Russians warn of Afghanistan troops buildup

Get short URL

Published time: September 14, 2009 14:31
Edited time: September 14, 2009 23:47

Tags

Conflict, Military, Politics, Terrorism

Sending more troops to Afghanistan will only aggravate the situation. Only an offensive against Taliban forces in Pakistan can help, RT’s military analyst Evgeny Khrushchev says.

In last week’s interview with the Associated Press news agency, Russian ambassador to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said that if the US decides to send more troops to Afghanistan, this will only aggravate the situation there. “…if you bring 200 000 soldiers here, all of Afghanistan will be under the Taliban,” the agency quoted the Russian diplomat as saying. RT’s military analyst Evgeny Khrushchev says that the international forces in Afghanistan lack not the strength of troops, but the political decision to transfer the action from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

RT: From your experience, including the years you spent in Afghanistan in the 80s, would you say that Mr. Kabulov’s conclusions are correct?

Evgeny Khrushchev: Yes, they are correct. I think that for Afghanistan, one can use the rule that the force applied will encounter an equal opposing force. The more troops Americans bring there, the more resistance they will meet. And this also applies to other nations, as well as non-military specialists both contract soldiers and NGO members. Despite their legendary hospitality, Afghanis are very sensitive to any attempts to intrude on their life and politics in their country. So, yes, the resistance will grow if the military presence does.

RT: But in eight years of US operation in Afghanistan, was there any support from the local population?

E.K.: At the very beginning, when the American assault was directed against Al Qaeda and its main ally – the Taliban, the operation had some support and the US managed to join forces with the Northern Alliance. But heavy military presence in the very beginning also created high expectations which the American military have failed to meet. These unmet expectations also add to growing anti-American sentiments and actions in the country. As for the operation against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the conflict has been simply frozen, but not solved.

RT: What do you mean and what are the reasons behind such situation?

E.K.: The main reason is the complete transparency of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban can easily move people, weapons and resources in both directions and both US military and the ISAF cannot launch a full scale operation on Pakistani territory.

The situation is very similar to the one the Soviets had in Afghanistan at the end of the war – the army needed a political decision which would allow it to move to Pakistan, a decision the Soviet authorities could not make.

RT: But the CIA and US Special Forces have reported about several cross-border operations in Pakistan. Can this be the solution?

E.K.: For success they need a completely closed border. Special Operations will not make much difference. They already rely too much on special operations – which is understandable, as General McChrystal, the current commander of US Forces in Afghanistan and ISAF, earlier used to head the Joint Special Operations Command. However, Special Operations were never a good tool to establish and maintain order. Western forces need a full and open presence in Pakistan and they could use some Soviet experience in this respect – I mean using a request from Pakistani authorities to help to establish order in the country and acting on the excuse of international help.

RT: What about the ISAF? Can they be of great use in such operation?

E.K.: In my opinion, the ISAF proved that NATO as a military organization has outlived its potential. It should be reformed into an international law enforcement agency and deal with drug trafficking and human trafficking in Europe. Special forces from European countries might take part in the Pakistan operation in case such operation is launched, but under joint American command – which will not happen, given European politicians’ extremely sensitive attitude towards the Afghan war.

Comments (1)

Bianca 15.09.2009 22:36

Thanks for the hard-hitting analysis. My intuition tells me, however, that if the objective is to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, then the tactics are correct. The emphasis on counterinsurgency, the frequent errors targeting of civilian gatherings, from funerals to weddings, as well as the open border with Pakistan is telling. I do not believe that there is even one tent left of Al-Qaeda. And that the original Taliban, the one that moved in from Pakistan's madrasas into Afghanistan to put and end to the remnants of post-Soviet government in Kabul, can be numbered in low hundreds. The fighting is now between the forces and revenge seekers, as well as Afghanistan's popular uprising against occupation --- the insurgents. The insurgents, being largely Pastun, get all the help from Pakistan's "autonomous regions". Well, at least they used to be autonomous. Pakistan's and US priority seems to be first to get the once independent region subjugated to Pakistani government. While this is reshaping Pakistan, negotiations will take place with the "good Taliban" to support the occupation, and make the populace support the long-term presence. The goal is to reconsitute Taliban brand into a new geopolitically usefull tool. As it is clear as the nose on General McChrystal's face, that the stabilization of Afghanistan, and the deal with Taliban will allow the political moves on Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The unfortunate valley shared by the two, plus Kyrgizstan, is the next step in adding currently peacefull places into the "Arc of Instability". Looking at the mess that was created in Kosovo, somehow I doubt that Afghanistan will be easy to pacify. The West went all out of the way to recognize independent Kosovo, just to then send HUNDREDS of prosecutors and judges to try to impose a lawfull state! Already, the locals have smashed about dozen of EULEX vehicles. Good luck!

Undo