The US's Afghan Exit May Depend on a Syrian One

Washington’s options in Syria are dwindling - and dwindling fast.

Trumped up chemical weapons charges against the Syrian government this month failed to produce evidence to convince a skeptical global community of any direct linkage. And the US’s follow-up pledge to arm rebels served only to immediately underline the difficulty of such a task, given the fungibility of weapons-flow among increasingly extremist militias.

Yes, for a brief few days, Syrian oppositionists congratulated themselves on this long-awaited American entry into Syria’s bloodied waters. They spoke about "game-changing" weapons that would reverse Syrian army gains and the establishment of a no-fly zone on Syria’s Jordanian border – a la Libya. Eight thousand troops from 19 countries flashed their military hardware in a joint exercise on that border, dangling F-16s and Patriot missiles and “superb cooperation” in a made-for-TV show of force.

But it took only days to realize that Washington’s announcement didn’t really have any legs.

Forget the arguments now slowly dribbling out about why the US won’t/can’t get involved directly. Yes, they all have merit – from the difficulties in selecting militia recipients for their weapons, to the illegalities involved in establishing a no-fly zone, to the fact that more than 70% of Americans don’t support an intervention.

The single most critical reason for why Washington will not risk entering the Syrian military theater – almost entirely ignored by DC policy wonks – may be this: the 2014 US military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“Help, we can’t get out”

There are around 750,000 major pieces of American military hardware costing approximately $36 billion sitting in Afghanistan right now. The cost of transporting this equipment out of the country is somewhere close to the $7 billion mark. It would be easier to destroy this stuff than removing it, but given tightening US budgets and lousy economic prospects, this hardware is unlikely to be replaced if lost.

Getting all this equipment into Afghanistan over the past decade was a lot easier than getting it out will be. For starters, much of it came via Pakistani corridors – before Americans began droning the hell out of that country and creating dangerous pockets of insurgents now blocking exit routes.

An alternative supply route through Afghan border states Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan called the Northern Distribution Network was set up in 2009, but is costlier and longer than going via Pakistan. And human rights disputes, onerous conditions on transport and unpredictable domestic sentiment toward the Americans places far too much leverage over these routes in the hands of regional hegemon Russia.

Unlike Iraq, where the US could count on its control over the main ports and Arab allies along the Persian Gulf border, Afghanistan is landlocked, mountainous and surrounded by countries and entities now either hostile to US interests or open to striking deals with American foes.

In short, a smooth US exit from Afghanistan may be entirely dependent on one thing: the assistance of Russia, Iran, and to a lesser degree, China.

All three countries are up against the US and its allies in Syria, refusing, for the better part of 18 months, to allow regime-change or a further escalation of hostilities against the state.

In the past few months, the Russian and Iranian positions have gained strength as the Syrian army – with assistance from its allies – pushed back rebel militias in key towns and provinces throughout the country.

Western allies quickly rushed to change the unfavorable equilibrium on the ground in advance of political talks in Geneva, unashamedly choosing to further weaponize the deadly conflict in order to gain “leverage” at the negotiating table.

But none of that has materialized. As evidence, look to the recent G8 Summit where western leaders sought to undermine Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him “isolated” and referring to the Summit as “G7+1.”

In the meeting’s final communiqué, Putin won handily on every single Syria point. Not only was it clear that the international community’s only next “play” was the negotiations in Geneva, but there was no mention of excluding President Bashar al-Assad from a future Syrian transitional government, once a key demand of opponents. Furthermore, the declaration made it clear that there was no evidence linking chemical weapons use to the Syrian government – had there been any “evidence” whatsoever, it would have made it to paper – and Syrian security forces were empowered, even encouraged, to weed out extremist militias by all the G8 nations.

This was not an insignificant victory for the Russians – it was the first public revelation that Washington, London and Paris have conceded their advantage in Syria. And it begs the question: what cards do the Russians hold in their hand to bring about this kind of stunning reversal, just a week after Washington came out guns blazing?

