"Russian troops back in Afghanistan
Russians are coming?
Russian government officials have announced that the Russian Army's Spetsnaz special ops forces are going to Afghanistan to provide protection for the representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and the Emergencies Ministry officials in that country. It has been announced that the Spetsnaz units are from the 201st Motorized Infantry Division currently stationed in Tajikistan.
According to the Russian Gazeta.ru news agency, Russian forces begun arriving in Afghanistan as early as November 14. The number of forces being deployed by Russia to Afghanistan is considerably greater than required for protection of the Russian diplomats and other officials.
Meanwhile, the US Secretary of Defense announced that the US special ops forces in Afghanistan were involved in heated combat with the Taliban forces. Rumsfeld also said that so far there were no losses among the US troops. These two statements are mutually exclusive: if there are no losses, there is no heated combat and, most likely, no combat at all.
British arrival to Bagram airfield caused a great deal of apprehension on the part of the Northern Alliance troops. Northern Alliance commanders said they were not informed about such a move by the British and that presence of British troops at Bagram may compromise relations within the Northern Alliance. Any additional foreign ground forces in Afghanistan, including Russian, will not make this situation any better.
Taliban's "retreat"
Taliban's strategy is essentially similar to the tactics of the Mujahedin during 1979-1989 war with the Soviet Union: they evade superior enemy forces and avoid any large-scale battles, instead resorting to brief attacks on the flanks of the advancing enemy forces - the Northern Alliance in this case. The primary goal is not to make any territorial gains but to put a steady drain on the human and equipment resources of the enemy.
The same tactics was employed by the Chechen rebels during the 1994-1996 and the 1999-2001 Chechen wars against the Russian army. During these two conflicts Russian troops outnumber the rebels by ten to one - a ratio required by the doctrine of conventional ground warfare to minimize friendly losses.
In Afghanistan the Soviet army had between 120,000 and 180,000 ground troops during the ten years of war. This number proved to be insufficient to control the occupied territories. According to the former top Soviet commanders in Afghanistan, they required around 500,000 troops to control the captured territory of Afghanistan without having to rely on the "friendly" locals.
Clearly, assembling such a force in Afghanistan will require at least six months and billions of dollars. Some say that the goals set by the US and its allies, including Russia, in Afghanistan are very different from the goals pursued by the Soviet Union. This assertion implies that the number of troops required for the military operation in Afghanistan will be considerably lower. I tend to disagree with this assumption.
First, the goals set by the US are very similar to those pursued by the USSR: an establishment of a friendly regime in Afghanistan. In this regard Soviet goals in 1979 were more attainable because such a government has already existed in the country and enjoyed considerable public support. On the other hand, today we do not have East-West standoff of the two superpowers, that fuelled the Afghan opposition to the Soviets.
What we still have in Afghanistan, however, is the lack of understanding, to put it mildly, between numerous ethnic and religious groups. We also have Pakistan, which is somewhat supportive of Taliban and cannot be effectively controlled by its government. And we have something the USSR did not have to deal with in 1980s - the Al Qaeda and the threat of nuclear and biochemical terrorism.
Some personal grumbles
In other words, I think its unfounded to call the situation in Afghan any easier than it was in 1980s or the goals set by the US any easier to achieve than those set by the USSR twenty years ago. So far we have seen very little of what is going on in Afghanistan. The media coverage of the conflict is very patchy at best. In most cases the reporters show astonishing lack of historical knowledge and understanding of Afghanistan, which is inevitably reflected in the news reports wee get from the region.
When the US started its campaign against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, my impression was that the primary goal was to prevent any further terrorist attacks against the United States, not to provide social services to the Afghans, including the Taliban fighters who now pose as peaceful civilians. I think it is this expansion of goals that will make the outcome of this war very different from the outcome of the Persian Gulf War.
What is really disturbing, in my opinion, is that today Americans are not feeling any less vulnerable to possible terrorist attacks than they did after September 11 attacks. This situation is illustrated by the very response of the American public and economy to the threats of further terrorist attacks recently made by the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar.
Concentrating of Afghanistan may help to bring down the Taliban, however, it will not end Al Qaeda activities. The real strength of this organization always was and continues to be Saudi Arabia. Of course, the US cannot bomb its main gas station. Iraq seems as a most logical alternative target, even though any known links between Baghdad and the Al Qaeda are superficial at best. But, as always, Saddam wants war and is doing everything possible to provoke the US. Hence the recent artillery attacks by the Iraqi forces against Kuwait.
There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein has something up his sleeve in the case the US launches another major attack. Whether or not the American public wants to experience this "something" is a big question. I am referring to possible bacteriological weapons Iraq may have, among other surprises. What really bothers me, however, is that no matter when or whom the US attacks next, it will not be Saudi Arabia, it will not be Kuwait, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Palestine or Egypt. In other words, it will not be any of the real major strongholds for the Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with a global reach.
If this proves to be true, than the war against terrorism is already lost independent of the outcome of the war in Afghanistan. And the best the US can do is to cut its losses and concentrate the available resources on improving security at home. So far such improvements have been limited to the loss of civil liberties and freedoms by the American citizens and other residents of the United States.
The recent introduction of military trials for suspected terrorists immediately comes to mind. The closest analogy for this decision is the infamous "7-8" order adopted by the Soviet Central Executive Committee in 1935, following the assassination of Kirov - a senior member of the Soviet Communist Party. According to this executive order, all persons suspected of terrorism were to be tried by special tribunals consisting of three members - the so-called "Troikas", including a military officer, an NKVD (KGB) officer and a local Communist Party representative. I guess in our case it will be a local Republican party official.
This decision by the Soviet Central Executive Committee served as the cornerstone for Stalin's purges and the GULAG. Russian newspapers joked that this order was signed by Bush on the second day after meeting with a former KGB officer (Putin). At the beginning it's all very funny. Of course the US cannot be heading in the same direction, since the American public, so keenly aware of the political changes taking place in their country, is now taking to the streets to protest Bush's infringements on their civil liberties. Either that or Americans are doing their holiday shopping.
Interesting that among the precedents sited in support of the decision by George W. the White House officials included the trial of German agents in 1942. All we need to do now is to send all of the Arab-Americans to concentration camps to Kansas (and all Chechens back to Kazakhstan) and, while we are at that, let's do the same with all the Japanese living in the US. Hey, there was a precedent and, evidently, this is all that matters.
Someone suggested to me in one of the e-mails that try to be a little more positive in my outlook for the future of the American war against terrorism. Well, starting a war on the other side of the world seems to be a very promising way to... save American lives."
