Monday, 21 September 2009 19:00 Adnan Khan
Ever since Barack Obama took office Afghanistan has taken centre stage in US foreign policy thinking. Obama in his campaign for US president constantly reiterated that Afghanistan has become the forgotten war, the worlds attention was on Iraq, the otherthrow of Saddam’s regime, the deepening crisis of the insurgency and the apparent dark role of Iran. The centre piece of Barack Obama’s position was that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that he would end it, he argued that that Iraq was a distraction and that the major effort should be in Afghanistan where the Taliban have made a comeback from safe havens in Pakistan.
US aims in Afghanistan have been cloaked in ambiguity, after 62 000 troops, a war that has now lasted longer than WW2, after numerous surges, elections, conferences and the problem of supply lines, now comments by both Britain and the US that talks should begin with the Taliban and they should be accommodated into any future political settlement, US aims in Afghanistan have constantly changed. China and Russia have continued to criticize US presence in the region and like many analysts argue that the US in reality has no aims to win the war, for them US actions show that Afghanistan itself was never an objective.
The USSR at its peak had 320 000 troops in Afghanistan during its attempt to occupy Afghanistan in the 1980’s, in the end the USSR left the region humiliated and defeated. Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of Soviet armed forces, to the USSR’s politburo in the Kremlin on November 13th 1986 summed up the invasion: “There is barely an important piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” the commander said. “Nevertheless, much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centres, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory that we seize.” He added: “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land, where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills.”
These could have been the words of a NATO general in the past few years as more and more allied troops have fallen to the Taliban. The US has only deployed a handful of troops for the war which raise a number of questions:
-
What are US interests in the region?
-
Does the US even have aims for victory?
-
If it does why has the US not deployed the necessary resources to achieve this?
-
The US is not in any way fighting a force that can be called a military, why therefore are the US and NATO struggling to contain an insurgency?
-
Why has the US spread the war to Pakistan?
-
Are US aims the control of Eurasia?
It should be remembered historically many empires have attempted to invade Afghanistan, on all occasions Afghanistan was a means to other much larger and grandeur aims
Geopolitics of Eurasia: Past and present
It was British geopolitical father Sir Halford Mackinder who first stated that Russia represented the ‘geographical pivot of history.’[1] In his seminal policy paper in 1904 Mackinder unequivocally asserted that control over Russia would determine who would control the vast expanses of Eurasia – the landmass of Europe and Asia, and by extension the whole world – The British Empire agreed. Whilst the British empire expanded to India, Africa and the rest of the world and anything it could get its hands on, Russia based in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Mackinder predicted, would expand South and East claiming immense natural resources and littering the landmass with a network of railways – at the time critical to territorial expansion, thereby enhancing its strategic reach of land power for the first time in history.
At the centre of Mackinder’s thinking – which was the basis of British policy was the heartland theory. MacKinder had identified the Northern-central core of Eurasia as the Pivot-state or the heartland of global politics. He placed Germany, Austria, Turkey, India and China, as lands adjacent to the pivot region. MacKinder in his 1919 work prepared for the British negotiators at Versailles presented his famous doctrine ‘who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island and who rules the World-Island controls the world.’ Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world’s resources. The Heartland’s size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island.
The British Empires foreign policy from the Russo-Japanese war in 1904 until the creation of NATO in 1949 had been constructed in Mackinder’s analysis; it was dedicated in preventing at all costs the emergence of a Eurasian pivot power centred on Russia and capable of challenging the British Empires global hegemony.
The ‘Great Game’
In the 19th century the British Empire and Tsarist Russia clashed for the domination of Central Asia – this struggle came to be known as the “The Great Game.” British sea power and occupation of the Indian subcontinent served as the platform to expand North west into Central Asia, while the Russian empire pushed southwards from the North.
The British Empire feared that Russian control of Central Asia would create an ideal springboard for an invasion of Britain’s territories in the subcontinent, The First and Second Anglo-Afghan Wars were fought in an attempt to establish control over the region, and to counter the slowly creeping expansion of Russia. Losing badly both times, the British Empire signed the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention which divided Afghanistan between the two powers and outlined the framework for all future diplomatic relations.
