Military Review

Americans will stay in Afghanistan

During the recent swift voyage to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, President Barack Obama of the United States signed with his local counterpart Hamid Karzai a strategic partnership agreement that will regulate the relationship between Washington and Kabul after the withdrawal of US and NATO troops from the IRA in 2014.

Simple explanation

According to the document, the United States undertakes to support the social and economic development of Afghanistan, as well as to ensure security in the country up to 2024, for which 20 thousands of overseas superpower will be here. They will have to train Afghan security forces and take part in operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

The Americans are refusing not only permanent military bases in Afghanistan, but they are already stopping sudden raids on human settlements. In exchange, the Kabul regime pledges to provide the United States with the opportunity to use military facilities in the country. The agreement states: the United States recognizes the IRA as its main ally in the world from among non-NATO countries.

It is quite natural that in this treaty many in Russia have discovered the disclosure of the “true designs of Washington”, which will necessarily retain its military presence in the “heart of Asia”, from where it will carry the deadly threat to the Russian Federation, China, Iran and all progressive humanity.

Unfortunately, anti-American paranoia, mixed with total incompetence, has become simply dangerous in our country. Attributing to Washington literally devilish designs and similar supernatural opportunities seriously affects Russian politicians and the general mental health of Russians.

Americans will stay in Afghanistan

Meanwhile, the Kabul agreement has a much simpler explanation: the United States and its allies lost the war in Afghanistan (as we know, they are not the first). However, they want the defeat not to be complete and absolute, the situation has not returned, because of which in 2001, the campaign had to be started. By the way, if we recall the relatively recent past, we will have to state that the United States itself created the situation, but now there is no special point in talking about this. What is today is what it is.

Accordingly, the Americans hope to at least slightly control the situation in Afghanistan (and apparently in the neighboring countries) with the help of “special forces-unmanned” operations that have been well-developed in recent years. This is such a kind of high-tech version of mint-beige. The best way to fight partisans is by partisan methods, as military experts have long known. At the same time, modern technological delights (drones, satellite navigation, night vision devices, etc.) can significantly increase the effectiveness of counterguerrilla operations.

Apparently, Washington hopes to break the trend when the ruling regime of a developing country after the withdrawal of foreign “patron” troops collapses under the pressure of armed formations of local opponents in about two years . Moreover, the deployment of at least small groups of American special forces in Afghanistan should be no less important psychologically than in the military: even if the Afghan authorities and security forces retain the feeling that they were not left to fend for themselves and have someone to rely on in the event of a sharp deterioration .

However, the latter may be just an illusion. Special forces units are able to smash small militant units, and drones can destroy the leaders of the kaidists and the Taliban. But neither the special forces nor the UAVs will be able to contain the large-scale offensive of Karzai’s opponents, especially if Pakistan is behind them (and he will almost certainly support the massive onslaught of the Taliban, since it is Islamabad’s most important geopolitical tool). And then the remaining Americans in Afghanistan will have to flee. Naturally, the smaller, more compact and more mobile their forces will be, the easier and faster evacuation will take place. Apparently, this was the most important consideration (except, of course, the financial side) when the United States refused from the permanent bases in Afghanistan.

Extremely difficult task

In Russia, for some reason, the sacred significance of the concept of “military base” is attached. As if this is such a special option in a computer game, the receipt of which immediately provides the player with an automatic victory. Meanwhile, nothing in this case is automatically provided, on the contrary, the likelihood of the occurrence of enormous problems is great.

The value of a foreign military base is determined by how it allows you to deploy active hostilities in the event of an armed conflict. And this primarily depends on whether its supply with consumable materials (ammunition, fuel, food, medicines, spare parts), which in modern war "fly away" with great speed, is ensured. For example, the Russian bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia very significantly reinforce the grouping of Russian troops opposing Georgia, since they are pushed into the depths of Georgian territory, and the delivery of everything needed from Russia is reliably and guaranteed.

But our group in Transnistria does not create anything for Moscow except problems: if an armed conflict suddenly breaks out between the Russian Federation and NATO, it will not be possible to ensure its supply (it is blocked by Ukraine) and it will be lost immediately and completely.

By the way, the “NATO base in Ulyanovsk”, even if someone really planned to create such in Brussels or Washington, being inside Russia at a considerable distance from the borders of any of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, would not have lasted even two days if tried use the facility in the Volga region for aggression against Russia. NATO would not only lose one hundred percent of the forces and assets deployed in Lenin’s homeland, but would also suffer huge losses in aviation, trying to transfer the "air bridge" to a doomed base.

