U.S. Will Retain Influence in Afghanistan after Troops Withdraw
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 22 June 2011
by Igor Yavlyansky (link to original)
(Russia) on 22 June 2011
by Igor Yavlyansky (link to original)
Translated from
by Chupalova.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The situation in the country is going to develop according to the Iraqi scenario, says Senator Rudick Iskuzhin.
What will happen to Afghanistan after 2014, when the last American soldiers are expected to leave the country? That was what Senator Rudick Iskuzhin, an expert on Asia and a co-chairman of the Federation Council's Group for Cooperation with the National Assembly of Afghanistan, told Izvestia.
[Correspondent] Do you know the withdrawal schedule for American troops?
In general terms. One third of the troops must leave Afghanistan by the end of 2012, by the next presidential elections in the United States. There are currently 97,000 troops stationed there. That means that 33,000 to 35,000 soldiers will come home.
[Correspondent] Isn't that approximately the number that was additionally deployed to Afghanistan in the beginning of 2010?
The reinforcement was specifically sent to facilitate the withdrawal of troops. Ten thousand soldiers from support units are expected to return home by the end of this year. Congress insists that the number should be increased to 15,000. In any case, it is clear that the first phase of the withdrawal of troops will be dictated not by military but by political considerations. From my point of view, that is a propagandist trick in view of presidential elections.
[Correspondent] The White House doesn't have a detailed plan for the withdrawal. You said earlier that it would probably be conducted in a "manual mode," according to the operational situation.
Americans are going to keep a powerful military force — 25,000 experienced combat troops — in Afghan territory until the last moment. I am confident that the U.S. will maintain their power to influence the situation in the country even after 2014. Americans will actively use the Iraqi methods.
[Correspondent] What are those?
The U.S. Congress requested more than $7 billion in 2012 to spend on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The money is needed to expand the U.S. presence. There are going to be at least 15 U.S. embassies in all major Iraqi cities. More than 17,000 people are going to be working there, including diplomats, military officers and economic missions representatives. Eight thousand people are going to be working in Baghdad, for example. Clearly, that is not merely diplomatic representation. That is a different kind of military presence in the post-war period.
[Correspondent] What military functions can those people perform?
A simple example is a special structure for conducting air missions. Officially it is set up for evacuating the wounded and the staff in critical situations. But it has other specific objectives, such as troop support, reconnaissance of roads and rapid response operations. The air forces are supposed to be controlled by that structure. They are going to be based at 19 different airfields and have access to nearly all Iraqi landing strips. The network of medical institutions is being expanded. In essence, those institutions are military hospitals. We can conclude that even though American troops are officially withdrawing from Iraq, the U.S. retains its military and intelligence presence in the country.
[Correspondent] Doesn't that mean that the United States is still substantially letting down its NATO allies that have troops in Afghanistan?
I don't think that the U.S. is simply pulling out of Afghanistan. It is already almost certain that NATO is going to retain control of all of its air bases after 2014. In addition, the U.S. is taking specific geopolitical steps to weaken Afghanistan. One example of that is the plan to divide Afghanistan into three zones: North (Turkic-speaking Uzbeks and Tajiks), West (Hazaras) and South (Pashtuns).
[Correspondent] What should Russia do?
Standing passively by is not an option. We must take a proactive position, which is exactly what we are doing. We need to defend the gains that have been achieved within the anti-drug coalition at the G8 summit in Deauville, which means demanding that the West keeps its promises to curb drug trafficking. We expect a delegation of Afghan parliamentarians to visit us by the end of the month. They are coming to discuss specific issues, such as the future of air bases and the issues of combating terrorism.
What will happen to Afghanistan after 2014, when the last American soldiers are expected to leave the country? That was what Senator Rudick Iskuzhin, an expert on Asia and a co-chairman of the Federation Council's Group for Cooperation with the National Assembly of Afghanistan, told Izvestia.
[Correspondent] Do you know the withdrawal schedule for American troops?
In general terms. One third of the troops must leave Afghanistan by the end of 2012, by the next presidential elections in the United States. There are currently 97,000 troops stationed there. That means that 33,000 to 35,000 soldiers will come home.
[Correspondent] Isn't that approximately the number that was additionally deployed to Afghanistan in the beginning of 2010?
The reinforcement was specifically sent to facilitate the withdrawal of troops. Ten thousand soldiers from support units are expected to return home by the end of this year. Congress insists that the number should be increased to 15,000. In any case, it is clear that the first phase of the withdrawal of troops will be dictated not by military but by political considerations. From my point of view, that is a propagandist trick in view of presidential elections.
[Correspondent] The White House doesn't have a detailed plan for the withdrawal. You said earlier that it would probably be conducted in a "manual mode," according to the operational situation.
Americans are going to keep a powerful military force — 25,000 experienced combat troops — in Afghan territory until the last moment. I am confident that the U.S. will maintain their power to influence the situation in the country even after 2014. Americans will actively use the Iraqi methods.
[Correspondent] What are those?
The U.S. Congress requested more than $7 billion in 2012 to spend on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The money is needed to expand the U.S. presence. There are going to be at least 15 U.S. embassies in all major Iraqi cities. More than 17,000 people are going to be working there, including diplomats, military officers and economic missions representatives. Eight thousand people are going to be working in Baghdad, for example. Clearly, that is not merely diplomatic representation. That is a different kind of military presence in the post-war period.
[Correspondent] What military functions can those people perform?
A simple example is a special structure for conducting air missions. Officially it is set up for evacuating the wounded and the staff in critical situations. But it has other specific objectives, such as troop support, reconnaissance of roads and rapid response operations. The air forces are supposed to be controlled by that structure. They are going to be based at 19 different airfields and have access to nearly all Iraqi landing strips. The network of medical institutions is being expanded. In essence, those institutions are military hospitals. We can conclude that even though American troops are officially withdrawing from Iraq, the U.S. retains its military and intelligence presence in the country.
[Correspondent] Doesn't that mean that the United States is still substantially letting down its NATO allies that have troops in Afghanistan?
I don't think that the U.S. is simply pulling out of Afghanistan. It is already almost certain that NATO is going to retain control of all of its air bases after 2014. In addition, the U.S. is taking specific geopolitical steps to weaken Afghanistan. One example of that is the plan to divide Afghanistan into three zones: North (Turkic-speaking Uzbeks and Tajiks), West (Hazaras) and South (Pashtuns).
[Correspondent] What should Russia do?
Standing passively by is not an option. We must take a proactive position, which is exactly what we are doing. We need to defend the gains that have been achieved within the anti-drug coalition at the G8 summit in Deauville, which means demanding that the West keeps its promises to curb drug trafficking. We expect a delegation of Afghan parliamentarians to visit us by the end of the month. They are coming to discuss specific issues, such as the future of air bases and the issues of combating terrorism.