collapse of Petraeus's deals, Vice President Joe Biden conferred with Russian officials at the annual Munich security conference last weekend and a State Department emissary was dispatched to Moscow at the beginning of this week. The talks are bearing fruit. Russia is agreeing to allow supplies to US and NATO forces in deeply troubled Afghanistan to transit not only its former Soviet republics in Central Asia, but also Russia itself.

Moscow has even offered the use of Russian military aircraft for the US supply effort into Afghanistan.

Medvedev also wants a summit with Obama, presumably in Moscow, which his mentor Vladimir Putin, now the prime minister, would also presumably participate in. But for now, the only high-level meeting scheduled is between Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- who, embarrassingly, couldn't pronounce Medvedev's name during a debate with Obama last year -- next month in Geneva.

As seen in this Al Jazeera report, US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke's visit a few days ago to Pakistan came at a very critical moment.

The agreement comes at an opportune moment, with Pakistan increasingly untenable.

Of course, there will be a political price for Russia's assistance to American forces in Afghanistan. Russia wants the US to back off from its longstanding encirclement strategy, dating back to Bill Clinton's administration, which has included the extension of NATO membership to former Soviet allies near Russia itself and -- the cherry on top added by the Bush/Cheney Administration -- a proposed anti-missile shield project in the Czech Republic and Poland supposedly to protect against Iranian missiles which do not yet exist. But NATO is in no position to do much to help some of those countries, as prospective NATO member Georgia found out the hard way last summer after it foolishly launched an offensive in the breakaway province of South Ossetia. And recent polling shows the Czechs don't really want the missile shield project.

"We quickly confirmed that we are ready to do this as it fully conforms with the agreements that have been made with NATO, and literally within days such a transit will take place," Lavrov said, according to RIA news agency.

Pakistan is so unstable that the Taliban were able to take control of the Swat Valley, a resort area once called "the Switzerland of Pakistan."

Russia, which sees a common enemy in jihadism, helped the US quickly oust the Taliban regime and disrupt Al Qaeda in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but parted ways with the US over the invasion of Iraq.

Russia has an additional motive in helping again beyond stopping the US from encroaching in its traditional neighborhood and beyond its dislike of Islamic radicalism. That motive is drugs. Afghanistan supplies 90% of the world's heroin, but it was only last year that US and NATO forces began to carry out strikes against drug traffickers.

Yesterday, the head of Russia's drug control agency, Viktor Ivanov, blamed NATO for rampant drug use in Russia.

Russia can certainly help the US greatly in Afghanistan. And the price -- ending the NATO encroachment strategy -- may be an inevitable one anyway, and thus perhaps easily paid.

So this looks like a success for Obama provided by Moscow.

But the deeper question remains. What are the real US aims in Afghanistan? What can be realistically achieved?

Nation-building? Probably beyond us. Making sure the country can't be used as a base for terrorist attacks against the US? More do-able, certainly. But how much more must be done to achieve that?

General Gromov, who led the remaining Soviet forces out of the Afghan capital of Kabul 20 years ago today, doesn't think military force is the answer.

"Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson ... It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force," said Gromov, whose troops were ultimately defeated by the mujahedeen backed by a massive covert American intervention.

"One can increase the forces or not -- it won't lead to anything but a negative result."

Gromov, of course, a top general of the Soviet era who nonetheless lost the war that broke the back of the Soviet Union, may have a jaundiced view. The goal of his government, having assassinated Afghanistan's president and invaded it with the aim of totally controlling it, is different from what any realistic American goal would be.

You can check things out during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com

Comments

[Roguewolf]

The Kyrgyz parliament voted Thursday to force the U.S. military to abandon its air base here — part of what many say is a Kremlin-backed initiative — posing a severe setback to American efforts in Afghanistan.
The vote, a resounding 78-1, signaled that Kyrgyzstan’s government is ready to follow through on its president’s threat to close the Manas Air Base.
Now that the parliament has passed the measure, all that remains is for President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to sign it and his government to issue an eviction notice giving the Americans 180 days to pack up.
This should have been an easy move for the Obama administration. They needed to outbid the Russians, who are now cash-poor after the collapse in oil prices over the last six months. Instead, as comments from the Kyrgyz parliament make clear, the US waffled around until they ran out of time for a counteroffer.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh, I've written about the Kyrgyzstan situation in a number of places.

You do realize it was the last US base in Central Asia. Right?

Want to blame Bush for that?

[Roguewolf]

Medvedev, who has just told Russian media that there are "very positive signs" in relations with the new Obama administration, didn't want those Central Asian supply lines granted without benefits for Russia.


