Stupid Policies Have Consequences
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
McKiernan faces obstacles in making his plan work. A Washington Post article of November 19 detailed these obstacles, focusing on Taliban attacks on the supply route into Afghanistan from Pakistan. But that’s only a part of the problem. The other was caused by the Bush administration. “We should have alternative supply routes through the north and not have to rely on the roads from Pakistan,” a senior serving army officer says, “but we can’t get a northern route because the Bush administration pissed off the Russians in Georgia.”
Negotiations with the Russians over a northern resupply route that would be place the 67,000 US and NATO soldiers at the end of “a secure tether” have been stalled, according to this officer. “This is typical of the White House, they can’t see beyond tomorrow. They have never been able to plan ahead, to think through the consequences of their actions. They’re so proud of themselves, and we’re the ones who suffer.” He adds: “They can’t be gone soon enough.” ~Asia Times
This is worth remembering. In order to pursue a useless and provocative policy of NATO expansion and democracy promotion in post-Soviet space, Washington is jeopardizing a potentially very valuable relationship with Moscow that could contribute directly to the security and greater success of our soldiers in Afghanistan. As the hijacking of a supply train in Pakistan in recent weeks should remind us, U.S. and NATO forces are being resupplied along a route that has become less reliable and secure. It is high time to start setting our policy priorities straight. Squabbling for influence in the north Caucasus is nowhere near the top, and Afghanistan is.
Update: Steve Balboni reviews the history of tenuous supply lines through what is today’s Pakistan and reminds us of the British military disaster that ended with the massacre at Gandamak.
Second Update: Some good news for a change. Germany and Russia have negotiated a bilateral resupply deal for their forces in Afghanistan. Of course, Germany is one of our allies most in favor of engagement with the Russians and most opposed to expanding NATO. This is rather peculiar behavior for the rebuilders of a neo-Soviet empire, wouldn’t you say? This is what constructive engagement looks like, and it can yield real benefits. Washington would do well to follow this example.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
5 Responses to “Stupid Policies Have Consequences”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Now imagine the results if Bush didn’t just use harsh words but actually listened to those who wanted the US to arm Georgian partisans like they were the new mujahideen.
I have imagined the results, because my in laws live in Sevastopol. There would be a belt of (sporadic, guerilla) war stretching from the Crimea to Tajikistan, and stretching northward into several of the Muslim-majority Russian republics.
Then again, the neoconservatives would probably just say that it was all the birth pangs of a new world order, or something similarly wicked. Face it, the architects of our foreign policy are virtually incorrigible in their unique combination of blindness, hubris, mendacity, malevolence, and magical thinking.
I wonder what other country might be needed as an Afghan neighbor in case Pakistan blows up…
Nah.
Mr. Larison,
I agree with your comments above about the “unintended” consequences of the policy of needlessly provoking Russia that has been in play for really the last 15 years. A reasonable alliance could have been established with Russia following 9-11. It would not have resolved all issues or precluded the expression of disagreements, but it should have at least defused needless pursuit of rivalry with the Russians.
Of course, I wish the Russians would understand that their US/Canada Institute doesn’t understand the US nearly as well as they think. (The Europeans suffer from the same failing.) Medvedev’s “missiles in Kaliningrad” speech was tone-deaf to how it could be exploited by Russia’s adversaries in the US. He did, as Buchanan notes, then strike an appropriate conciliatory tone, but, unsurprisingly, that second speech received little coverage in the US. The Russians cannot avoid the fact that their interests will diverge from our and that where we seem bent on conflict they have to pursue their interests (Georgia being a case in point.) Still, they would benefit from a more refined at least communications strategy toward the US.
Hopefully, Brezezinski’s involvement with Obama will not herald a continuation of Russo-phobia with a Democratic face.
“Second Update: Some good news for a change. Germany and Russia have negotiated a bilateral resupply deal for their forces in Afghanistan. Of course, Germany is one of our allies most in favor of engagement with the Russians and most opposed to expanding NATO. This is rather peculiar behavior for the rebuilders of a neo-Soviet empire, wouldn’t you say? This is what constructive engagement looks like, and it can yield real benefits. Washington would do well to follow this example”
Come on, Mr. Larison, can’t you see they’re just reconstituting the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty?!!