Closing Manas AB in Kyrgystan

[nerdgirl 0]

In between all the partisan discussions of domestic politics, did anyone else hear about the decision to not allow the US access to Manas AB in Kyrgystan?

It’s been a critical logistical base in supplying US operations in Afghanistan.

“In Moscow to seek financial support, the president of Kyrgyzstan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, on Tuesday announced that a decision to close a U.S. air base in his country — a decision that will seriously hamper U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

“Mr. Bakiyev arrived in Moscow under pressure to ease economic troubles in Kyrgyzstan, which is heavily in debt to Russia and dependent on remittances from migrant workers. President Dmitri A. Medvedev said Russia would extend a $2 billion loan and $150 million in aid to Kyrgyzstan, which Mr. Bakiyev hailed as ‘serious and important support.’

“Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, on Tuesday called Manas ‘a hugely important’ airbase for the United States. The base has served as an air hub and refueling and transit point for NATO efforts in Afghanistan, and U.S. officials have several times intervened when Kyrgyz officials considered shutting it.

“The base was opened in 2001 with Moscow’s blessing, but Russian leaders were increasingly irritated by the continuing presence of American troops there. It was not clear whether Russian officials had pressed Bishkek to end the agreement.

“To Russians, the longstanding U.S. presence at Manas suggested ambitions ‘to strengthen its position in this region’ – against Moscow’s and Beijing’s interests, said Andronik Migranyan, an analyst at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, a Russian think-tank based in New York.”

Great powers relations return? Backlash for Georgian War stance?

Strategically it’s really only a short-term gain potentially for Russia in the grand chessboard. An unstable Afghanistan is just as, if not more dangerous to Russia as it is to the US. Putin is many things; stupid is not one of them. He must recognize that in the long run a destabilized Afghanistan is not beneficial to Russia.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Wanting a destabilized Afghanistan and wanting to shore up his own back yard are two different things.
2.15B is peanuts when you consider the cost of logistics in the war. Somebody dropped the ball.

[Andy9o8 0]

Shit. So much for having a backup for an out landing.

[AggieDave 6]

My understanding is that it was the Kyrgystan's president overwhelming fear of flagrant vowel use by American soldiers!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Nelyubin 0]

You know about murder by the personnel of base of the citizen of Kirghizia?
You know, what with arrival of the USA to Afghanistan, manufacture of drugs there has increased in tens times?
What for Kirghizia needs your presence in their territory. They about it did not ask you, you asked.
What for Russia It is necessary the neighbourhood with patronizing nanufacture of drugs the country in which you have made "stable".

This base is necessary to Americans?
Even your president speaks is unnecessary and is going to disengage armies from Afghanistan

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

This base is necessary to Americans?
Even your president speaks is unnecessary and is going to disengage armies from Afghanistan

i don't know what you have been reading, but Obama has not spoken about disengaging from Afghanistan. Rather he wants to disengage Iraq so US and her allies can focus on Afghanistan.

[Doogie320 0]

If they close the base it will greatly increase our logistical issues over here, especially at a time when our aerial presence is ramping up. This puts al Udeid as our closest base to Afghanistan and it is not even prepared to handle the number of troops that Manas does. That doesn't even cover the tanker missions....

[Nelyubin 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04georgefriedman.html?_r=2

Yes, you are right. My apologies. He really is going to make it. Strange. What for to send not death the soldier is more? To have jumping-off place for an attack to Iran

[crozby 0]

Quote

If they close the base it will greatly increase our logistical issues over here, especially at a time when our aerial presence is ramping up. This puts al Udeid as our closest base to Afghanistan and it is not even prepared to handle the number of troops that Manas does. That doesn't even cover the tanker missions....

Maybe it wont increase your logistical issues afterall...

Quote

President Karzai has been holding a series of meetings with former Mujahedeen commanders in the past few weeks amid suggestions that he is trying to align the country with Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7870340.stm

[Doogie320 0]

The irony of him reaching out to Russia is hilarious.

Karzai is grasping at straws, doing whatever he can to retain his slippery hold on power here.

I saw where we are negotiating with Uzbekistan for a base (probably K2 again)....the same country that booted us in 2005. It isn't like we have a lot of options though.

[Nelyubin 0]

The man do not deceive itself. There are no variants.
Probably Russia should act as the USA in 1980 - 1987 acted? To sell the weapon to mojaheds and the taliban. To create one more Ben Ladan.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Strategically it’s really only a short-term gain potentially for Russia in the grand chessboard. An unstable Afghanistan is just as, if not more dangerous to Russia as it is to the US. Putin is many things; stupid is not one of them. He must recognize that in the long run a destabilized Afghanistan is not beneficial to Russia.

Interesting article from the 10th February 2009:

"While we prepare to shunt perhaps 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan (which still will not be enough), Russia continues to play the Asian chessboard. The Russians are picking off pawn after pawn, and steadily eroding our foreign policy influence with them and other Central Asian countries. The Russians know that we need a land route through their country to Afghanistan, especially as we begin the slow process of increasing our combat presence. The Pakistan land route is one Achilles' heel to our Afghanistan effort, and Russia is working hard to make sure that Russia is the other Achilles' heel, which will strengthen the Russian position on matters such as missile defense. Russia, at the present rate, will eventually exercise considerable control over the spigot to Afghanistan. The Russians are successfully wrestling us into a policy arm-lock. While Russia takes American money and gains influence over our Afghan efforts, we will continue to spend lives and tens of billions of dollars per year on Afghanistan in an attempt to civilize what amounts to Jurassic Park.