A similar situation would have been for the USA in Afghanistan if they had permanent bases there. This country, I remind you, has no access to the sea, and in dealing with the issues of supplying objects on its territory, Americans are dependent on the surrounding Iranian states (at least until the invention of teleportation, which is clearly not foreseen). Russia, China, the former Soviet Central Asian republics, Pakistan and Iran must provide their land routes and / or open their airspace for the transport of goods destined for the American group. However, Tehran is a fierce enemy of Washington, and in the capitals of other countries bordering Afghanistan with great pleasure will be engaged in blackmailing the United States, knocking out the most favorable conditions for providing American troops.

The task is doubly complicated by the fact that Afghanistan is in the Eastern, and the United States is in the Western Hemisphere. It is difficult to solve it even in the absence of any opposition.

Moreover, Pakistan may well become a second Iran, only worse, since Islamabad already has a nuclear weapon, and enough quality means of delivery. As mentioned above, if the Taliban move to Kabul, Pakistan will certainly support them (it is possible that parts of the Pakistani army will take part in the offensive). Naturally, Islamabad and Washington will be in a state of direct military confrontation. And then the supply of US bases will depend entirely on the countries of Central Asia, and also (at least indirectly) on Russia and China, which have a very large influence on the authorities of these states.

However, Beijing has recently finally established itself as the main geopolitical ally and patron of Islamabad, and also has very serious views of the natural resources of Afghanistan. Accordingly, the Celestial Empire will do everything to create maximum problems for the Americans. The position of Moscow in such a situation is more difficult to predict, but it is clear that complete dependence on Russia in such a critical situation is completely unacceptable for Washington.

Due to the circumstances described, it is completely absurd to fear that Americans from bases in Afghanistan will strike at Russia and China. More precisely, these objects can be used against the Russian Federation, if Beijing and Islamabad agree to this. Or against China and Pakistan, if such an operation is approved by the countries of Central Asia and Moscow. There is no third. Theoretically, none of these options is possible, but it is difficult to present their practical implementation in the foreseeable future. Even attacking Iranian territory from Afghanistan will be extremely difficult.

Thus, for reasons of geographic nature, full-fledged military bases in Afghanistan would become for the United States not an option, but a grave problem, requiring very large expenditures, in addition to being useless. That is why Washington refused to create these bases.

Rearguard battles

The special forces and UAV units left in Afghanistan will apparently be incorporated into the army and security forces of the Kabul regime. The Americans will be engaged in the implementation of the most difficult combat missions and will act as instructors for the Afghan wards, and also, of course, as overseers over them. Even now, desertion from the army and the police of the IRA is widespread. If the foreign contingent leaves, they can simply “evaporate” or fall into tribal formations. Moreover, such a development is quite likely even without tangible pressure from the Taliban, and if they launch a massive attack, the collapse of the security forces of the Karzai government is almost guaranteed. The presence of American special forces in the Afghan units will play a significant stimulating role to increase their stability in battle.

However, as mentioned above, all this will be effective only up to a certain limit. Of course, the presence of Americans will increase the combat capability of the Afghan units. But if the onslaught of the enemy formations in combination with religious and nationalist propaganda turns out to be powerful, then for every American soldier there will be a very real prospect of getting a bullet in the back. As if from their own. However, a good level of US special forces training should help reduce losses. But not to win the war.

Thus, the United States will be able to avoid a complete and final collapse in Afghanistan only by reconciling with the Taliban and Islamabad, which would have isolated Al Qaeda’s remnants (this was done in Iraq). It is extremely difficult to determine how realistic this is. The Taliban and their Pakistani patrons are well aware: time is playing against the Americans, so you just have to wait for the departure of the main forces of the enemy. They do not intend to go on a compromise in the form of admission to some power structures, because they want to get power entirely. It is extremely difficult to assume that in the remaining two years, the US troops, together with the contingents of their allies, will inflict such a heavy defeat on the Taliban that he will agree to concessions or they will not be needed by the Americans. If the anti-Taliban coalition did not achieve this in 12 years, will it really work out in just two years? Especially when the Europeans are quite frankly striving "to the exit", having lost the remnants of the already very insignificant desire to fight.