Try again

How easy was this for Putin? He wants leverage against NATO expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine. With energy prices crashing, he can’t afford to cut off Europe any more. This move was as clear to see as anything else on the Great Game table. NATO’s most vulnerable in its supply lines into Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan holds the key. Putin offers to give NATO some supply lines, and then makes sure he has the only paths possible for resupply by buying out the Kyrgyzstan government.
A child could have seen this coming. After Putin played the card two weeks ago, the Obama administration still could have responded by upping the ante. Instead, for some reason, Obama sat on his hands and allowed himself to get punked by Putin:
One Kyrgyz parliament member seemed to suggest that the small country — with a population of some 5.3 million — would take what it could get.
“Our government has the full right, without explaining anything, to terminate this agreement,” said Alisher Sabirov, a deputy with the president’s party. “Our friends are not those who are stronger, but those who help us.”
It sounds as though we’re seeing the replay of the Carter administration in losing friends and influence on the foreign stage.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't need to try again.

But keep working on the Obama-as-Carter meme.

[SparkyDash]

Mr. Bradley, this is an outstanding post; it has taken me two days to read and view everything, including comments, and I will review again I am sure. I feel like a gradeschool student walking into university class by mistake, but I can tell you I'm glad I did.

I appreciated the footage of VP Biden and further explanation of his role while in Munich. MSM must have forgotten to highlight much of this...interesting. Thus, newwestnotes, a very good site, is now one of my "favorites."

Thank you for keeping us informed. I admit I have much to learn.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

You're very welcome. Thanks for the kind words.

[Austintatious]

Am I the only "expert" on world affairs including, of course, America's involvement in Afghanistan

1) suspecting that no small part of Russia's sudden willingness to help the U.S. in its excellent adventure (I say misadventure) in Afghanistan is that it helps keep us bogged down in some of the most treacherous territory in the world, in a likely unwinnable conflict, that will contribute, significantly and indefinitely, to our accelerating economic demise?

2) suspecting that this kind of involvement with, and reliance on, Russia (aka Putin) could be even more dangerous and downright stupid than our having mortgaged the American economy to China and other lenders not particulary friendly to ,or aligned with, American interests?

I remain more convinced than ever that a continued large scale, American military presence and operation in Afghanistan is as ill advised, and perhaps more ill advised, than our incredibly stupid blunder into Iraq.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

As I'm sure I've pointed out repeatedly, in this and in other pieces, the question is what are the objectives in Afghanistan?

We have to know the answer to that before we can say we are "bogged down."

[Austintatious]

That response could as easily have come from Secretary McNamara, discussing the disaster that was our intervention in Vietnam. If ever there was a case of being "bogged down" in a totally unnecessary, expensive and indefensible military conflict, Vietnam was it. There was never a reasonable objective justifying our involvement there.

You're aware that many are suggesting Afghanistan has the real potential to become President Obama's Vietnam, and another Vietnam for America. I fear that they are right.

I am convinced that the current President is infinitely more intelligent, more capable of sound judgment, and better intentioned than the one who took us into Iraq, the temptation to respond to attacks by the "bad guys" by escalating, will be great. Our military, our politicians and the public will likely demand it.

Such conflicts can take on a life of their own, causing the smartest of political leaders to disregard sound judgment in favor of unnecessary escalation. Whatever you think of LBJ, he was no dumby; yet he could not resist getting his dander up, and escalating when he should have brought 'em home.

I cannot see a reasonable objective that would call for America's continued large scale military presence and operation in Afghanistan. It is simply a large scale mistake that, for political reasons rather than necessity or prudence, is about to become larger.

Could it be that our newfound "ally", Brother Putin, is thinking the same thing, and that he is smiling at the thought?

[SNusbaumer]

First, Russia under Putin promises much more than it delivers. So take it easy on Russia's latest positive signs of assistance. Second, Kyrgyzstan is doing a weird dance to simply raise the ransom higher. Besides handing over the money, you also have to promise not to interfere in their little dictatorship of horrors. Third, Eastern European countries want to join NATO because they feel threatened by Russia -- does anyone read history? And the last time I looked, Henry Kissinger was not longer runs our foreign policy. So let them join! Finally, the coalition has not tackled poppy production because the Afghan growers would pick up their guns and more American and European soldiers would die. Only when there is an alternative crop for Afghan farmers, to feed their families, will be tackle this problem.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

We'll certainly know if the Russians are delivering on new supply lines for US forces into Afghanistan ...

[Alethia]

There needs to be some strategic rewards for Pakistan, if the population there is to jump on the bandwagon and stop the tendency to acquiesce to Taliban rule. So far, the USA has done poorly on that count: alllowing the Northern Alliance to occupy Kabul in 2001-2002, clinching the nuclear deal with India ( and not Pakistan) and putting too many conditions on aid.

Pakistanis continue to feel humiliated by American actions and feel that they only get criticized and not rewarded for their substantial sacrifices in fighting terrorism (their army has lost thousands - more than any other country fighting terrorism in that part of the world).

