Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumWhat is the real military situation in Afghanistan today ?
On March 19, 2015 New York Times reported that the Afghan peace process was still a long-cherished dream since the Taliban are unable to resolve their internal differences over the question of holding a dialogue with the U.S. and its allies. It further reported that since peace couldnt be expected to take shape under such a scenario, the Afghan government, as well as U.S. officials, were mulling the possibility of yet another year of bloody fighting with the insurgents. Reflecting this situation, the Times report had an apt title: More U.S. Troops Seen Staying in Afghanistan
The scenario depicted by the U.S. newspaper callously allows for an extension of Americas longest war, into not just one more year of bloody fighting, but many more years of bloodshed. The reported rifts within the Taliban on the dialogue issue also gives a misleading impression that this is the only possible and the real reason for the prevailing crisis in Afghanistan. Not only does it not take into account the very counter-productive effects of the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil, it also takes the Talibans so-called internal differences too literally. It obscures the latent aspects of the current phase of the war and its significance relative to geopolitical changes taking place around Afghanistan. The current phase of the Afghan war is not important merely due to Afghanistan itself; it is much more connected than ever to the U.S. policies towards the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Given the geo-strategic environment prevailing in the Middle Eastern region (the rise of the ISIL) and the catastrophe that U.S. post-war plans faced in Iraq, it seems the U.S. would take pains not to repeat that story in Afghanistan a country that Washington still covets to undercut Russian and Chinese influence in Central and South Asian regions. Notwithstanding that the Afghan Taliban are still holding areas under their control and are constantly attacking, there are other factors supporting the notion of a longer stay for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. One is Afghanistans increased importance, during last year or so, as a base for military action (and support to allied states in Central Asia and Caucasus) due to the situation in Ukraine. In this respect, Afghanistan provides the nearest and the most suitable place for such operations. Its apparent that military action requires not only territory it also requires troops on the ground.
As the Times noted in the same report, U.S. officials were already close to concluding that the current U.S. contingent of 10,000 troops and thousands of civilian contractors would be needed in Afghanistan till at least the end of 2016. Not only this, the Bi-Lateral Security Agreement (BSA) signed between the USA and Afghanistan in 2014 also offers the option of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan as and when needed. Therefore, its entirely possible that the U.S. would choose to increase the number of its troops on the Afghan soil to buttress its position vis-à-vis Russia in Ukraine.
http://atimes.com/2015/04/what-is-the-real-military-situation-in-afghanistan-today/
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Kind of goes against the Promises for the Votes...doesnt it?.....but, then, War is a "Messy Business"....One Never Knows how long one may need to be committed. That's why one should THINK CAREFULLY before gettin INVOLVED. But, then...I might be considered a "Pacifist" if I complain, by pointing that out. I consider myself a "Careful Realist." And have a sense of History of how easy we get into wars with hype and fever...and now we have our MSCorporate Owned Media making things ever so difficult. But, then...to an exent...if it wasn't Today's MS Corporate Media it was always "Other Influences" when the "Drums of War start Beating over one Outrage or Another" for Special Interests.. since Time began.
Perhaps it isn't even the anything NEW our "Corporate MSM/Military Industrial Complex." It goes so far back in History.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)That's been around since before Ukraine blew up, but I don't see it a lot. Sometimes it's about Syria too, but it's always to punish/contain Russia & Iran with all three, for "interference" in the Middle East, and always the Neocons behind it.
And by way of Syria you can get connections to the mess in Yemen too, and the Saudis, and Israel.
It sounds stupid in all three cases too, not going to work, the idea of punishing Russia via country X nearby or allied with it.
Of course there are a number of other explanations for Ukraine too.