U.S. evicted from air base in Uzbekistan

$15,000,000 paid for the use of this airfield, and we get unceremoneously thrown out. Could this be the result of pressure from the Islamic Fascists? Wonder if they want to use the base? I say that we take our stuff with us and destroy the entire facility. We should leave those jerks with nothing but bare ground! Hey, how about salting the earth, too?

"We always think ahead. We'll be fine," Rumsfeld said Sunday when asked how the United States would cope with losing the base in Uzbekistan.
--- from a posting above

The American air force one had use of a base in Morocco. Locals wre told the Americans at the base were "training Moroccans." Base closed on Moroccan government demand. The vast base outside Tripoli, Wheelus, so important to the Americans -- King Idris goes off for medical treatemnt in Europe in 1969, Khaddaffy seizes power, base closed. The CENTO alliance, which the British and the Americans thought might cement a "natural" alliance with those bulwark-against-Communism (because Muslim) states, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey, with all the money and military equipment being supplied by -- guess who? Unravels, not that it ever meant anything, after the 1958 coup of Qassem in Iraq, when boy-king Faisal was killed and "strong man" (that was the Homeric epithet employed by all the Luce publications) Nuri al-Said's corpse, still partly covered with women's clothes, but not where it counted, dragged through the streets of Baghdad. The airplanes and other weaponry dutifully delivered, despite every conceivable infration and lie, to the Pakistani military by the American military -- again, fine chaps, ramrod-straight, bulwarks-against-Communism, nothing like those untrustworthy Indians, etc. etc. And Pakistan created the Taliban regime, and Pakistan gave birth to Dr. A. Q. Khan, who was indispensable not only in stealing the secrets, and the equipment, from the West that gave Pakistan nuclear weapons, but in a fit of generosity, he also supplied them (oh, all right, he did ask for nominal payment) to North Korea, and to Iran.

The United States was "permitted" to build modern bases in Saudi Arabia, and "permitted" to station airmen. This had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia being a "staunch ally." It had everything to do with Saudi Arabia wanted assured American protection, against either Iran (always a worry) or Iraq (no longer a worry, now that the Americans took care of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military), or in case the Al-Saud needed special help against domestic opposition, or in the worst case, needed to flee from the country they named after themselves, the treasury of which country they keep dipping into for their own limitless allowances. How long will those bases remain in American control? And of what value would they ever be, if we were not doing the bidding of the Al-Saud, but using the bases the way American bases should be used -- to implement American policies, to use American power on behalf of what the Americans deem necessary?

Now the base-building in Muslim countries continues. Above all, we are told, in these mysterious allusions in various articles, the Americans are "building bases" in Iraq. Are they? Are they that stupid? Have they really learned nothing from the past 50 years? What about the past two years in Iraq? What about the past year in Iraq? What about the past six months in Iraq? It is as crazy an idea, one which if it in fact going on, should be halted at once, as crazy as that dreamy idea -- which Congress allotted the money for, without questionoing -- of building a $595 million embassy in Baghdad.

In the middle of an incipient civil war, one which can either continue, or be won by the satisfied Shi'a who, having pocketed as much aid, as much military equipment, and as much of our base-building as they can, will kick us out, or by the Sunni Arabs (aided by fellow Sunnis) who will do exactly ditto.

There was only one place in the Middle East where the American forces could have been completely secure. At the time that Carter and Brzezinski were hectoring and belittling Begin, and falling all over themlseves in priase of Saint Sadat and his permanently wonderful Egypt (and that's how the $2 billion a year allowance to this anti-American country began, a disguised jizya that the Infidel Americans are fearful of ending, fearful of ceasing to be treated by the mighty government in Cairo and the mighty fellahin as "protected people"), at that time the Sinai, with three advanced airfields built by the Israelis, was being discussed. The Sinai had traditionally, throughout history, always been a corpus separatum, as all vast desert areas were (akin to the oceans). The Sinai was never historically part of Egypt. That is why Francis Frith, the famous photographer, published his photographs of "Egypt, the Sinai, and Palestine." That is why Arthur Stanley, who accompanied the Prince of Wales on his trip to the Holy Land, could write his celebrated "Sinai and Palestine." For the Sinai was, under the Ottomans and before, always considered apart from Egypt. And the Egyptians never thought of it as anything but "the Sinai."