America – choose your Afghan exit

The US military establishment has, for the most part, stayed out of the fray in Syria, where special ops have been ceded to the CIA and external contractors.

But as the gargantuan task of extricating the US from its decade-long occupation of Afghanistan nears, President Barack Obama has scrambled to accommodate the Pentagon’s top priority. Having assiduously avoided a negotiated political or diplomatic solution with the Taliban for years, he hopes to now pull a face-saving, 11th hour deal out of his hat with foes who will sell him down the river at a moment’s notice.

"The Americans are deeply worried that if the war continues the Kabul government and army might collapse while American bases, advisers, and special forces remain in the country, thereby putting the U.S. in an extremely difficult position," says Anatol Lieven, a professor and Afghanistan expert at King's College London, about the already-stalled US-Taliban talks in Doha last week. "They would obviously like to bring about a ceasefire with the Taliban."

Even if Americans could get to the table, there are a myriad issues that could conclusively disrupt negotiations at any time – in a process that “could take years,” as various US officials concede.

For starters, the involved parties – Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government (which consists of competing ethnic and tribal leaders) and the “new Taliban” – now have multiple interests with regional players like Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, and the neighboring “Stans” which puts a serious strain on any straightforward negotiation goals.

As an example, the very same Taliban delegation now sitting with the Americans in Doha, were traipsing through Tehran late last month – ostensibly with the knowledge of all parties. And this was certainly not the first visit between the two.

While the US arrogantly kept its Afghan foes at arm’s length for years, the Iranians were busy employing soft power in their neighborhood – a task facilitated by a decade of US regional policy mismanagement that has aggravated its own allies in and around Afghanistan.

This isn’t just a matter of Pakistan and Iran inaugurating a once-inconceivable gas pipeline, as they did earlier this year. Iran is now participating in infrastructure and social service projects in the heart of Kabul, has forged working relationships with Pakistani intelligence on a variety of mutual security issues, and has built deep networks within Afghanistan’s political and tribal elite – even with the Taliban, courtesy of mentors in Islamabad.

A US security expert and frequent advisor to US military forces inside Afghanistan and Iraq gives me the bottom line:

“Iran has basically exploited our vulnerabilities and filled those gaps well.
The US's very presence in Afghanistan has helped Iran gain tremendous influence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan because of widespread disdain for US military activities and intervention, period. This is where Iranian diplomacy has excelled. Iran and Pakistan have ramped up their relationship both in military terms and with local insurgents during the past seven years. Iran has moved in and built mosques, schools in the middle of Kabul, for God’s sakes.”

The Iranians may be able to upset hopes of a smooth US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, but, this source warns, the Russians can potentially play “spoiler” in a big way as well:

“In Kyrgyzstan we have a base there to airlift a lot of supplies - mostly food, small scale things, not heavy equipment - for US soldiers and troops inside Afghanistan. Russia has so much influence there that at one point they threatened to give the Kyrgyz more money for the base that we were renting to kick us out and shut down that essential supply route. We were forced to heavily increase our rent payments to stay there.”

A few days ago, the Kyrgyz parliament voted overwhelmingly to shut down this very Manas base by July 2014, a full six months before the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is set to complete. Was it a coincidence that the vote came up around the time of the G8 huddle in Ireland, dominated almost entirely by news about a stand-off on Syria?

The US military source also explains how easily the Russians can sweeten the pot for the Pentagon:

“We have, concurrently, gained some support to withdraw from Afghanistan thru neighboring Tajikistan with the help of the Russians - and in return we are going to have to help build some infrastructure, like roads, under the auspices of US aid. These negotiations within and between the US and Tajik governments are ongoing. On this, the Russians have given their word that if we can find a way to exit through any of these countries, they will not interfere. Of course, the politics are fluid and anything can change at anytime.”