Probably the best set of proposals for the quelling of the Afghan conflict and the resulting regional disturbances has been enumerated in the 2008 Foreign Affairs article by Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, "From Great Game to Grand Bargain":

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001faessay87603/barnett-r-rubin-ahmed-rashid/from-great-game-to-grand-bargain.html

[BottomLine2008]

Too many conditions on aid for Pakistan? I don't think so. We gave them tens of billions of dollars for doing nothing against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

It's very late in the day.

[MagisterLudi]

Russians are very much interested in two things controlling Jihad ism within their own borders and limiting US/NATO encroachment on their borders.
If US gives up on missile stations in E. Europe and cuts Georgia off, he payoff can be substantial vis-à-vis the struggle against Jihadism in C. Asia.
But if US plays coy about missles stations in E. Europe, probably there will be no deal.
Russian spetsnaz veterans can be also of enormous use to NATO.
In the end all Western countries could benefit form a united front against global Islamic militancy.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Those are certainly two things they're very interested in.

>Russians are very much interested in two things controlling Jihad ism within their own borders and limiting US/NATO encroachment on their borders.

[Alethia]

We (the USA) built up Bin Laden and the jihadis only to have it blowback in our faces via 9/11.

Now we are on the threshold of empowering the Russians in hitherto verbotten territory and we could suffer some future blowback by them.

We should learn and play a much softer role in Afghanistan.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Sorry, as I have said before -- including on this thread -- that is false.

>We (the USA) built up Bin Laden

[CaptainStormfield]

We and the Saudi's certainly developed a policy of using Islamists to attack the Russians in proxy wars. You can argue Bin Laden all but thats really classic blowback.

[BottomLine2008]

That's nonsense. It didn't happen.

[Bramble8]

This really shows how despised Bush was. Nobody wanted to help us...

[Kaviraj]

From Alexander the not so great to the present day, nobody has ever been able to conquer the Afghans.
No amount of troops and certainly no ridiculously inadequate Xe, no amount of fire power, not even atomic bombs can achieve that. There is but one way to deal with Afghanis and that will cost more than the deficit of the Bush era the cost of the wars and the stimulus plan combined - give them something they can believe in. The west will not be able to deliver that and thus any effort will be in vain.
Believe me, I know the Afghanis like no other - i spent years in the region.
I know people like Hekmatyar, Dustum and Karzai personally since the mid '60s and i also know the US is going about in the wrong way. You will lose - not only any war you fight, but many lives as a bonus.
All you armchair diplomats, generals and assorted idiots talk about something that is as alien to you as the green men from Mars. You can speculate all you like, but you simply have no idea.

[MagisterLudi]

The idea is NOt to conquert it, but to work with other non-fundamentalist Afghans to pacify the country. the Northern alliance did an excellent job against the Taliban.
Yes, it's difficult to control a mountainous areas. But it can be done. In addition. And I assure you, the West has no choice but to stay intensively engaged in the area. The faster Taliban and AQ is defeated the faster Westerners will leave.

[BottomLine2008]

Who said anything about CONQUERING the Afghans? I don't see that here. I don't see anybody saying that.

Speaking of having no idea.

>>>> All you armchair diplomats, generals and assorted idiots talk about something that is as alien to you as the green men from Mars. You can speculate all you like, but you simply have no idea.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

As I pointed out, you can't gauge the approach until the objective is clear. It's very doubtful that Barack Obama wants to conquer Afghanistan. In fact, it's impossible that he wants that.

[LizM]

Hi, I guess I would fall into the armchair diplomat category - the other two don't seem like such a great fit for me but, you never know...I could be a General...

Anyway...how would you advise President Obama and his crack foreign policy team with respect to crafting a viable Afghanista­n/Pakistan policy, given that we are where we are.

[rf dude]

Send in

Xe.

Let them shoot at folks

who can shoot back...
--

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Xe, incidentally, is the just renamed Blackwater.

[BottomLine2008]

Man, if the Pakistani government can't even keep the Taliban from taking over the resort area ...

[BottomLine2008]

I guess it makes the most sense, like the report on Holbrooke's trip to Pakistan says, to put the new troops around the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Especially since the Taliban and Al Qaeda are using Pakistan as their safe haven.

[BottomLine2008]

The Al Jazeera reporter seems pretty shocked by the idea of Russian Air Force planes supplying American soldiers in Afghanistan!

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

It is a striking image.

[MagisterLudi]

Less shocked apparently at watching Jihadist training camps and fresh recruits arriving daily from all over the world.

[BottomLine2008]

That is quite a riot in the Kyrgsztan capital. The country looks pretty poor. They probably want to get whatever they can get from the Russians and the Americans.