Though the situation has changed since the 2001 US invasion,
Afghanistan is still the key to opening up Central Asia. The Taliban have
survived nearly seventeen years of US occupation. What's next? In reality
ending the war is more complicated than ever. Now apart from Washington and its
proxy government in Kabul there are multiple players in this long, sad and
deadly game.
There is no viable military solution to the war in
Afghanistan. Unless you're going to send in hundreds of thousands of troops, be
willing to take steady loses and occupy the country for a generation even while
attempting to re-shape its culture, then you have no reasonable hope of walking
away 'victorious'. It's an unwinnable situation which many understood when Bush
launched the invasion in 2001.
The Soviets had already been down that road and might have
had reasonable success but for US and Saudi backing of the mujahideen.
And that's what happens with these wars, they provide
opportunities for other power-players to step in and wage proxy war. The scene
in 2001 was a little different. Pakistan was somewhat unstable due to its
military coup that brought Musharraf to power. A new nuclear state, things were
tense with India and neither wanted trouble in Afghanistan.
Iran was wary and as the US targeted them in the 2002 Axis of
Evil speech, they didn't want to see the US successful in neighbouring
Afghanistan but they also had to be careful not to provoke Washington. The
Taliban was an enemy that had treated the Shia (and particularly the Hazara) population
brutally. Tehran would from time to time grant refuge to fleeing mujahideen and
begrudgingly to some members and affiliates of Al Qaeda but even today they
know the various Salafi groups are also a great threat to them.
The Taliban while hostile to the Shia in Afghanistan was and
is a national power focused in particular on Pashtun social and political
concerns. Western Afghanistan is mostly Tajik while the Pashtuns are
concentrated in the East and across the British created border with Pakistan. The
Taliban did at one time control the West around Herat but never fully
controlled the mostly Tajik and Uzbek North which continued to resist them
until the Taliban was forced out by the Americans in 2001. The Taliban's
primary zone of interest is Kabul and Kandahar, the Central, Southern and Eastern
portions of Afghanistan and the Pashtun dominated areas across the border in
Pakistan. In recent years ISIS has also come to have a presence in these same
areas.
China was and continues to struggle with Uyghur militancy in
Xinjiang and was in 2001 only beginning to move into Central Asia. The early
stages of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) were just coming
together. Uyghur separatism has been closely connected to Pan-Turkism and its
leaders have found refuge in Turkey and have often been connected to Grey
Wolves and other paramilitary movements with loose connections to US
intelligence.*
With the collapse of the USSR, Russia maintained ties and
interests in Central Asia but in 2001 was only beginning to get up off its
knees and back into the game. This is why during the 1990's strategically
minded intellectuals in the American Establishment, men like Zbigniew
Brzezinski argued that the US needed to get involved in Central Asia but knew
that apart from a Pearl Harbor-type event the US public would not support a
potentially long-term foreign war.
But now it's 2018 and the situation is very different. Tehran
is still in a place of uncertainty. It has a shaky nuclear deal and it has gained
significant power in Iraq and yet it certainly wants the Americans out of
Afghanistan and out of the region. Would Tehran reach out to one of the
branches of the Taliban in order to facilitate an American withdrawal?
They just might but I am somewhat cynical of Western sources
that suggest this and even more of those that suggest a Moscow-Tehran-Taliban
alliance. This is to so oversimplify the situation as to be just plain
misleading.
While China didn't want the US in the region back in 2001,
it's safe to say that today China most certainly wants the US out. China's One
Belt One Road (OBOR) project seeks to expand Beijing's influence across the
whole of Asia. The pacification of Afghanistan will open it up to business,
mining and the possibility of pipelines... some of the very reasons the US took
a renewed interest in the country back in the late 1990s. Afghanistan at peace
will also allow the Americans to compete for business. At this point a peace on
solely US terms that excludes the Chinese and other potential investors isn't
possible.
Russia desperately wants the US out of the region. Moscow
fears a growing US-NATO footprint and at one time the US had established a
military presence in Central Asia. This has waned somewhat and yet US
diplomatic efforts have not. A low-grade war in Afghanistan allows the US to
stay in the region but its longevity has tried American society. Years of
stalemate and a lack of progress have hurt US credibility and have frustrated
both Congress and the American street.