In April, NATO reached out to Moscow for help and advice on their military withdrawal from Afghanistan. NATO is keen to ensure the cleanest exit possible, but is also concerned about volatility in the aftermath of its departure - and desperately wants to avoid the perception of "mission defeat."

What about the Chinese?

“China’s interests are a bit different. Less focused on our military withdrawal, more inclined to undermine our long-term influences and goals," explains my source. "The Chinese are hell-bent on influencing countries for resource extraction and allocation, given their huge domestic demand. They are very competitive with the US and are going after the same resource pool. They undermine US influence because they play the game differently – they will bribe where we have strict rules on bidding, etc., and therefore enjoy more flexibility going after these same resources.”

In other words, like just about everybody else in that neighborhood, China will edge out any US gains made over the past decade - in both the political and economic sense.

In terms of near-term domestic and international political perception, however, that loss will pale in comparison to a failure by the Pentagon to secure the safe exit of its assets from Afghanistan.

“In the final analysis,” says the US military source with great irony, “if we want to get out of Afghanistan quickly and with minimum sacrifice to troops and hardware, it would save us a great deal of trouble if we could exit with the help of - and through - Iran.”

Enter James Dobbins, who was named Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in May. The veteran US diplomat, who I had the opportunity to interview in Washington three years ago, is an interesting choice for this position precisely because he has been so vocal in advocating for US-Iranian negotiations when few others dared.

Dobbins, notably, engaged actively with Iran in the aftermath of the US invasion of Afghanistan, based on a mutual interest of replacing the extremist Taliban with a more moderate, inclusive government. But further dealings came to an abrupt halt just weeks later, when then-US President George W. Bush delivered his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, including Iran in this trio of top American foes.

It is doubtful that Dobbins or the Doha talks can work any miracles though. The kind of exit the US needs from Afghanistan must rely on a constellation of determined players and events that would be quite remarkable if amassed.

While it is obvious to all that the combined weight of Russia, Iran and China could tip that balance in favor of an expeditious American exit, what would motivate any of these three - who have all recently been at the receiving end of vicious US political and economic machinations - to help?

A grand bargain over Syria would surely be a sweetener: you and your allies exit Syria, we’ll help you exit Afghanistan.

The problem with Washington though, is that it never fails to botch up an opportunity – always striving for that one last impossible power-play which it thinks will help it gain dominance over a situation, a country, an enemy.

There remains the concern that the US's oft-repeated Al Qaeda mantra - “disrupt, dismantle, defeat” - will prove to be its one-stop solution for every problem.

And that is the exception to my premise about a Syrian exit. That US spoilers who cannot accept even the perception of vulnerability - let alone an outright defeat - may instead choose to catapult the entire Mideast into a region-wide war for the sake of avoiding a painful compromise.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.

Comments

Iran's position on Afghanistan was correct. What normal human being can support the Taliban or Al-Qaeda? Only western politicians and hypocrites do that sort of thing. They fight them in one place and aid them in another.

"They fight them in one place and aid them in another."

They fight Iran's poodles in Lebanon and they bring them to power in Afghanistan and Iraq, kama tudeen tudaan

"Iran's position on Afghanistan was correct. What normal human being can support the Taliban or Al-Qaeda? Only western politicians and hypocrites do that sort of thing."

Yes, "halulan lakum haramun 'ala ghayriqum", so why do you hypocrites use the takhween card if you aren't sincere and is Hamas more treacherous than Iran's thuwar Nato?

Not one word about the treachery of Iran's poodles and the Iranian regime itself in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, when Hamas is considered more treacherous than Iran's thuwar Nato and the author's premise is based on that all the Syrian rebels are totally beholden to the Western agenda, Ad-Dunya nonsense to save the decaying Assadi regime.