But in 1922, the Sinia-- or much of it, was formally handed over to Egypt. Why? At the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire, it had to go somewhere. The English were not about to claim it for the Mandate for Palestine -- they had enough on their plate, and besides, many of them were still running Egypt in the service of Lord Cromer and his adminsistration; under the old regime, Egypt was far less "Muslim{" and far more advanced in its more easygoing social and political ways, than it became once the British had left, once King Farouk was deposed, and Islam, even under its "pan-Arab" guise or version provided by Gamal Abdel Nasser, proceeded to turn Egypt -- as Magdi Allam, who grew up there, notes in his recent "Vincere la paura" -- a much less tolerasble and pleasant place.

Carter, Brzezinski, and company did not have to pressure the Israelis with such singleminded force to yield territory which, after all, had been captured in a war of defense. Those would have been bases up to Western standards, far from population centers, and not to be touched --and even if the Egyptians were largely hostile, so what -- the Cuban government is largely hostile, but I haven't noticed, over the past 45 years of Castro's rule, any ability to challenge, in the slightest, the American hold on Guantanamo.

But it wasn't done. It was more impoortant to win points with Egypt by making sure that Israel yielded up everything. Who could have imagined that our "staunch ally" Iran would ever fall -- remember how Carter toasted the Shah as a "pillar of stability" in Teheran? And anyway, once the Shah fell, what did it matter -- wasn't the Ayatollah Khomeini a devout Muslim, which must mean he was a very unworldly fellow, uninterested in military matters, and weaponry,and warfare -- I mean, he'd end up being a kind of Muslim version of Ne Win, the Burmese leader who was a devout Buddhist. After all, devout Buddhist, devout Muslim -- what's the difference? In the end, all "great" religions are the same, say the same thing, mean the same thing, worship the same God -- don't they? I mean, don't they have to? Isn't that just the way it would naturally turn out?

And then there was Saudi Arbia, or outher "staunch ally" -- even more staunch than Iran. Great guys, the Saudis. Treated ARAMCO wonderfully. Sent their kids to the states, where they became practically Americans. Spoke English. Yamani -- what a charmer! Khashoggi -- what a charmer! and so nice to Lockheed, so very helpful. And half of official Washington was getting money, as fixers or promoters or helpers or faciliators, from the Saudis! And they entertained so lavishly! And the Saudi prince who just took that Rolex watch right off his wrist and handed it to someone who had done something nice for him -- well, if you played your cards right, you never knew when one of these ridiculously generous, ridiculously spontaneous Arabs was going to do the same for you - and it might not be a Rolex watch, but maybe an estate in Upperville. You never knew -- so you had to act appropriately, just in case -- just in case.

And that's why the Americans do not have a base in Morocco. And do not have a base in Libya. And have shaky bases in Saudi Arabia, that may be more trouble than tney are worth. And do not have the grand alliance of CENTO. And cannot count on that "pillar of stablity" the Shah of Iran. And cannot rely on those cunning and mereetriciuos generals in Pakistan, supporting the Taliban and exporting nuclear knowledge behind the backs of those long-suffering and trusting Americans. And that is why the bases in Uzbekistan may have to go -- or bases elsewhere in the Stans, save possibly for Kazakhstan, and there only becasue the Muslims in Kazakhstan are only 50% of the population and are almost entirely "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims to boot.

I don't know if those bases are now being built in Iraq by people who do not know what Iraq is like, or what Islam is like, and who refuse to learn from experience. I don't know how much money has been squandered already on those kind of dreams -- the dreams, by the way, of those who will inherit them, whether the Shi'a of Iraq, or the Shi'a of a newly-expanded Iran, or the Sunni. or whoever -- but it will not be the Americans who will end up in possession of any bases they build in Iraq.

It will be -- not the "Iraqi people" (they don't exist). It will be some Muslim state, some polity, and whatever polity that is (unless such a bases or bases are deep in Kurdistan, and a free Kurdistan becomes a fixed goal of American policy).

We build (perhaps). They wait. It will all fall into their lap. They (not the crazy ones like Moqtada al-Sadr, but the cunning ones) need only keep us there a while longer, as long as they possibly can. To pocket more money. To have the Americans fight the Sunnis. To have the Americans build, build, build those bases.

One hopes it is not true. One would like to believe Secretary Rumsfeld, when he says so self-assuredly that "we always think ahead." The record does not support him -- above all the record of understanding Islam, of understanding the regimes in Muslim countries, of understanding how all Muslim "allies" never turn out to be permanent allies, and in any case can never be relied on where it counts most -- in the assurance that our bases, when built, will remain our bases, and under our full control, and for whatever use we wish to make of them. The fourth American division that never entered Iraq from the north, because of Turkish opposition, knows what it means not to have "full control" of your own bases.

Think hard about Iraq. Then, if those bases are being built, started in a flush of enthusaism and naivete in 2003, or 2004 --- well, stop it. Put down the equipment. Get real.

From the outside, this looks like a decision taken by the Uzbek Govt under Sino-Russian pressure.

The Bush admin bungled in wavering support for the xcurrent Uzbek Prez who's under "armed pro-democracy" fire from (who else?) Hizb-ur-tahrir 'rebels'.

And now, the US is to lose its one big base in Central Asia? This is beyond ridiculuos.

Hugh: Excellent post....enjoyed reading and learning.

From the outside, this looks like a decision taken by the Uzbek Govt under Sino-Russian pressure.

The Bush admin bungled in wavering support for the xcurrent Uzbek Prez who's under "armed pro-democracy" fire from (who else?) Hizb-ur-tahrir 'rebels'.

And now, the US is to lose its one big base in Central Asia? This is beyond ridiculuos.
Posted by: voletti

I don't think there is Sino Soviet pressure, neither the Chinese care much for the Muslims, nor do the Soviets, and there is not much, if any, of a Sino Soviet Alliance.

But the possiblity can't be rule out.

It could be a combination of factors, but mainly driven by the Islamofascist insurgency in Uzbekistan, an insurgency of which very little is reported in the press.

From Al Jazeera

In early July, a regional organisation led by Russia and China issued a statement calling for the US to set a timetable for withdrawing its forces from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Tensions in Washington's relations with Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian nations stem partly from an eruption of violence in mid-May in the Uzbek city of Andijan.

Looks like the Uzbek government is trying to save it's own hide, by caving in to the demands of the Islamic Insurgency, which if I recall was actually fomented and led by a group of 20 or 30 Uzbek businessmen, who are also Islamists.

News from Uzbekistan

Linked, because this is the first time I've seen this in print, and it has to come from Bangladesh News Trouble Ahead in Kharzai's Afghanistan

But to validate Violetti's speculation, there is this piece from Asian Times

In the aftermath of September 11, the US established military bases in two SCO countries (both former Soviet republics) - Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, besides using bases in Pakistan as a staging point for its operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Russia also has a base in Kyrgyzstan – at Kant - that has about 500 Russian troops and 20 combat and transport planes and helicopters. Moscow is planning to double the number of troops at the Kant base. Russian troops have been based in Tajikistan since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but a recent agreement between Moscow and Dushanbe has formalized the legal status of Russian troops there.

While the arrival of American troops at their doorstep did trigger worry in Russia and China, neither country objected vigorously to the US setting up bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan post-September 11. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are confronted by mounting Islamist radicalism and separatist movements on their soil that are believed to be fueled and financed by al-Qaeda. The US-led military operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda were therefore perceived in Moscow and Beijing as being in their interests.

That perception changed with the negatives from the US military presence in Central Asia beginning to outweigh the positives. This has been the case particularly with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, which welcomed the American forces with open arms in 2001.

The wave of regime changes that has swept through the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and the mass uprising in May in Uzbekistan, triggered alarm in Moscow and the Central Asian republics. The reported role of the US in the ouster of pro-Moscow regimes in these countries was viewed in Russia as a pointer of things to come: the continuing presence of the Americans in the region would only erode further Russia's influence in Central Asia.

Unlike Russia, which had misgivings regarding the American presence, Uzbekistan was a close ally of the US in the initial stages of the "war on terrorism" (Uzbekistan has been one of the top recipients of US security assistance in Central Asia in recent years). But fearing Washington's attempts to destabilize his government, President Islam Karimov began mending fences with the Russians last year when he signed a pact for strategic cooperation with Moscow.

Then in April, Uzbekistan pulled out of a US-backed grouping of the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Moldova (GUAAM). In May, when the US and other Western nations called for an international probe into the Andijan uprising in Uzbekistan in which hundreds of people are believed to have died, Karimov imposed restrictions on the US air base in Uzbekistan.

Apparently, Karimov is convinced that the US is out to oust his government and this was behind his energetic espousal of the SCO declaration. Reporting from Astana on the SCO summit proceedings, The Hindu newspaper's Siddharth Varadarajan wrote that for the Karimov government "getting the SCO to ask for the US forces to leave the region is a safe way of telling the Bush administration that it is no longer welcome to use Uzbek territory".

Significantly, Rumsfeld's visit to the region did not include Uzbekistan.

While the reported US role in the wave of revolutions in former Soviet republics prompted Russia and the Central Asian republics to band together with regard to the pullout of American troops from the region, China's interest in achieving this, prompted by other concerns, is no less.

China has invested heavily in Central Asia to enhance its energy security. It is constructing a 1,000-kilometer pipeline from Kazakhstan's central Karaganda region to its own northwestern Xinjiang region. Expected to be ready by the end of 2005, the Karaganda pipeline will be a vital link in a 3,000-kilometer project that will link China to the Kenqiyaq oil field farther west and to the Caspian Sea.

China is also working with Uzbekistan to develop its oil fields in the Ferghana Valley and has invested in hydroelectric projects in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. China also is interested in Central Asian markets. An unstable Central Asia could result in a spillover of conflicts into its already restive Xinjiang province. It has sought to secure its borders through firming up its relations with Central Asian governments. It has poured more resources into maintaining the SCO than any other member state. The American presence in Central Asia is seen in Beijing as posing a challenge to its energy security and stability.

Both Russia and China believe that Washington's interest in bases in Central Asia has little to do with its ongoing Afghanistan operations. The Karshi-Khanabad base is located 120 miles north of the Afghan border, suitable for supporting combat operations in northern Afghanistan. US combat operations in Afghanistan today are almost exclusively confined to the country's south and southeast. Moreover, the US has mega-bases in Afghanistan. It has no problems basing as many troops and equipment as it wants to in that country, making the Central Asian bases strategically redundant for operations in Afghanistan.

It is obvious that the US bases in Central Asia have less to do with Afghanistan today and more to do with serving as "lily pads" from which troops may be leapfrogged to nearby trouble-spots at a moment's notice. Under peacetime circumstances, these "lily pads" or operating facilities would be manned by small groups of forces, which would expand to accommodate a rapid influx of personnel and equipment in the event of crisis. In early 2004, during a visit to Uzbekistan, Rumsfeld observed that Uzbekistan was a prime candidate to host a potential US operating site.

The Uzbek government has indicated that it is more than miffed with the US role in the region. A recent Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs communique was scathing in its criticism of Washington's failure to live up to its obligations under the agreement that governs the operation of the Karshi-Khanabad base. Among other things, it accused the US of not paying the landing and takeoff fees and not reimbursing Uzbekistan for the costs incurred in guarding and servicing the base.

In reaction to the SCO demand for a deadline, a US spokesman is reported to have said that while the Central Asian bases were "important for both the global war on terror as well as operations in Afghanistan", the bases were not crucial. "We always have a range of options. And there's no one facility that is, you know, so critical that we couldn't manage without it."

These words masked real concern, as evident by Rumsfeld's quick visit to the region.

But what could work in the US favor is that SCO members are wary of each other. Russia is concerned about China's deepening influence and engagement with the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, and China is keen to weaken Russia's political grip over these countries by enhancing its economic links with these countries.