It is not possible to create Afghan armed forces capable of seriously opposing not only the Taliban, but also Pakistan. Attempting to solve this problem will require huge material costs from Washington without any guarantee of success. The gap in military capabilities between the Armed Forces of Kabul and Islamabad, as well as in the levels of military and moral-psychological training of military personnel is too large to be made up even with the help of the United States. Moreover, China stands behind Pakistan, which is also able to render assistance to its allies, and the possibilities of the PRC in this respect are now almost equal with the American ones.

In general, after the withdrawal of the Western coalition, the fate of Afghanistan will be decided in Islamabad and Beijing, it is absolutely inevitable. It is not excluded that Washington hopes to contain external expansion due to even the symbolic presence of American troops in the IRA. For a time, this factor will probably act, but not for long. First, the Taliban are like an internal Afghan force, which masks the fact of external interference. Secondly, in Islamabad and Beijing they will understand (or have already understood) that, for Western countries, leaving does not mean returning. At least so far there have been no precedents. Especially with the supply problems described above.

Fully leaving Iraq, the Americans will not return to it. And if in two years they keep some “limited contingent” in Afghanistan, it will never become the core of the new grouping. The question will be only when and how he leaves the IRA. The era of American hegemony is over, now the United States is fighting rearguard battles. Just for the time being, very few have realized this fact. But gradually awareness will come to all. And the struggle will begin for the “American inheritance”, in which there will be a mass of unexpected and extremely unpleasant (including for Russia) subjects.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Tersky
    Tersky 25 May 2012 07: 32
    Well, that's right, if the states take everyone out to Karzai the next day the kirdyk will come. So 20 bodyguards are left for this "democratic" body and poppy fields.
    1. YARY
      YARY 25 May 2012 07: 46
      Rather, for the fields a body is attached. wassat
      And not the army, but the NWF, before Congress it is inappropriately to report losses! wassat
    2. alexng
      alexng 25 May 2012 08: 06
      Of course, to protect the production of drugs as a side effect, but, however, will not be pulled. All this was started for aggression against Iran and it did not seem to have grown together. So they improvise on the go. And with Iran minke whales screwed up in full. Now they are trying to hide their "filthy" face, like ostriches in the sand.
      1. kostiknet
        kostiknet 25 May 2012 12: 07
        I don’t know about you, but I liked the title "Americans will stay in Afghanistan" !!! They just forgot to insert - FOREVER , this is how much fertilizer will fall into the ground, and undertakers will become rich am
        1. 755962
          755962 25 May 2012 15: 42
          The question remains: what could Islamabad and Washington promise to the Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns? The first probably offered an extensive socio-economic package. It is no coincidence that on March 25, in Washington, American and Pakistani diplomats and the military discussed the problems of building and restoring economic infrastructure for US money in the territories where Pakistani Pashtuns live. The fresh decision of the Pakistani leadership to rename the North-West Frontier Province, and the unexpected military pressure on the Pakistani Taliban, who began to suffer one defeat after another, look logical here, while the US is pushing Kabul to intensify efforts to create "a type of government that should to exist in order to restore order, ”Karzai accuses Washington of meddling in internal affairs. In addition, he points out that representatives of the UN and the European Union in Afghanistan “participated in the mass falsification of the results of the presidential election,” and then said that the NATO forces fighting the Taliban are “on the verge of becoming invaders” and threatened to join the Taliban if the international community will continue to put pressure on him. The dramatic political changes in Pakistan and the defiant behavior of Karzai may well be somehow connected. If this is true, then in the region the mechanisms hidden from prying eyes have come into motion, providing changes in the Great Geopolitical Game. It is possible that now new rules are being developed, according to which players will have to act in the coming years. At the same time, the attempts of the Americans to bring the situation to a common denominator seem illogical only at first glance, since they can lead to a sharp aggravation of the political struggle both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which threatens to result in serious consequences both for the region and its neighbors. But the role of Washington, according to some American strategists, should play in states located south of Central Asia. Perhaps it was no coincidence that a statement was made by the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Army, General Myers, who said that in order to achieve its objectives, US troops should remain in Afghanistan for "decades." In this case, the initiative of the joint Indian-American group on the need to control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons by America does not look so fantastic.
    DYMITRY 25 May 2012 07: 34
    IMHO Amers leave a limited contingent purely to demonstrate their position in the region. A good mine with a bad game. Well, to control poppy plantations, and heroin production. For this, the 20 thousandth group is quite enough. In addition, 20 thousand are only military personnel, and how many PMC employees will be with them about this silence. They can drive at least 200 thousand.
    1. Sergh
      Sergh 25 May 2012 08: 33
      But soon amers and drugs in Afghanistan will lose. If their contingent is reduced to a minimum, then this product will be intercepted by the Afghans themselves or someone from outside such as Arabs., I mean traffic. If for amers there will be no self-sufficiency in Afghanistan, then it will be tight, money will run out, and there is nothing more to take in addition to oil (which has already been sold).
      1. DYMITRY
        DYMITRY 25 May 2012 09: 30
        Greetings Sergey!
        I think private military companies will be put in charge of the drug, they will not want to completely dump their army in Mr. (although much further). And they can drive private traders and half a million.
  3. Vanek
    Vanek 25 May 2012 07: 35
    It’s just that they won’t be able to leave so beautifully.
    1. sahha
      sahha 25 May 2012 07: 45
      Do you think Americans really want to get out of there?
      I think that no, not just because they have bases around the world.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 25 May 2012 07: 55
        A large number of bases plays a geopolitical role in peacetime. In the case of warriors, most of the bases will turn into a ballast, and therefore they will be well-armed gangs.
        1. sahha
          sahha 25 May 2012 08: 01
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          In the case of warriors, most of the bases will turn into a ballast