This doesn't make sense as a sudden cause for concern in light of the huge amount of waste practiced by the US military in any of their ventures. Intentional over-reach sounds great from the point of view of a perceived psychological weapon (remember 'shock and awe' and 'surge' propaganda nonsense) that although temporarily granting an advantage of instilling fear of massive annihilation quickly turns to clumsy posturing.
The US loves to waste money especially the pentagon, but suddenly it's boo hoo we have to destroy perfectly good ordinance what a waste!. Shame and shame again. Guess who's getting richer? same players that sold and shipped the gear will have to sell it all over again!

Hmmm

Who made up those numbers? 36 Billion and 7 billion to get it back. In a pigs eye. Please this is an insult to the American taxpayer and a not very subtle attempt at manipulating the public.

You need to watch more news. Real news.
America has been frantically trying to destroy it's equipment. They're
at a loss as to whether they destroy it, they have to destroy
and if they'll ever be able to replace it.
While Congress love to blow money, they just can't do it
to that scale anymore. It's the replacement of the equipment.
That in itself, even if they wanted to ignore the public, will
create problems of itself.

"They [China] undermine US influence because they play the game differently – they will bribe where we have strict rules on bidding, etc., and therefore enjoy more flexibility going after these same resources.”

The Chinese buy resources and influence by constructing civil engineering projects and paying with cash, no 'IMF' strings attached.

The Chinese view these as emollients and a reasonable cost of doing business. China has the money & engineering skills to offer these benefits.

(Not that China never engages in sharp business practices.)

The U. S. A. and its multi-national corporations play hardball, using various stratagems, in the end the "recipient" nation often feels short changed & violated, making 'regime change' to favorable and pliant "local" crony-elite necessary to keep the resources coming.

US foreign policy is self-destructive vis-à-vis China's less grasping resource acquisition strategy.

Thus, the US is "always striving for that one last impossible power-play which it thinks will help it gain dominance over a situation, a country, an enemy."

This has the strong potential for a bad ending.

Insightful.
If only more *Americans* would see what is before their eyes...

What about the US interest in building pipelines across Afghanistan to bring out oil and natural gas from Turkmenistan?

Isn't this the reason why America and NATO invaded in the first place and why 'some' US forces will be staying on in the country after the withdrawal?

We know that America has to be able to control the flow of petro-carbons from Turkmenistan: specifically, it has to ensure that these materials are sold for the US dollar on the markets in order to preserve the dollar's status as the world's first reserve currency. (The mechanism by which America taxes its Dollar Empire.)

Moreover, this situation is becoming even more crucial now that China and Japan have dropped the dollar as the exchange currency used for bilateral trade. The BRICS nations are also setting up their own monetary exchange mechanism and now it looks like the majority of South American countries are preparing to go down this route too.

America's Dollar Empire is facing a worsening crisis. So the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will only be partial - a significant military presence will remain in the country to occupy the land corridor that will accommodate the proposed pipelines. This land corridor will become a 'free fire zone' patrolled by drones and mercenaries. In fact, it might have become precisely that already.

"the US has strict rules on bidding" etc blah blah.

I was literally rolling on the floor while laughing.
the US bribes when it needs to, but more oftenly they just threaten and invade.

A islamophic names gives you away.
Deny all you want.

Thank you for a most informative article.

small problem with the analysis - the US is already shredding billions in equipment - including trucks, humvees etc. rather than spend the money and energy to get it back home. Too bad - I'd bet entepreneurial Afghanis could find something to do with some of that stuff.

Great as usual. Sharmine's thinking convinced me to change my initial belief that North Korea was going to be up for this trade. I thought the US eyed North Korea as vital, whereas the Russian Federation thinks Syria is crucial in terms of its national security.

Given that China seems to have softened its stance with regard to N.K., but is as hard as the Russians on Syria. It only seemed a logical trade to me. I wish Shamine would vet this theory out soon.

Impressive analysis and covers the contingency of the diabolical nature of those in power in the US/Europe.
The Game is a foot, the gears are engaged and the wheels are turning.

Out of the ball park with your analysis , as usual, Sharmine!

A very good article, but an even better conclusion.

Outstanding piece ...

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top