• Geopolicy
• National Security
• Issues of Armeniancy
• Economy

14.12.2009

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

The establishment of the multi-polar world order is a long process and, despite system changes, realities inherited from the unipolar world will dominate in the military and political and economic developments for quite a long time. This circumstance becomes more vivid in the context of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Iraq issue, due to the irreversible changes which took place as a result of war, to one degree or another is close to some kind of stage outcome then the same cannot be said about Afghanistan.

“Grey war”

In a global plane there are countries and regions which developments are not sufficiently covered. Among analysts such territories are called “grey”. For the USSR citizens the classical “grey” country was, for example, Afghanistan. The Soviet citizens had not been well informed for quite a long time about the war conducted by the Soviet army under the slogans of “international help” and “establishment of socialism” which lasted for about 10 years (1979-1989) (during that war about 15 thousand soldiers were killed and Afghani losses, including civilians, were more than several hundred thousand¹). In those years it was put down to the “peculiarities of the close Soviet regime” (particularly, by a part of the society which was to some extent informed about the war through “Voice of America”, “BBC” and other radio stations). Let us also mention that the information blockade of the war in Afghanistan was abolished only in 1988-1989 during Gorbachev’s “perestroika” which was followed by the withdrawal of the troops from the country.

Some parallels

20 years passed and today in that very Afghanistan another conflict has been going on for 8 years. Today the US and its NATO allies assumed the role of the USSR. The slogans did not change too much either: today it is conducted in the context of “war on terrorism” and “establishment of the democracy”. Of course, today the international community is more informed about the developments in Afghanistan than the Soviet citizens before. But the recent monitoring of the information flows shows that the new war in Afghanistan is less covered in the mass media than, e.g., the processes in the Middle East. Thus, the region and the conflict going on there have again acquired “grey” status. In informational plane (and not only informational) the current situation is to some extent similar to the “hunger for information” in the Soviet period though the US and its allies can hardly be called totalitarian, “closed” countries.

At the same time the references to the issues of Afghanistan on the information field has been growing since 2009 which reminds the “perestroika” period. In this regard let us mention that today in the US in the context of “relaxation” strategy² a kind of “perestroika” is taking place. It is remarkable that in 1988-1989 the situation in Afghanistan was beyond control which is also very close to the current situation.

It is conditioned by the fact that the Americans and their allies are fighting not only Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters. There are also many ethnic groups and various units which activated their actions to a considerable extent. The geography of those actions has also extended: today the battles are fought not only in the territory of Afghanistan but also in the territory of Pakistan.

The tactics of the fighters has also changed. The usage of the missiles and carrying out terrorist acts by the suicide bombers (there were no such things during the Soviet occupation) created a new and difficult situation. The military actions today “moved” to the comparatively quite big cities (it is suffice to remember the recent attack on the UN office in Kabul and the bombing of Peshavar (Pakistan). The western militaries have not elaborated efficient remedy against such tactics.

In a consequence a number of casualties among the US and NATO soldiers is considerably growing and in October 2009 American army lost about 60 soldiers. Though in 2009 the United States has sent 17 thousand additional troops to Afghanistan and because of that war it raised its military budget for 2010 on $30 billion, among other allies the signs of demoralization can be noticed. Some countries (e.g. Italy) are going to withdraw their troops³ and in other countries (e.g. Germany) the growing public unease concerning that war can be noticed. Generally, it should be stated that the negative attitude in the international community towards the war is growing. In western mass media one can meet many materials where parallels are drawn between wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. In Vietnam War the US suffered a defeat which was regarded by many American commentators as shameful.⁴

As it is known under such conditions the solutions are tried to be found in the political plane.

Certain uncertainty

In March 2009 the president Obama unveiled the programme of the American actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan which acquired name AfPak. According to the paper the main goals of the US in South Asia are the annihilation of the terrorist groups and the creation of the efficient security system. In the analytical community and some circles of the American higher command the presentation was interpreted as the new US administration editing G. Bush global strategy in other spheres had not changed its stance on Afghanistan issue. Particularly, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) expert Daniel Mark⁵ the policy of Washington in regard to the aforementioned countries remains uncertain. According to the expert in the new administration’s programmes the level and the distribution of the military, intelligence and diplomatic resources are not clarified. It is also very important that the terms of completion of the programme are not determined. In the opinion of the CFR experts, the US should change their priorities in the regions by directing the main part of military and political and financial help not to Afghanistan but to Pakistan where the maintenance of the stability (especially in the sphere of nuclear weapons) is much more important⁶. D. Mark also mentions that under the bareness of the material resources the close cooperation with Pakistan in military-political sphere demands fewer expenses than the war in Afghanistan. It is considered anyway that in both countries the emphasis should be placed on the actions of the armed forces and special services rather than on the issues of “state formation” and “social and economic development”.

It is also remarkable that according to CFR expert the American presence in Afghanistan do not promote the improvement of the situation, but it also creates an impression that “the US has secret reasons” to stay in that country. Let us mention that the latter issue is really topical and it should be accepted that the current discussions on AfPak do not touch upon the true goals of the war.

Strategic goals

It is not a secret that the “war on terrorism” and “the establishment of democracy” in Afghanistan and Pakistan are simply PR slogans⁷. And, of course, the experts of the American “think tank” in the sphere of foreign policy – CFR – are well aware of that. The war in South Asia is conducted exclusively in strategic and geopolitical planes and CFR advising the Obama administration to “take easy” the issues of “state formation” and “social and economic development”, in fact, calls not to forget the true objectives of that war. The geography of the region is almost ideal to implement actions against main competitors of the US – China and Russia (and in some cases even Iran). There has already been created the developed American military infrastructure which consists of 12 bases and includes airports and other structures. But the purpose is not only the possibility of delivering efficient airstrikes against the enemies in case of war.