New Cold War
The US struggled with the Soviet Union for over 60 years in the cold war, the cold war ended a period of intense struggle for global domination and left Capitalism as the undisputed champion and the final form of governance for mankind as the defeat was not just the Soviet Union’s but communism itself.
As one cold war ended another struggle began, Many US policy makers saw the dismemberment of Russia as unfinished business. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West led by the US began working to push its boundaries in Europe rapidly eastward, destroying Russia’s ability to influence the region. The pro-Western lines have continued moving to the east for the past two decades, via NATO and EU expansion, until they pushed hard up against Russia’s borders. With the collapse of the union the US worked to dismantle the architecture established by the USSR, it worked to contain Russia by bringing all the former Soviet republics under its sphere of influence and for the next decade through the IMF and the World Bank it economically linked them to the West.
The US expanded its presence in the Balkans as it would give it the influence and control to effectively regulate the region. The US worked to contain the post-Soviet Russia, working to drive it out of the Balkans, East Europe and Central Asia. The US obstructed the deal on a federally controlled but semi independent Yugoslavia which led to civil war in 1993, it used this as a pretext to launch war against Serbia where Russia has ethnic ties with the Slavic’s, and by inaugurating Kosovo’s independence it further weakened Russian presence. The US worked to establish economic and military relations with Eastern European states, hence monopolising the security of the region. Such relations were used as a basis to annex such nations into NATO.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of US cold war policy had stated as far back as 1997 that for the United States, control of Eurasia – the region encompassing Afghanistan and Pakistan and their neighbours in the states of the former Soviet union – was a prime goal of post cold war US military and foreign policy. He said in his book ‘whoever either controls or dominates access to the region is the one most likely to win geopolitical and economic prize.’[2]
NATO
Despite the solemn pledges and apparently official agreements of Washington not to extend NATO eastward, George H W Bush and later President Bill Clinton, went back on their promises. They enticed the countries of the former Warsaw pact, one by one, into what was to become a newly enlarged, eastward expanding NATO.
Since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, one after another former members as well as former states of the Soviet Union have been coaxed and bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organisation, NATO. Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington steadily converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global empire, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia followed suit in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the European Union members of NATO, especially Germany and France, that they vote to admit Georgia and Ukraine.
Putin delivered a scathing attack on NATO expansion in his keynote speech in February 2007 at the annual Munich, Germany international conference on security: ‘NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders…..it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with modernisation of their alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?’
War on Terror
The US took full advantage of the post 9/11 climate to expand US military bases across the world. In December 2004 during his visit to Kabul defence secretary Donald rumsfield finalised plans to build nine new bases in Afghanistan in helmend, Heret, Nirmouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia, these nine were in addition to the three major US military bases already installed in 2001, the largest of these in Shindand was constructed less than 100 kilometres from the border with Iran.
Afghanistan has historically been the heartland for the British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for Central Asia during the 19th and 20th centuries. British strategy then was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling Afghanistan and thereby threatening Britain’s imperial crown jewel, India.
Afghanistan similarly was regarded by pentagon planners as highly strategic. It’s a platform from which US military power can directly threaten Russia and China, as well as Iran and the oil-rich Middle East. The size and scope of US military bases and now US plans to establish missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic goes well beyond preventing terrorism. If terrorism was at the heart of such a policy the US would have paid much more attention to Afghanistan. US bases, the expansion of NATO and the colour revolutions it backed in central Asia and Eastern Europe, all point towards attempts at hegemony over Eurasia.
Russian Resurgence
Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris Yeltson in 1999, a nationalist who endeavoured to change the fortunes of Russia. Putin began the process of re-nationalizing key sectors, assets, utilities and industries through policies intended to change the course of the nation. He dealt with the oligarchs who were essentially looting the nation, by restricting the amount of money they took out of the nation; some were allowed to leave the country only if they contributed to the re-building of the nation such a Roman Abromovich, whilst other oligarchs were dealt with ruthlessly. He stabilized the domestic situation through economic policies which were only possible under a dictatorship – any parliament or senate would have stalled on such huge decisions and would have allowed their own interests to get in the way.
Such resurgence has brought Russia into direct political conflict with the West, especially the US. In less then 10 years Russia has been transformed from a fallen animal stabbed in the back by its own, to a lion roaring its way back to its old status. With much of the world’s energy reserves and Europe’s pipelines running through former Soviet Union territory Russia’s resurgence represents a direct threat to a US which has faced little challenge on its global supremacy.