We must start asking Russia, and others, who the true losers will be if we abandon Afghanistan and leave a resurgent Taliban to lap at their doorsteps. I am not advocating that we abandon Afghanistan, but our own population and allies might grow weary during the long journey unfolding before us. The direct threat to us derives far more from al Qaeda than the Taliban, and we can keep punching down al Qaeda for a lot less than it's costing to prosecute the Afghan war while abdicating significant influence to Russia. Russia has much to worry about if NATO countries begin to abandon Afghanistan.

Some recent and unfolding examples: Russia allows transit of US military supplies

Russia is not a country given to a humanitarian spirit, and they do not cooperate on matters such as the International Space Station only for the sake of space exploration and science. Russia can only be trusted to behave in ways that enhance Russian power and wealth.

Beyond the fact that we will need to dedicate decades or even a century to Afghanistan, no country in the neighborhood will cooperate except when it directly affects their own interests. They will attempt to squeeze every dollar and concession from us as we help secure their neighborhoods, all while the present drug-dealing Afghan government is bucking like a mule while our government is preparing to pin a significant amount of our combat power in a landlocked country.

The sum of many factors leaves me with a bad feeling about all this. The Iraq war, even during the worst times, never seemed like such a bog. Yet there is something about our commitment in Afghanistan that feels wrong, as if a bear trap is hidden under the sand.

If I had not witnessed firsthand what our military accomplished in Iraq, I might think our efforts in Afghanistan are destined to fail. But we are plainly succeeding in Iraq with the long, dark days well behind us. Our military is proving far more capable of fighting in Afghanistan than any military in history. The Soviets got crushed by the Mujahidin, with U.S. help. The Taliban and associates, however, get stacked up every fighting season, though our casualties also continue to increase. If I did not believe we could achieve success in Afghanistan, I would likely not go back.

As we enter a new fighting season in Afghanistan this year, we need to know that the President has our backs. Not just that he is behind us, but that he is covering our six and ready to politically and economically pounce on those who hamper our efforts. We need to know that the President is fully engaged in this fight, that he is there to win and for the long haul, that he listens and takes close counsel from our senior military, and that he has faith that we can make this process work. But eight years from now, this thing will not be over.

We must also understand that Afghanistan is what it is. The military is acutely aware that Afghanistan is not Iraq. The success we are seeing in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly occur in Afghanistan. If we are to deal with moderate elements of the AOGs (armed opposition groups) we must do so from a position of strength, and this means killing a lot of them this year, to encourage the surviving “reconcilables” to be more reconcilable.

Predicting the trajectory of a war is fraught with peril, like predicting next season’s hurricanes. Anything can happen, and often what changes the course of a war has little or nothing to do with the war. For instance, a failing global economy, or supervention of some chain of events perhaps still unimagined could cause the Af-Pak war to become less relevant. Caveats behind us, it seems that 2009 will see the sharpest fighting so far. That much has been clear for some time, and 2009 is now within our headlights. We can already resolve from the fog much of what is likely coming this year. Imagining what is beyond the headlights, my guess is that 2010 might bring the sharpest fighting of the entire war. My guess is that 2010-11 will likely be crucial years in this process, and that many allies will be making decisions during those years whether to stick it out or to punch out. By the fall of 2010, we should be able to resolve whether our renewed efforts under President Obama are working or failing.

The Great Game continues, but it’s no game for the people who are fighting it."

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/how-much-is-afghanistan-really-worth-to-us.htm

Okay.......then I read this article about possible American policy change concentrating more on national reconciliation in Afghan:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/mary-dejevsky-america-to-change-policy-in-afghanistan-1604608.html

Then this article on Britain preparing to send 300 more troops to Afghanistan, which could mark the extent of its contribution to the US-led “surge”.

Britain will deploy the specialist troops within weeks in a move being seen as an attempt to head off any larger request for British forces from President Obama.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5712146.ece



But this is also interesting: 'China's bigger role in Pakistan, Afghanistan'

Next week, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is due to make her first trip to Beijing. She must make a case for China - a regional stakeholder - to play a greater role in stabilising Afghanistan and Pakistan....

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=fceadf289756f110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&s=opinion

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the Yon article. Interesting reading that seemed to largely expand on what I'd written inthis thread & others.

Quote

But this is also interesting: 'China's bigger role in Pakistan, Afghanistan'

Next week, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is due to make her first trip to Beijing. She must make a case for China - a regional stakeholder - to play a greater role in stabilising Afghanistan and Pakistan....

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=fceadf289756f110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&s=opinion

Concur that it's interesting. I'm less sure how viable a proposal/notion it is. Beijing did accuse al Qa’eda of training Uyghur separatists in Xinjiang province. If the Taliban returns to power … and let’s not forget the small shared border … that might be a factor for consideration by China. But I don't think it will be enough to overcome the effect of Chinese strategic culture w/r/t external military intervention.

I’d be interested in hearing the arguments, but I am skeptical of China engaging actively in Afghanistan security and stabilization efforts.

Otoh, they may be able to play a larger role in stabilizing Pakistan. And that I would be interested in seeing play out.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

While Russia takes American money

Delirium...

Quote

We must start asking Russia, and others, who the true losers will be if we abandon Afghanistan and leave a resurgent Taliban to lap at their doorsteps. I am not advocating that we abandon Afghanistan, but our own population and allies might grow weary during the long journey unfolding before us. The direct threat to us derives far more from al Qaeda than the Taliban, and we can keep punching down al Qaeda for a lot less than it's costing to prosecute the Afghan war while abdicating significant influence to Russia. Russia has much to worry about if NATO countries begin to abandon Afghanistan.

From what fright? At Russia always (centuries) were kind attitudes{relations} with Afghanistan while Americans with allies there have not got. Learn history...