Dominance in this region allows influencing directly the former Soviet Central Asian republics. The dissemination of the radical Islam ideology and forming of the terrorist groups in those republics contributes to the creation of the “instability zone” near southern borders of Russia through “colour revolutions” and other actions. There are the same considerations regarding China.

According to numerous sources before the September 11, 2001 the CIA aspired to direct the radical Islamists to boost the separatism among Uyghur and the recent unrest in Xinjiang comes to prove that there is some “progress” in that line.

The geo-economic and energy factors are also extremely important. The planned Caspian-Indian ocean oil pipeline should go through Afghanistan, and the gas pipeline which would connect Turkmenistan and India, according to yet unapproved final project, also would go through the territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But according to some experts the US plans are not confined to exclusively geopolitical and geo-economic considerations.

Global opium war

According to the version of German political scientist William Engdhal the US troops are in Afghanistan also in order to control the biggest in the world opium cultivation and supply market and to use the drugs against Russia and the super-profits from it should go to restore the American financial system which suffered from crisis.

This version may seem to be unserious but the facts give the seal to the version of the German political scientist. According to various sources (including the head of the US president administration’s Office of Drug Control Policy) in recent 1-2 years Afghanistan has been supplying about 90% of world opiates black market. According to the data of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (NODOC) issued in 2009 Russia has become the largest drugs market which consumes 20% of annual drugs production⁸. The UN brings the data that for the recent 10 years the number of the drug addicts in that country has grown ten times and now it is about 1.5 million. Russia annually uses 75-80 tons of heroins (i.e. more than China – 45 tons, the US and Canada together – 20 tons) and there are about $13 billion spent on buying drugs.

The member of the International Relations Committee of the State Duma of the RF Semyon Baghdasarov⁹ who is one of the recognized experts on Central Asia also affirms that the US and NATO do not fight against drugs in Afghanistan but they, in fact, promote their cultivation. Particularly, S. Baghdasarov mentions that in 2001 under the rule of Taliban only 185 tons of opium were gathered while at present 43 times more, i.e. 8000 tons. It should also be added that according to William Engdhal data the main sponsor of drugs cultivation and supply in Afghanistan is Hamid Karzai.

It should be mentioned that the “opium” psychological weapon has been known since 17th century. The Dutch sold it as a spice to Indonesia in order to demoralize the Indonesians who opposed to the spreading of Dutch plantations in their country. Later the same technology was successfully used by the British in China. During the First (1840-1842) and Second (1856-1860) opium wars they substituted in tea trade silver for opium and could turn almost the half of the Chinese into drug addicts and thus, in fact, conquered the country.

It is characteristic that the trade balance of China was in surplus while British one was in deficit. In a consequence of the opium wars the picture has changed. Let us mention that today the situation is almost the same: American economy is suffering the difficult stage, while the Chinese, despite global crisis, continues to grow.

Possible prospects

The current discussions on the Afghan issue on political arena come to prove that the United States has not clarified its further actions in that region. Let us mention that within the frame of the “hyperpreventive-super-preemptive” actions doctrine named after G. Bush the current strategy was elaborated under the unipolar world order when the domination of the US in global plane was undisputed. Today the situation has changed and this dictates the elaboration of new approaches. In the situation being what it is, several scenarios are possible among which the following can be mentioned:

• “CFR variant”. The US preserves its current position in the global plane and manages to control the situation in South Asia adequately. Under such conditions the US, according to the CFR recipes, consolidating on the created positions manages with the help of army and special services to continue their old strategy. At the same time the American action programme will be more modest and unpretending in regard to the “democratic” and “global anti-terrorist” projects. According to this variant, the US will preserve the considerable part of its opportunities and will try to implement (maybe not in the AfPak but in PakAf format) the aforementioned “strategic goals” and continue “global opium war”.
• “Vietnam scenario”. The US continues losing its political and economic grounds in global plane and at the same time the situation in South Asia is getting beyond control. In the circumstances concerned the American administration (maybe the next one, and according to the mentioned scheme, it maybe headed by Barak Obama whose mission is the worthy “positioning”of the US in the multi-polar world) decides to withdraw their troops from the region¹⁰.

In case of the latter scenario the uncontrolled chaotic situation may emerge and the developments may go in different and unpredictable ways. It is remarkable that Russian experts¹¹ are most of all worried about the uniting of Afghanistan and Pakistan under the direction of radical Islamists. Such a development may also raise the possibility of nuclear confrontation with India. One should not also exclude that such a scenario may even be preferable for the US¹².

Return

---

Another materials of author

• HYBRID CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATION PROCESSES 2[13.02.2020]
• HYBRID CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATION PROCESSES 1[13.02.2020]
• CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES AND IDEOLOGY[25.01.2018]
• SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE MULTIPOLAR WORLD[23.01.2018]
• “COLOR REVOLUTIONS”[16.01.2017]
• INFORMATION WARFARE OF THE NEW FORMATION[26.12.2016]
• THE GROWTH OF EXTREMISM AND THE FACTOR OF “INTELLECTUAL PARITY”[22.09.2015]
• THE GROWTH OF EXTREMISM AND THE FACTOR OF “INTELLECTUAL PARITY”[31.08.2015]
• ARMENIAN STUDIES IN THE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL SECURITY[07.05.2015]
• EEU AND ARMENIA[15.12.2014]
• HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN AZERBAIJAN TOO BLATANT TO COVER UP[06.10.2014]