Russia’s resurgence is essentially Russia fighting back for its Eurasian territory lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia is today pursuing a course that will bring it in direct collision with the US for the 21st century’s great game and the struggle for Eurasia. Russian strategy is to counter US strategy, one Russian Analyst outlined the US strategy “The US and NATO had established their own military, geo-strategic, geo-political and geo-economic bridgehead in the heart of Eurasia, deploying a powerful network of military bases in Afghanistan and the central east and middle Asia as a whole’ moreover the war on terror is being used as a pretext and excuse for building up US and NATO military and organizational machine in the region and maintaining its open ended presence there.”[3]
Central Asia
The collapse of the USSR in 1990 gave the US the ideal opportunity to spread its influence in the former Soviet Republics that were for long well within the Iron curtain. The US utilised the EU and NATO to bring former Soviet republics under its influence and beyond Russian influence. The encirclement of Russia was further attempted through the so called colour revolutions where pro-Russian regimes were overthrown and pro-Western leaders took the helms.
This region is important because many of the oil and gas fields remain underdeveloped due to the Soviet preoccupation in developing fields in Russia proper. This means aside from the Middle East the Caspian region remains the only area that can significantly increase oil production.
Bill Clinton explained to president Aliyev of Azerbaijan at a white house meeting in august 1997, by supporting his country’s energy ventures, ‘we not only help Azerbaijan to prosper, we also help to diversify our energy supply and strengthen our national security.’[4]
Af-Pak
The US now views Central Asia and South Asia through the same lens. Condoleezza Rice confirmed in January 2006 that South Asia and Central Asia are high on her list of global priorities, and the State Department is adjusting its bureaus so that the same teams of experts and diplomats are focused on both regions.
“One of the things that we did in the State Department was to move the Central Asian republics out of the European bureau, which really was an artefact of their having been states of the Soviet Union, and to move them into the bureau that is South Asia, which has Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.” “It represents what we’re trying to do, which is to think of this region as one that will need to be integrated, and that will be a very important goal for us.”[5]
Afghanistan throughout history has been the buffer between empires, whilst Afghanistan itself does not posses much in terms of natural and mineral resources, its location is so strategic that empires have gone to wars over Afghanistan. Afghanistan today is key to many of the oil pipelines that will take central Asian oil to world markets, Afghanistan is also the route the to Persian Gulf oil, any occupation of Afghanistan places Persian Gulf oil – the worlds largest, a mere stones throw away.
It is for this reason the US initiated operation Cyclone – the code name for the United States CIA programme to arm the Mujahideen in 1981. The US initiated multiple programs for training Jihadi groups in techniques such as car bombings, assassinations and engaging in cross-border raids into the USSR. The Islamification process was deemed necessary for the US as the Soviet invasion was seen as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) provided the money and resources, and the ISI of Pakistan utilized these in fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Although the US left the region in 1989, after Soviet withdrawal, it left Pakistan to pick up the mess. It is here Pakistan fits into the Eurasian jigsaw.
Pakistan established its strategic assets when Russia invaded Afghanistan which are at the centre of much of America’s problems in Afghanistan and therefore Eurasia. These assets are non-state actors – the mujahideen. Kashmiri’s were groomed in Afghan camps and then launched into Kashmir to start an indigenous Kashmiri liberation movement in 1989. The movement was fuelled by several big and small Afghan mujahideen groups disengaging from Afghanistan and going to Kashmir. The ISI groomed several groups, such as Harkat-e-Jihad-i-Islami, Harkatul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The closest to the military establishment was Lashkar-e-Taiba. With an estimated 15,000 fighters alongside the Pakistan army the Indian forces totalling 800,000 personnel were humbled in Kargil before Nawaz Sharif’s humiliating withdrawal.
After decades of nurturing and developing Jihadi groups the Pakistan armed forces have developed deep relations with the Mujhaideen. However since the events of 9/11, which are considered to have been carried out by non-state actors, groups such as the Taliban were seen as a threat to US interests. Such groups who the US initially nurtured and armed were considered to have outlived their use. The launch of the ‘war on terror’ was in part to reverse the Islamification process which initially the US used to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
As Pakistan created and nurtured such groups, Pakistan was given an ultimatum to join America’s ‘war on terror’ and turn its back on such groups. It was understood by US policy makers that such non-state actors only exist due to the supply line provided by states. Removing such a supply line would remove any such danger from them and allow the US to strengthen its position in the region.
