U.S. Military Chief Latest Target Of West’s South-Central Asian Plans
Voice of Russia
August 22, 2012
The Taliban salutes General Dempsey
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Even now, when almost 100,000 US troops are present in Afghanistan, the number of defections and insider attacks is growing, and it would be naïve to expect that with the reduction of foreign presence the situation will be any better.
Karzai can hardly be called anything more that the Butler of the Presidential Palace. But as it turns out, his foreign mentors are not at all different, and the US troops cannot even guarantee safety for the country’s topmost commander at the most heavily guarded military base in Afghanistan.
The US is persistent in its intention to stay in Afghanistan long after 2014, allegedly with the aim of fighting terrorism, in practice in order to exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan and former Soviet Central Asia.
====
Early Tuesday morning, the Taliban launched an attack on the US military in Afghanistan, which might have yielded minor results from the purely military point of view, but has definitely become a major PR win. Two rockets hit the heavily guarded Bagram airbase – right at the time the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey was visiting it.
General Dempsey and his team were not hurt – they were in their sleeping quarters away from the affected spot. Only two US soldiers were slightly wounded. But the major impact the attack had was the damage inflicted on General Dempsey’s plane. The damage was significant enough for the general to use another plane when leaving the Bagram airbase.
The Taliban claimed that the attack was targeted and they knew where General Dempsey’s plane was. US officials tried to contradict the claim, saying that the plane bore no distinct marks that would distinguish it from other planes in the field.
In any case, the story is much more than just an isolated incident.
First of all, why did General Dempsey fly to Afghanistan? The main topic of his talks with Afghan officials was far from being a routine one. He was discussing the so called “green-on-blue” attacks which have become common in the recent months. A growing number of US and other foreign soldiers are getting killed by people clad in Afghan security forces uniforms (and presumably, members of Afghan police or security forces).
This in itself puts in doubt all talks of the US withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan by 2014, when Afghan security forces will be ready to take the responsibility upon themselves. Even now, when almost 100,000 US troops are present in Afghanistan, the number of defections and insider attacks is growing, and it would be naïve to expect that with the reduction of foreign presence the situation will be any better.
Second, assuming that the Taliban claim that the attack was targeted is true, one has to come to the conclusion that Taliban informers have infiltrated Afghan security forces much more deeply than Afghan officials and their foreign supervisors would like to admit.
This poses a question of governability in today’s (and tomorrow’s) Afghanistan. When foreign occupation began back in early 2002 and for several years after Afghan President Hamid Karzai was labeled by his ill-wishers “the mayor of Kabul”. Terrorist attacks that have swept Kabul have shown that even that is an exaggeration, and Karzai can hardly be called anything more that the Butler of the Presidential Palace. But as it turns out, his foreign mentors are not at all different, and the US troops cannot even guarantee safety for the country’s topmost commander at the most heavily guarded military base in Afghanistan.
And last, but definitely not least. The incident should be looked upon in a much broader context of US politics. The strange thing about the current presidential campaign is that neither of the two main candidates is eager to say anything on the issue. It could be understandable in the case of the incumbent president Barack Obama, who might not be willing to comment on his unfulfilled promise of 2008 to end the war. But what about Mitt Romney – isn’t it a lucrative occasion to tarnish Obama’s image of a peacemaker?
The explanation is simple. A recent analysis published by the Huffington Post draws a clear conclusion: “Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney will say it out loud, but the unpopular, 11-year war in Afghanistan is not drawing to a close. Instead, substantial numbers of U.S. troops likely will be committed there for years, no matter who wins.”
Indeed, now that the number of Americans killed in the war has reached 2,000, polls show that more than two-thirds of US citizens oppose the war and are in favor of a speedy pullout – even before the 2014 deadline. But this is not on the mind of Washington strategists – no matter what their partisan affiliation is. The US is persistent in its intention to stay in Afghanistan long after 2014, allegedly with the aim of fighting terrorism, in practice in order to exert pressure on neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan and former Soviet Central Asia.
Since the cost of the operation “Enduring Pressure” is going to be high (and the Bagram attack is just one of numerous proofs of it), both candidates prefer to keep a low profile and not annoy the American public before it is too late for the latter to object.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