Pakistan has had it with Washington and has turned back
toward their old ally in Beijing. Their mutual suspicions regarding India have
driven them together since the days of Partition and the founding of the
People's Republic under Mao. Unable to completely sever ties with Washington at
this time, Islamabad feels betrayed and used. India has forged close ties with
Washington and to the great ire of Pakistan is economically active in
Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Pakistan is certainly working with some of the Taliban
elements. The Pakistani ISI helped to create The Taliban in the early 1990's as
a solution to the instability generated by the Afghan Civil War. Remember as of
today there is no one Taliban. The term has become an umbrella encompassing
several groups including the Mullah Omar group that wielded power in 2001.
Today's Taliban is comprised of Al Qaeda affiliated Salafists, Pashtun Deobandi
Nationalists, and in several cases ex-American allies from the Soviet War.
Is China working with the Taliban and supplying them arms?
It's possible but doesn't seem too likely. Beijing will likely do business with
whatever faction or coalition ends up in power. They are waiting patiently.
They have signalled interest in mineral exploitation and continue to quietly
invest in Afghanistan, avoiding the fighting and yet hoping to reap the harvest
of an American exit. As soon as it is feasible, Beijing wants to pour some
serious money in Afghanistan and build infrastructure which can facilitate the
connections between the Indian Ocean (via Pakistan) and the nations of Central
Asia.
This is always what Afghanistan was really about and the more
candid American strategists have said as much. Afghanistan is about
geo-strategic positioning. A maddening country from the perspective of Western
planners, it is vital to the Eurasian project.
Is Moscow supplying arms? I am dubious especially considering
the sources of the accusation, but it could be. The Anti-Russian campaigners
have repeatedly tried to push this line but it never seems to hold up. US
military officers and spokesmen are some of the least trustworthy people on the
planet. That said, there's no reason to trust the Russians either. Washington
and Moscow are effectively in a state of war and thus truth is sure to be the
first casualty.
If Moscow is funneling arms to the Taliban, it's hardly
surprising. The situation in Europe is bad enough, they don't want the
situation in Central Asia to worsen. Despite the phony War on Terror narrative,
Moscow knows full well the US has a long history of working with Islamists.
During the Soviet-Afghan War the US facilitated not only what would become Al
Qaeda but encouraged elements to launch attacks into the USSR itself. Moscow
has long suspected the US and Turkey of working with and supporting the Chechen
rebels who have wreaked havoc not only in the Russian republics of the Caucasus
but in the Russian heartland itself.
With the shift in policy during the Obama administration the
US began to once more work semi-openly with some of these elements, especially
in places like Libya, Syria and Iraq. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine
Washington making trouble once more in Central Asia. Having bases and troops in
Afghanistan will make the arming, training and insertion of such militants a
lot easier. Russia wants the US out and I'm sure is willing to take some risks
to make it happen.
The US of course has nothing to say in the way of criticism.
The absurd outrage expressed by US diplomats and military figures is a farce
and much of the world knows this. The US has armed paramilitaries the world
over and once in Afghanistan during the 1980's, they helped to arm and create
some of the very monsters who torment not only Afghanistan but the world. In
addition to helping foster what would become Al Qaeda, the US has worked repeatedly
with organised crime, fascist dictators and other Islamic terrorist
paramilitaries like the KLA. The US has no moral standing. The only people who
think it does are members of the gullible public, the media and the
Establishment class that uses the narrative as a marketing ploy. The US cares
nothing about democracy or human rights. It is a violent, rogue empire dripping
in blood.
Others have noted American utilisation of arms from ex-Warsaw
Pact nations. This has been reported for some time and even Al Jazeera recently
ran a report revealing how the US utilises these new allies to ship arms to the
various war zones. The appearance of Bulgarian, Czech and Croatian weaponry
allows the US to retain plausible deniability. Some reporters have suggested
the use of AK-47's and other similar armaments is practical because the
fighters are already familiar with these weapons. In other words because
they're already in theatre they are readily integrated.
Of course their use serves other purposes to. In addition to
plausible deniability they can of course be pegged on Russian affiliates and if
they just happen to end up in the hands of ISIS and others... there's no way to
blame the United States. But of course despite the attempts to obscure this, there
are the connections. This is a repeat of what happened in the 1980's. Apart
from the later Stinger missiles the US used weapons from the Warsaw Pact to
supply the mujahideen. It didn't work. It wasn't too hard to figure out that
Washington was the real source.
Today, much of the current crop of weapons popping up in
Middle Eastern hot spots has been traced once again to Eastern Europe and not a
few believe that the final destinations (in the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda
fighters) are not accidental especially when it comes to places like Syria.
If the United States is working with ISIS as some believe or
more likely is quietly facilitating them in places like Syria, their recent
defeat and scattering might lead them to take greater root in Afghanistan and
Central Asia. They are already there but their numbers are not significant, at
least not yet.
The fact that ISIS is also fighting the Taliban in
Afghanistan is not without significance. Once again ISIS and the United States
find common cause. The only place Washington really objected to ISIS was in
Iraq. Officially The Pentagon will condemn the presence of ISIS in Afghanistan,
but if they're fighting the Taliban you can be sure American forces will step
back and let them fight. And you can also be fairly sure that some of those
Eastern European munitions just might fall into their hands.
Continue reading part 2
Continue reading part 2
*The
US openly supports and even funds (through the NED) the World Uyghur Congress
(WUC) which though it has no open ties to the separatist paramilitary East
Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), at the same time shares many of its
goals. According to numerous analysts, at the very least the WUC expresses
sympathy with the designated terrorist group the ETIM.
WUC leaders presently live in Germany and the United States
and consistently anger Beijing by traveling to Taiwan and Northern India and
meeting with figures like Dalai Lama. While seeking support in Japan WUC
president Rebiya Kadeer insulted the Chinese by visiting the controversial
Yasukuni Shrine even while calling upon Tokyo to provide aid to their
independence movement. The WUC stands for peaceful political change in East
Turkestan/Xinjiang but it's hard not to be somewhat sceptical of their stance.
Additionally ETIM fighters have turned up in Syria where they
are part of the Salafist effort to fight Assad. While these Al Qaeda affiliates
are officially declared terrorists by both Turkey and the United States they
are being almost openly supported by Ankara (as they move through Turkey) and
the rumours of US weapons ending up in their hands is persistent. This is part
of the larger story of fighters and weapons flowing out of Europe through
Turkey and into the Syrian War. Some commentators will seek to separate Turkish
support for the Uyghurs from American policy but this antedates the Syrian War.
The US has been supporting Uyghur independence and nationalist movements since
the 1990's when they began to reconsider the relationship with China.
Pan-Turkism utilising paramilitaries like the Grey Wolves has
been an ongoing project for decades. Recent events like the controversies
surrounding Turkey's geo-political shift and the dispute regarding US support
for Fethullah Gülen have undoubtedly damaged the project but at this point no
one has 'pulled the plug' so to speak. Despite the differences between Ankara
and Washington they still share many common goals.
The ETIM group in Syria has become so influential that
they're now ordering attacks on Chinese interests back in Central Asia. This
coupled with US military and academic figures openly calling for the arming of
paramilitary groups in East Turkestan/Xinjiang has alarmed Beijing and since
2016 they have taken a greater interest in the Syrian War. These groups along
with ISIS (which now includes some Uyghur members) are beginning to move back
into Central Asia which has set off alarm bells in places like Beijing, Kabul,
Islamabad, Moscow and various Central Asia capitals.
Additionally there are rumblings about some of the nebulous
connections between Uyghur fighters in Syria and the many Chechens who are also
involved in the conflict. The Chechens will of course return to the Caucasus and
continue the fight against Moscow. Long supported by Turkey and other US
allies, the Uyghur relationship could spell trouble not only in the Caucasus
but in Crimea. The Crimean Tatars on the basis of Pan-Turkism have openly
spoken out in support for Uyghur separatists and you can be certain that Moscow
does not want to see ETIM fighters showing up in Crimea or in the Donbass where
Chechens, Tatars and other Central Asians have formed units allied with Kiev's
counter-insurgency effort. They're not there to help Kiev but to fight Moscow.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.