Whilst in power General Musharraf duly obliged and in cahoots with the US banned many such groups, stopped their funding and ordered many of the tribes that provided support to them to halt such actions. However after eight years, the US has found many elements within the ISI as well as the army refusing to end their support for the Mujahideen. Because of this Barack Obama views Pakistan and the FATA areas as key to victory in the war on terror and in realising US interests in the region
The US has however found that Islamic elements (which it terms as the rogue elements) have continued their support for the Mujahideen, although the extent to which Pakistan’s army still supports the Mujahideen remains unclear. An army spokesman just after the Mumbai attacks described the two most prominent Pakistani Taliban commanders as ‘patriotic’ and downplayed the conflict as a misunderstanding.’[6]
Thus Pakistan has become central to America’s plans in Eurasia. It was Pakistan as a proxy that began fighting the insurgency that the US was unable to defeat, such an insurgency had the prospect of severely crippling US plans for Eurasia. Like Iran came to America’s rescue in Iraq when the insurgency showed no signs of abating, the US expanded its Afghan theatre and blamed Pakistan for the insurgency and brought Pakistan into carrying out a mercenary role for the US. Whilst the US utilised much propaganda such as Pakistan being a failed state, Pakistan nuclear technology falling into Taliban hands and the Taliban being a few hundred miles from Islamabad, much of this was to build the case of expanding the war into Pakistan in order to bring Pakistan into US aims in the region, it is very likely US propaganda will be replaced with a policy to secure Pakistan, keep it intact and ensure it can fulfil its role as a regional surrogate.
Conclusions
Having systematically achieved its strategic goals, the United States had the ultimate aim of preventing the emergence of any major power in Eurasia. The paradox of this is the goals of US intervention in the region was never to achieve something – whatever the political rhetoric might have said – but to prevent something. The United States wanted to prevent stability in areas where another power might emerge. Its goal was not to stabilize but to destabilize, and this explains how the United States responded to the Islamic earthquake – it wanted to prevent a large, powerful Islamic state from emerging. Rhetoric aside, the United States has no overriding interest in peace in Eurasia. The United States has no interest in winning the war outright the purpose of these conflicts is simply to block a power or destabilize the region, not to impose order.
Whilst the powers that battled for Eurasia have changed Russian who sits on the Global Pivot remains in its position, however the struggle for the worlds pivot continues today, drawing many of the world’s nations into the 21st centuries great game.
References
[1] Sir Halford J. MacKinder, ‘The Geographical Pivot history, in Democratic Ideals and reality,’ The Geographical Journal, Royal Geographical society, 1904, pg 241-242
[2] Brzezinski Z, ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,’ Basic Books, September 1998
[3] Yuri Kroupnov, ‘The path to peace and concord in Afghanistan: The problem of Afghanistan for Russia and the world,‘ Russian institute for demography, migration and regional development, Moscow, march 10th 2008
[4] Office of press secretary, white house, visit of president heyder aliyev of Azerbaijan, August 1st 1997.
[5] US state Department, Central Asia Now “Arc of Opportunity,” Not “Crisis,” Condoleezza Rice, retrieved 9th Sep 2009, http://www.america.gov/st/washfile- english/2006/January/20060106145107mvyelwarc0.2283594.html
[6] Hamid Mir, ‘Army Official calls Baitullah Mehsud, Fazlullah ‘patriots,’ The news, 1st December 2008, retrieved 12th September 2009, http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=18709
Download the book from 
6th October 1973
The visit by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to Africa and her meeting with Somalia President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed brings back into sharp focus the ongoing instability which is Somalia considered by the UN as having one of the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa. Aid groups now believe one third of the country or almost 4 million people need food aid.
On the 40th Anniversary of Colonel Gaddafi’s tyrannical rule in Libya we re-publish this famous communiqué accounting Gadaffi for his rejection of the Sunnah. This action of Hizb ut-Tahrir was based on the hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم :
