You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Afghanistan Needs US Permanent Military Bases
2011-03-06
[Tolo News] Afghanistan is in need of US permanent bases for security and peace, former Afghan Intelligence Chief has said at a joint presser.

Afghan experts said establishment of US permanent military bases would stop regional countries from interfering in Afghan affairs.

Establishment of US permanent bases in Afghanistan and withdrawal of foreign troops in July this year have turned into controversial issues, while officials in Washington and commanders in the field have denied that any decision has been made in this connection.

"Presence and establishment of US permanent bases in Afghanistan would be a warning to neighbours and they will come to know that they are no longer able to intervene in Afghan domestic affairs directly," Ahmad Zia Nikbeen, an Afghan political analyst, told TOLOnews.

At a joint presser, former Afghan interior minister with former Afghan spy chief highlighted that the government should not act sentimentally about establishment of permanent bases.

"Our nation needs a responsible politicianship, not political mania. We should decide responsibly about our interests," former Afghan interior minister Hanif Atmar said.

"Western countries could help us build economic fundamentals," said former spy Chief Amrullah Saleh.

But Mark Grossman, the newly appointed US Special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistain, says the United States has no intention to set up permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

Afghan citizens in Kabul hold different opinions about establsihment of US permanent bases.

"A forum should be formed to discuss whether it is beneficial or not," Karim Halimi, an Afghan student at Kabul University, said.

Another Afghan citizen, Ahmad Jawad, told TOLOnews, "I think formation of permanent bases would bring Afghan illusory sovereignty under question.

At a meeting with Afghanistan's Caped President Hamid Maybe I'll join the Taliban Karzai, holy mans said establishment of such bases in the country wouldn't be beneficial to the country considering regional sensitivities.
Posted by:Fred

#12  I prefer to see AFPAK as Amer's 21st century "TEDDY ROOSEVELT" moment, i.e. iff Amer can't modernize AFPAK NO ONE CAN.

Unless the AFPAK Govts want to see a another nation repeat Stalin's Purges, or Mao's "Great Leap Forward" deadly pogroms.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-03-06 23:31  

#11  Best advice: "Avoid flying, blunt, and sharp objects. Consume nothing that is poisonous. Wear a hat. Exothermic reactions are best enjoyed in moderation. Save the last bullet for the other guy. It is better to land safely than to fly. And finally, she may look clean, but see 'hat', above."
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-03-06 18:54  

#10  Beso, are you in KAF? I was there in December - nice base. I'll be down in LNK in a couple weeks for the lovely summer tour. Stay safe dude.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2011-03-06 14:47  

#9  A beautiful, sunny and crisp Sunday morning here. I can see PAK off in the distance.

Goodness, Besoeker, that sounds like Sarah Palin's Alaska! ;-) Be careful, my dear, and come back safely home to Mrs. Besoeker and to us.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-03-06 10:00  

#8  Bases that can be supplied are much more of a threat than those that can be turned into a Dien Bien Phu. We need to turn A-stan into a client by having sea bases in a neighbor from which we can threaten to return in force. I would like to use the port of Karachi in an Indian protectorate. The problem with A-stan is there are no good ports. Make that no ports. And that's the problem. It's like trying to dominate the US from bases in West Virginia.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-03-06 09:41  

#7  So temporary at this point can mean "over 63 years".

Heck, we were working in and living in 'temporary' buildings constructed during WWII in the 80s. One thing that happened in the Reagan administration was the ripping down of a lot of that old wood, though there is still some of it around and being utilized.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-03-06 09:20  

#6  Jose's axiom to Murphy's Law: nothing is more permanent than that which is called temporary.
Posted by: Steve White   2011-03-06 08:46  

#5  The two important assets the US has in Afghanistan are Bagram AB, and the new, $100m intel center at Masar-i-Sharif, in the North.

Apparently our only other goals are keeping what's-his-name in power in Kabul, more or less, and regularly killing enough Taliban so they don't make a problem. This includes drone-zaps in Pak.

Without the backing of a conventional army, it won't turn into another Vietnam, but maybe we can squeeze a couple of decades of use out of it, before discarding it like so much greasy tissue paper.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-03-06 08:30  

#4  As long as we have enemies in the region Pakistan,Iran,Russia and China come to mind its good to keep them on their toes or be well behaved with the threat of bases in the region!
Posted by: Angeretle Snore6772   2011-03-06 06:46  

#3  Spot on TW. Yes the "definition" of temporary is key. There is little that would indicate "temporary" about Kandahar Air Field (KAF) or Bagram Air Field (BAF). A beautiful, sunny and crisp Sunday morning here. I can see PAK off in the distance. Soldiers are cleaning weapons and chilling out.
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-03-06 01:34  

#2  Remember, the Palestinians have lived in temporary refugee camps since 1948. So temporary at this point can mean "over 63 years". I think we can work with that definition with regard to Afghanistan, should it become necessary.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-03-06 01:25  

#1  But Mark Grossman, the newly appointed US Special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistain, says the United States has no intention to set up permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

"No intention to set up permanent military bases"....or anything else of a permanent nature, at least until after the 2012 elections. The liberal base would never stand for it. Defense dollars must be transitioned into free gov't cheese and votes!
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-03-06 00:43  

00:00