          How is it?

          Who puts ... minus?
          What kind of demand is now being hit?
        2. alexander hjcnjd
          alexander hjcnjd 25 May 2012 19: 54
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          A large number of bases plays a geopolitical role in peacetime
          -You can remove the enemy without a big war. And this applies to everyone: can it be enough to consider Americans fools? They can be blamed for everything, but not stupidity.
      2. tronin.maxim
        tronin.maxim 25 May 2012 07: 58
        Apparently because they don’t want to leave, because they want to control the drug, its roads, supply, and how much to light themselves + Afghanistan is a strategically important country!
      3. Armata
        Armata 25 May 2012 08: 02
        Amer will never leave Avgan, and the point is not in drugs, but in proximity to the Russian borders.
        1. sahha
          sahha 25 May 2012 08: 09
          The truth is somewhere near...
      4. Leisure
        Leisure 25 May 2012 11: 10
        Just a base, uncomfortable.
  4. Uralm
    Uralm 25 May 2012 07: 45
    And 20 amers will sit in their bases like rats in holes
  5. Vanek
    Vanek 25 May 2012 08: 03
    Tersky writes correctly: - They will leave the United States, Karzay kirdyk. And he (Karzai) understands this moment and tries in every possible way to prevent the United States from leaving the region.
    1. sahha
      sahha 25 May 2012 08: 16
      Surely, in which case Karzai has a quiet place somewhere in the west.
      1. Tersky
        Tersky 25 May 2012 10: 54
        Quote: sahha
        Surely, in which case Karzai has a quiet place somewhere in the west.

