WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: REALITIES AND PROSPECTS
Gagik Harutyunyan

"Noravank" Foundation
14 December 2009

The establishment of the multi-polar world order is a long process and,
despite system changes, realities inherited from the unipolar world
will dominate in the military and political and economic developments
for quite a long time. This circumstance becomes more vivid in the
context of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Iraq issue, due to
the irreversible changes which took place as a result of war, to one
degree or another is close to some kind of stage outcome then the
same cannot be said about Afghanistan.

"Grey war" In a global plane there are countries and regions which
developments are not sufficiently covered. Among analysts such
territories are called "grey". For the USSR citizens the classical
"grey" country was, for example, Afghanistan. The Soviet citizens had
not been well informed for quite a long time about the war conducted
by the Soviet army under the slogans of "international help" and
"establishment of socialism" which had lasted for about 10 years
(1979-1989) (during that war about 15 thousand soldiers were killed and
Afghani losses, including civilians, were more than several hundred
thousand1). In those years it was put down to the "peculiarities of
the close Soviet regime" (particularly, by a part of the society
which was to some extent informed about the war through "Voice of
America", "BBC" and other radio stations). Let us also mention that
the information blockade of the war in Afghanistan was abolished only
in 1988-1989 during Gorbachev’s "perestroika" which was followed by
the withdrawal of the troops from the country.

Some parallels 20 years passed and today in that very Afghanistan
another conflict has been going on for 8 years. Today the US and
its NATO allies assumed the role of the USSR. The slogans did not
change too much either: today it is conducted in the context of "war
on terrorism" and "establishment of the democracy". Of coarse today
the international community is more informed about the developments in
Afghanistan than the Soviet citizens before. But the recent monitoring
of the information flows shows that the new war in Afghanistan is less
covered in the mass media than, e.g. the processes in the Middle East.

Thus, the region and a conflict going on there have again acquired
"grey" status. In informational plane (and not only informational)
the current situation is to some extent similar to the "hunger for
information" in the Soviet period though the US and its allies can
hardly be called totalitarian, "closed" countries.

At the same time the references to the issues of Afghanistan on
the information field has been growing since 2009 which reminds the
"perestroika" period. In this regard let us mention that today in the
US in the context of "relaxation" strategy2 a kind of "perestroika"
is taking place. It is remarkable that in 1988-1989 the situation
in Afghanistan was beyond control which is also very close to the
current situation.

It is conditioned by the fact that the Americans and their allies
are fighting not only Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters. There are also
many ethnic groups and various units which activated their actions
to a considerable extent. The geography of those actions has also
extended: today the battles are fought not only in the territory of
Afghanistan but also in the territory of Pakistan.

The tactics of the fighters has also changed. The usage of the missiles
and carrying out terrorist acts by the suicide bombers (there were no
such things during the Soviet occupation) created new and difficult
situation. The military actions today "moved" to the comparatively
quite big cities (it is suffice to remember the recent attack on the
UN office in Kabul and the bombing of Peshavar (Pakistan). The western
militaries have not elaborated efficient remedy against such tactics.

In a consequence a number of casualties among the US and NATO soldiers
is considerably growing and in October 2009 American army lost about
60 soldiers. Though in 2009 the United States has sent 17 thousand
additional troops to Afghanistan and because of that war it raised
its military budget for 2010 on $30 billion, among other allies the
signs of demoralization can be noticed. Some countries (e.g. Italy) are
going to withdraw their troops3 and in other countries (e.g. Germany)
the growing public unease concerning that war can be noticed.

Generally, it should be stated that the negative attitude in the
international community towards the war is growing. In western mass
media one can meet many materials where parallels are drawn between
wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. In Vietnam War the US suffered a
defeat which is regarded by many American commentators as shameful.4

As it is known under such conditions the solutions are tried to be
found in the political plane.

Certain uncertainty In March 2009 the president Obama unveiled the
programme of the American actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan which
acquired name AfPak. According to the paper the main goals of the US
in South Asia are the annihilation of the terrorist groups and the
creation of the efficient security system. In the analytical community
and some circles of the American higher command the presentation
was interpreted as the new US administration editing G. Bush global
strategy in other spheres had not changed its stance on Afghanistan
issue. Particularly, according to the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) expert Daniel Mark5 the policy of Washington in regard to the
aforementioned countries remains uncertain. According to the expert in
the new administration’s programmes the level and the distribution of
the military, intelligence and diplomatic resources are not clarified.

It is also very important that the terms of completion of the programme
are not determined. In the opinion of the CFR experts the US should
change their priorities in the regions by directing the main part
of military and political and financial help not to Afghanistan but
to Pakistan where the maintenance of the stability (especially in
the sphere of nuclear weapons) is much more important6. D. Mark also
mentions that under the bareness of the material resources the close
cooperation with Pakistan in military-political sphere demands fewer
expenses than the war in Afghanistan. It is considered anyway that
in both countries the emphasis should be placed on the actions of
the armed forces and special services rather than on the issues of
"state formation" and "social and economic development".

It is also remarkable that according to CFR expert the American
presence in Afghanistan do not promote the improvement of the situation
but it also creates an impression that "the US has secret reasons"
to stay in that country. Let us mention that the latter issue is
really topical and it should be accepted that the current discussions
on AfPak do not touch upon the true goals of the war.

Strategic goals It is not a secret that the "war on terrorism" and
"the establishment of democracy" in Afghanistan and Pakistan are simply
PR slogans7. And, of course, the experts of the American "think tank"
in the sphere of foreign policy – CFR – are well aware of that. The war
in South Asia is conducted exclusively in strategic and geopolitical
planes and CFR advising the Obama administration to "take easy" the
issues of "state formation" and "social and economic development",
in fact, calls not to forget the true objectives of that war. The
geography of the region is almost ideal to implement actions against
main competitors of the US – China and Russia (and in some cases even
Iran). There has already been created the developed American military
infrastructure which consists of 12 bases and includes airports and
other structures. But the purpose is not only the possibility of
delivering efficient airstrikes against the enemies in case of war.

Dominance in this region allows influencing directly the former
Soviet Central Asian republics. The dissemination of the radical
Islam ideology and forming of the terrorist groups in those republics
contributes to the creation of the "instability zone" near southern
borders of Russia through "colour revolutions" and other actions.

There are the same considerations regarding China.

According to numerous sources before the September 11, 2001 the CIA
aspired to direct the radical Islamists to boost the separatism among
Uyghur and the recent unrest in Xinjiang comes to prove that there
is some "progress" in that line.

The geo-economic and energy factors are also extremely important. The
planned Caspian-Indian ocean oil pipeline should go through
Afghanistan, and the gas pipeline which would connect Turkmenistan
and India, according to yet unapproved final project, also would go
through the territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But according to some experts the US plans are not confined to
exclusively geopolitical and geo-economic considerations.

Global opium war According to the version of German political scientist
William Engdhal the US troops are in Afghanistan also in order to
control the biggest in the world opium cultivation and supply market
and to use the drugs against Russia and the super-profits from it
should go to restore the American financial system which suffered
from crisis.

This version may seem to be unserious but the facts give the seal to
the version of the German political scientist. According to various
sources (including the head of the US president administration’s Office
of Drug Control Policy) in recent 1-2 years Afghanistan has been
supplying about 90% of world opiates black market. According to the
data of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (NODOC) issued
in 2009 Russia has become the largest drugs market which consumes 20%
of annual drugs production8. The UN brings the data that for the recent
10 years the number of the drug addicts in that country grew ten times
and now it is about 1.5 million. Russia annually uses 75-80 tons of
heroins (i.e. more than China – 45 tons, the US and Canada together –
20 tons) and there are about $13 billion spent on buying drugs.

The member of the International Relations Committee of the State Duma
of the RF Semyon Baghdasarov9 who is one of the recognized experts on
Central Asia also affirms that the US and NATO do not fight against
drugs in Afghanistan but they, in fact, promote their cultivation.

Particularly, S. Baghdasarov mentions that in 2001 under the rule
of Taliban only 185 tons of opium were gathered while at present 43
times more, i.e. 8000 tons. It should also be added that according
to William Engdhal data the main sponsor of drugs cultivation and
supply in Afghanistan is Hamid Karzai.

It should be mentioned that the "opium" psychological weapon has been
known since 17th century. The Dutch sold it as a spice to Indonesia
in order to demoralize the Indonesians who opposed to the spreading
of Dutch plantations in their country. Later the same technology
was successfully used by the British in China. During the First
(1840-1842) and Second (1856-1860) opium wars they substituted in tea
trade silver for opium and could turn almost the half of the Chinese
into drug addicts and thus, in fact, conquered the country.

It is characteristic that the trade balance of China was in surplus
while British one was in deficit. In a consequence of the opium wars
the picture has changed. Let us mention that today the situation is
almost the same: American economy is suffering the difficult stage,
while the Chinese, despite global crisis, continues to grow.

Possible prospects The current discussions on the Afghan issue on
political arena come to prove that the United States has not clarified
its further actions in that region. Let us mention that within the
frame of the "hyperpreventive-super-preemptive" actions doctrine
named after G.

Bush the current strategy was elaborated under the unipolar world
order when the domination of the US in global plane was undisputed.

Today the situation has changed and this dictates the elaboration of
new approaches. In the situation being what it is several scenarios
are possible among which the followings can be mentioned:

"CFR variant". The US preserves its current position in the global
plane and manages to control the situation in South Asia adequately.

Under such conditions the US, according to the CFR recipes,
consolidating on the created positions manages with the help of army
and special services to continue their old strategy. At the same time
the American action programme will be more modest and unpretending
in regard to the "democratic" and "global anti-terrorist" projects.

According to this variant the US will preserve the considerable part
of its opportunities and will try to implement (maybe not in the AfPak
but in PakAf format) the aforementioned "strategic goals" and continue
"global opium war".

"Vietnam scenario". The US continues losing its political and economic
grounds in global plane and at the same the situation in South Asia is
getting beyond control. In the circumstances concerned the American
administration (maybe the next one, and according to the mentioned
scheme it maybe headed by Barak Obama whose mission is the worthy
"positioning"of the US in the multi-polar world) decides to withdraw
their troops from the region10.

In case of the latter scenario the uncontrolled chaotic situation
may emerge and the developments may go in different and unpredictable
ways. It is remarkable that Russian experts11 are most of all worried
about the uniting of Afghanistan and Pakistan under the direction of
radical Islamists. Such a development may also raise the possibility
of nuclear confrontation with India. The one should not also exclude
that such a scenario may even be preferable for the US12.

1Sometimes in mass media one can meet the information about
approximately one million casualties but we think that such information
is most likely pursues propagandistic objectives.

2See, particularly, Ô³Õ¡Õ£Õ"&# xD5;¯ Õ~@Õ¡O~@Õ¸O~BÕ© ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ¶Õ&#xB5 ;Õ¡Õ¶,
Â"Õ~@&#x D5;~@-Ô¹Õ¸O~BO~@O~DÕ&quot ;Õ¡ Õ°Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ&#xA2 ;Õ¥O~@Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ& #xB5;Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¶Õ ¥O~@Õ"
Õ°Õ¡&#xD 5;´Õ¡Â¬Õ¿Õ ¥O~DÕ½Õ¿Õ¨&#xC2 ;", Ô³Õ¬Õ¸Õ¢&# xD5;¸O~BÕ½. Õ¡Õ¦Õ£Õ¡&# xD5;µÕ"Õ¶
Õ¡&#x D5;¶Õ¾Õ¿Õ¡&#xD5 ;¶Õ£Õ¸O~BÕ©&#xD 5;µÕ¸O~BÕ¶, #5 (9), Õ§Õ" 3, 2009O~I