Both see the US as a check on the growing influence of the other. And while the smaller SCO countries might be wary of the US role in ousting governments in the region, their economies have benefited immensely from the presence of Western bases on their soil. The Manas base, for instance, is pumping about $156,000 a day into the local economy and accounted for about 5% of Kyrgyzstan's entire gross domestic product in 2003.

The geopolitical balance in Central Asia might have tilted against the US following the SCO's declaration, but it has already tilted some way back with Rumsfeld's whirlwind diplomacy.

The Central Asian republics could reconsider their decision if the US was willing to pay a higher price for the continuation of its bases – more fees for the bases, complete non-interference on domestic issues in these countries.

The battle for control of Central Asia still could go either way.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)

Why no airstrip in Afghanistan?

It's been three plus years. It only takes the corps of engineers a week to grade a usable surface and then a real runway can get going as supplies come in.

Or is the country so unstable, still?

Which says little about the entire coalition effort's effectiveness in that nation.

The slipshod strategy continues.

Khashoggi -- what a charmer! and so nice to Lockheed, so very helpful.
His wife is said to now live near Suha Arafat in Neuilly and are best freinds.
Georgia, struggling with rising Islamism will be more than welcoming to the US and not that far away.

"His wife is said to now live near Suha Arafat in Neuilly..."
--- from a posting above

There goes the neighborhood.

Hugh,
Great post as always. If you as well as others are curious, there is an interesting story on israelinsider.com. Apparently, the Americans are building a huge base to warehouse material for the IDF in the West Bank itself. Perhaps Rummy isn't as daft as he appears. It's a fascinating read.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/6134.htm

(Sorry I don't know how to send a link properly!)

Thanks for the link 'Johnny Cash' very interesting reading particularly as 'between the lines' was an easy 'understanding' !!

As an early born baby boomer, I have lead a very sheltered life, free from the traumas of armed conflict having a direct impact on my life. (born just after the start of WW2 in England, settled in Australia 40 years ago).

At 66 yrs, I am now retired but as a lowly pensioner looking after a son with a severe mental illness.

With such a background, it is hardly surprising that I find the very real threat of Islam a tad difficult to stomach. Particularly so as, like so many, I merely saw Islam as a religion - that is - until I started to learn the REAL facts about 2 yrs ago.

Not so now - I have had my awakening (Yahoo Islam 'war on Islam' thread) and thus I find it truly amazing how we have all been so naive over what has been happening to us.

We (western civilisation) have welcomed with open arms, a very effective 5th column element into our countries (the world over). We have bent over backwards to accommadate (APPEASE) Islam (e.g.the Aussie anti-villication laws in the State of Victoria - ill conceived and badly legislated as proven in the court case that found 2 Christian Pastors guilty of what in essence was quoting from the "in-errant" Koran).

I could of course go on - but all I am doing is pointing out what is already the daily subject matter of this Jihad Watch site (JOB WELL DONE - KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !!) but that is not the point of this post.

My purpose ? - merely to thank people such as yourself who give references to information that is very re-assuring - it is good to see that the ones in power - the ones with our future (of democracy and freedom) at stake are NOT naive, are not as P.C. as their speeches would indicate BUT are in fact very active in ensuring that Islam CANNOT succeed where nazism, communism etc failed.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson.

YES INDEED !!

Thank you 'USA', thank you 'UK' may our 'Au' long be associated with you and your fight for continued freedom and way of life.

DOG !!

180 days, huh? That should be just about enough time to take over the country.

Thanks to the State Department who bashed the Usbeck President for cracking down on islamic terrorist seame the state department was on the wrong side like in Kosovo???

WHEN WILL OUR STATE DEPARTMENT SOP WORKING AGAINST THE USA??

JUST LIKE THEM BASHING THE KING OF NEPAL WHO IS TRYING TO STOP THE MULSUMS WHEN WILL STATE READ THE DAMN BOOK AND GET ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS WAR??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD STRENGTH TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN

PS
Seams some confitter selling t-shirts knifed 5 people at a Dogers VS Cardinals game