        So you need to run to this place, but the Taliban are the masters of the running ... wink
  6. cobra66
    cobra66 25 May 2012 09: 11
    As always, America continues to carry democracy along with arms
  7. Middle-brother
    Middle-brother 25 May 2012 09: 30
    “Unfortunately, anti-American paranoia, mixed with total incompetence, has become simply dangerous in our Fatherland. Attribution to Washington of literally diabolical designs and similar supernatural capabilities seriously affects Russian politicians and the general mental health of Russians.”
    Here's a minus for this article
    1. Goga
      Goga 25 May 2012 10: 12
      Middle brother - Roman, for the same "thought" minus the author. There is also a similar level of "delights" in the article, in general, a "left" little article ... fellow
  8. Ascetic
    Ascetic 25 May 2012 10: 48
    Middle Brother, Goga I agree, similarly, I looked and waited for someone to evaluate such a pearl. It is as if American flags are being burned on Red Square, they are throwing rotten eggs to the Amer embassy ((although it would not hurt, only eggs are sorry, they are expensive now), they smash McDonald's and turn over Fords on the streets. An expert of an INDEPENDENT newspaper explicitly or intentionally confuses God's gift with scrambled eggs. Paranoia and hysteria are a sign of weakness and cowardice, and we are not afraid of the enemy and treat all his efforts with a sense of healthy conservatism and skepticism and with deep rezreniem in the shower. No.
    Calmly, Kozlodoev, will sit a mustache... in a puddle
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 25 May 2012 11: 18
      America, get out of Afghanistan!
      You sat there in a large puddle,
      In Iraq, too, oddly enough,
      But it turned out much worse.
      When the Union left Afghanistan,
      He fell apart after that.
      Your talkative obama
      lit up on the same bump.
      Texas will have to give
      The Mexican Nacobarons,
      Sell ​​Alaska for debts
      And lick the Chinese .. Thais.
      1. Goga
        Goga 25 May 2012 12: 09
        Ascetic - Greetings, Stanislav, a verse in the subject, but the photo with the flag was especially touched ... good
  9. Cadet787
    Cadet787 25 May 2012 10: 59
    After the Americans leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will go to the border of Tajikistan and then we will have to confront them. It’s better that 200 cargoes go to America; today, their presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to us.
    1. Cadet787
      Cadet787 25 May 2012 15: 15
      Judging by the reactions and minuses, some combed their hands to fight, forgot that they paid 14000 lives, and those who put the minuses will not go to fight there.
  10. Ataturk
    Ataturk 25 May 2012 11: 20
    And they swore that they would leave Afghanistan. The same Obama, his election campaign, announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
    Well, Obama, do you get a good profit from drugs? Bin Laden has not created a new Osama yet, so that the whole world can hang another noodle on his ears?

    1. Oleg0705
      Oleg0705 25 May 2012 20: 03
      You're right again Valery !!
  11. Uncle Serozha
    Uncle Serozha 25 May 2012 13: 39
    Thanks to the author of the article for a calm and balanced analysis, devoid of anti-American tantrums. Good material.

    Quote: Cadet787
    After the Americans leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will go to the border of Tajikistan and then we will have to confront them. It’s better that 200 cargoes go to America; today, their presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to us.

    Gold words! Remember that in Tajikistan in the 90s was! And how the Panj border detachment together with the Moscow detachment there swelled for everyone. And even that - crawled, scum. We will save our fighters, the amers of the two hundredth meet the way.
    And while they are there, they can always pinch something. While we were there, they delivered stingers and anti-tank weapons to spirits. We do not do this, but that does not mean that we cannot.
    I foresee the question: what if - have time to prepare? Answer: not every Tajik has a builder. Uzbeks, by the way, the same applies! ;)
  12. aspirin02
    aspirin02 25 May 2012 18: 05
    It’s clear that I’ll stay --- until they collect their deserters, it will be somewhere so 2030 ...
  13. Shumer
    Shumer 25 May 2012 18: 58
    "Americans will stay in Afghanistan"
    1. Oleg0705
      Oleg0705 25 May 2012 20: 05
      It would be nice to sprinkle smile
  14. nnnnnnnnn
    nnnnnnnnn 25 May 2012 22: 09
    Rejoice, you will not fight, there is time, you will strengthen your defenses, and so the Americans leave the hostages. Colleagues were not tired for the sake of pluses to engage in cheers of patriotism and to separate reality from the alternative?
  15. Stasi.
    Stasi. 25 May 2012 22: 43
    One thing is clear: America is trying in every possible way to save face from defeat in Afghanistan. The Yankees are trying to leave beautifully, but it doesn’t work out. Whatever the situation, we need to maximize our southern borders. Sooner or later, the Yankees will completely leave and then the Taliban and other radicals will begin to establish their order again. They will impose their regime, and then begin to move to Tajikistan and further north. The entire CSTO will have to fight the Taliban. We need to calculate all the possible options for the development of the Afghan problem and prepare for the worst.
    1. marshes
      marshes 25 May 2012 22: 53
      Quote: Stasi.
      CSTO will have to fight the Taliban

      There is the Northern Alliance, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Hazaras, so they will fight, maybe it will be even easier to divide Afghanistan into sexes.
  16. razved
    razved 26 May 2012 14: 11
    Once again, Mr. Khramchikhin is trying to elicit the idea that the United States of Russia is not an enemy at all. But here, what is still interesting:
    The Amerians didn’t just leave South Vietnam, they were driven out by the troops of the North, this is the first.
    Second, Najibullah’s regime fell only after the new democratic Russia ceased to assist him.
    Third, Russian bases are located not in the depths of Georgia, but in the territories of the states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognized by us.