3In this context the incident with the Italian unit is
significant. It was exposed that the special services of
that country paid Afghan fighters for not fighting against
Italians. See:
2009/10/15/ Italyanskiye_spyecsl.phtml

4We think that maybe such developments are justified from the point of
view of the scenarios regarding the end of the war but in the aspect of
the essence of the conflict they are not grounded enough. Of course,
there were known geopolitical and geo-economic objectives in Vietnam
War which constituted a part of the USA-USSR conflict, but the general
impression is that the war had more competitive character.

I.e., despite the geopolitical objectives and large-scale
confrontation, the combatants (USA and USSR) tried to solve routine,
operative issues. Meanwhile, initiating this war in Afghanistan
Americans had indisputable advantage in global planes and the issues
of competition with other states if regarded then only in the context
of dominating "hyperpreventive-super-preemptive" doctrine.

5Daniel Markey, From AfPak to PakAf: A Response to the New U.S.

Strategy for South Asia.

A Policy Options Paper,

6In this regard Daniel Mark offers to rename the programme into PakAf.

7The same maybe said about the Soviet expansion. The developments
round Afghanistan (particularly if we remember the war against that
country conducted by Great Britain in the 19th century) mainly took
place within the scope of classical geopolitical conceptions.

8 /drugs

9 16-echo.phtml

10Such a variant does not mean that the US loses the chances to
restrain China and Russia from strategic point of view. Being the
undisputed leader in the sphere of military technologies Americans
aspire to change geopolitical concepts with the formation of the
space missile forces (this is not a science fiction and it is close
to the reality) which would allow keeping the main competitors at a
gunpoint

11Ð~PÐ"е&#xD 0;ºÑ~AанÐ&#xB 4;Ñ~@ Ð¥Ñ~@Ð°Ð¼Ñ ~Gихин, Ð~Zак може&# xD1;~B
взоÑ~ @ваÑ~BÑ~LÑ~A& #xD1;~O Южна&# xD1;~O Ð~PзиÑ~O, ТÑ~@и
Ñ~AÑ~F& #xD0;µÐ½Ð°Ñ~@Ð& #xB8;Ñ~O индо-& #xD0;¿Ð°ÐºÐ¸&#x D1;~AÑ~BанÑ~A&#xD0 ;ºÐ¾Ð¹ войн&# xD1;~K
Ð~_оÐ"Ð&#xB8 ;Ñ~BиÑ~GеÑ~A& #xD0;ºÐ¸Ð¹ кÐ"аÑ~AÑ ~A, #57, 2009.

12See, for example, Ô³Õ¡Õ£Õ"&# xD5;¯ Õ~OÕ¥O~@-Õ~@Õ¡O~@&#x D5;¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¸O~ BÕ¶ÕµÕ¡Õ¶,
Ô²Õ¡Õ¦Õ´& #xD5;¡Õ¢O~GÕ¥Õ¼ Õ¡Õ·Õ­Õ¡O~ @Õ°Õ" Õ´Õ¡O~@Õ¿Õ&#xA1 ;Õ°O~@Õ¡Õ¾Õ&#xA 5;O~@Õ¶Õ¥O~@Õ¨,
http ://;nid=1572 Other issues
of author FORMATION OF THE FUTURE [03.08.2009] "THINK TANKS" AND
NATIONAL SECURITY [24.07.2009] MULTIPLE-VECTOR GLOBALIZATION AND
PERMANENT CHAOS [03.04.2009] SYSTEM CHANGES [27.03.2009] FORMATION
OF THE "POLYIDEOLOGICAL" SOCIETIES [19.01.2009] ON THE ELECTIONS AND
POST-ELECTION PROCESSES IN ARMENIA [24.03.2008] On the problems of
information security [21.03.2007]