STRATEGIC FRICTION IN AFGHANISTAN AND GEOPOLITICAL REVERSAL IN CENTRAL ASIA
Abstract
Anyone engaged in strategic analysis should bear in mind that according to the Prussian military thinker Karl von Clausewitz, “everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war.”1 “Friction” is impossible to forecast, yet it could appear at any moment and should consequently be reckoned with Friction makes it much harder to execute a strategic plan and fulfill tactical tasks; it may even make the planned aims unattainable. I shall use this term in my analysis of the peacekeeping operation and rehabilitation in Afghanistan.
The world community has found itself in a quandary: the military-strategic, political, social, economic, and psychological situation in Afghanistan has reached its limit. Today the United States is engaged in the Enduring Freedom military operation in this country while NATO in engaged in the ISAF peacekeeping operation. The former operation is spearheaded against the Taliban and other terrorist groups while the latter aspires to stabilize the military-political situation in the country; maintain security, and encourage the rehabilitation efforts in the provinces.
The operation began on 7 October, shortly after the 9/11 tragedy, and has been going on for more than seven years now. Only some of the initial aims have been attained; moreover, in the last two to three years the situation has been going from bad to worse. Friction is coming to the fore to become one of the central factors: from time to time the Talibs carry out armed assaults; the local armed units refuse to obey central power while drug production and trafficking have reached unprecedented proportions. According to certain sources, in 2006 over 4 thousand Afghans (most of them civilians) lost their lives in armed skirmishes. This is almost three times higher than the previous year. The number of suicide terrorist acts, practically unknown in Afghanistan prior to 2002, increased from 21 to 118.
Downloads
References
Quoted from: E.N. Luttwak, Strategy. The Logic of War and Peace, The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1987, p. 12.
See: M. Haydari, “Afghanistanu dlia pobedy nad talibami nuzhní dopsily i instruktory NATO,” Eurasianet, 7 April,2008, available at [www.eurasianet.org].
See: The Guardian, 17 October, 2008.
Warlordization is a trend associated with armed mercenary units and private armies operating outside national and international jurisdiction (for more detail, see: K. Abdullaev, “Warlordy i rekonstruktsia Afghanistana,” Afghanistan i be-zopasnost’ Tsentral’noy Azii, Collection of articles, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Ilim Publishers, Bishkek, 2004, pp. 88-101).
See: M. Mihalka, “Pashtunistan, NATO and the Global War on Terror: ‘If you don’t fight, you cannot have peace in Afghanistan,’” China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008.
M. Mihalka, op. cit.
“Vystuplenie Prezidenta Respubliki Uzbekistan Islama Karimova na sammite NATO/SEAP,” Narodnoe slovo,
April, 2008.
See: F. Tolipov, “Are the Heartland and Rimland Changing in the Wake of the Operation in Afghanistan?” Cen-tral Asia and the Caucasus, No. 5 (23), 2003.
Quoted from: M. Mihalka, op. cit.
S. Blank, “Kyrgyzskaia saga. Kompleksnyy vzgliad na sobytia vokrug bazy ‘Manas,’” Eurasianet, 5 February,2009.
See: T. Shaymergenov, “Problems and Prospects of NATO’s Central Asian Strategy: The Role of Kazakhstan,”Central Asia and the Caucasus, No. 2 (50), 2008.
See: Afghanistan, ShOS, bezopasnost’ i geopolitika Tsentral’noy Evrazii. Materialy Mezhdunar. konf., ed. by A. Kniazev, Bishkek, 2008.
See: V. Plastun, “Novye tendentsii v razvitii situatsii v tsentral’noaziatskom regione k kontsu 2004 g.,” Afghani-stan i bezopasnost’ Tsentral’noy Azii, ed. by A. Kniazev, Ilim, Bishkek, 2004, p. 18.
Kazakhstan segodnia, 12 September, 2008 (see also [www.centrasia.org], 12 September, 2008).
See: E. Ismailov, “Central Eurasia: Geopolitical Function in the 21st Century,” Central Asia and the Caucasus,No. 2, 2008.
B. Rubin, A. Rashid, “From Great Game to Great Bargain,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2009 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
