Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan  
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

Uzbek government has formally asked U.S. to leave Karshi-Khanabad air base within 180 days. US officials said they will do as they were asked, but this will certainly weaken US airforce's strategic position in Central Asia. They remain bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan, but Uzbekistan was certainly their most important base.

US reputation in Central Asia constantly decreased over the past months. Local people and politicians are suspicious about the role the USA played in unrests that led to governments being overthrown in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan also unofficially accuses the USA to be behind the latest unrests in the eastern part of their country.

Kazakhstan (who always rejected US requests for military bases in their country) has over the past months strengthened their strategic alliances with China and the old "big brother" Russia. With the whole region being rich of resources (mainly oil), Central Asia may qualify for the battlefield of the 2010 decade. It would surprise me to see the USA accepting a weakening of their military and strategic position in a region that is so rich of oil.

It will be interesting to watch how US airforce will meet the new situation with their Uzbek base being closed soon.

Details can be found under http://www.washingtonpost.com/ (you may use http://www.bugmenot.com/ for login if you are not registered there).

Cheers
Zak

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3151 times:

With improving US relations in India, they might ask for basing rights there. Yes, I believe that NATO was asked to leave also. But, SOS Rice and SOD Rumsfeld have both visited Uzbekisatn in the past week, or so. So, maybe talks have re-opened, for both NATO and the US. I believe the USAF bases some KC-135s there.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Dammit...I responded to the other thread right before some nameless deleted it. Here's the response anyway.

Well, of course the CHinese and Russians don't want further US presence in their backyards....it interferes with their desires to be the primary influence in the region.

WHat most of you are ignoring is the fact that this happened after we were critical of the extremely harsh reprisals by the Uzbek government against their people in a recent domestic dispute. The President of Uzbekistan seems to like the old ways of the SSR period and doesn't want us telling him it ain't right. Just wait until he's a client of the PRC instead of an independent.

Overall the US presence in the Central Asian region has been stabilizing, and the republics in the region really liked it when we shored them up while the broke away from the Soviet/Russian sphere of influence.

Oh, and who says these bases are being used to "spy" on the PRC? They are not well situated for this, and they are needed by all coalition members to support the efforts in Afghanistan.

B744"its about time, this isn't the cold war anymore, all these bases spread over the world are pointless and a waste of money and manpower."
What does that have to do with the need for support bases for the Afghanistan effort? These bases in question are strictly post-cold war as far as the US is concerned (they are ex-Soviet airbases) and have been leased by the US for the Afghan operation.
Dude, your comprehension level in these threads is fairly low. Maybe you should read them more carefully prior to posting a response so you can contribute rather than detract from the conversation.

The US has bases all over the world generally in order to contribute to stability and they have been reducing the number of bases significantly since then.

Your constant anti-US/capitalism/military diatribes and comments are not only inane but inaccurate.

[Edited 2005-08-01 01:53:52]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2893 times:

They still boil people alive in Uzbekistan i heard - is that true?


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2237 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
With improving US relations in India, they might ask for basing rights there.

That is not going to happen. At the most you will get limited co-operative effort conducted entirely by Indian armed forces depending on how it suits our own security prerogatives. The only way Indian territory is going to be used is for our purposes, so unless you're talking about US forces under Indian control reporting to the Indian defence headquarters rather than the Pentagon, it's a nonstarter.

Don't know about the Uzbeks, but the Tajiks seem open enough to let India run a military base there, which lets us monitor events in Central Asia.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
The Taliban was installed by Pakistan, and was only recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and maybe some other Arab states.

The Taliban were radical Pakistani madrassa students. The radicalization of these terror schools was a direct result of finances and arms the US & Saudi Arabia channeled to the mujahideen who were indoctrinated there for the Afghan jihad.

Those schools and their terror spawn have continuously bred instability and terrorism since Afghan Jihad ended - in India (the violence in Kashmir starting late 1989), Afghanistan (the Taliban coup in the mid 1990s), the US (Sept 11) and several other places since, with London being the latest.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 6):
They still boil people alive in Uzbekistan i heard - is that true?

Well, I don't know about the... let's say: the more rural parts of the country. The Fergana valley is a neverending source for myths and urban legends. But mostly, it's a well-civilized country with very guest-friendly people. And there is lots of ancient culture showing. Visit Tashkent or Samarkand, it's really worth it. And no, you certainly won't get boiled alive there. They're civilized. They'll kill you first. Big grin

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
OK this is BS. Neither Saddam nor the Taliban were installed by the US.

Sorry for my late reply, I somehow missed yours. Well, you are correct, my words were not chosen wisely. What I wanted to express is that for many years, both the Saddam regime as well as the Mudjaheddin and Taliban were supported by the USA. Not without a reason, if you see it from those years' point of view (of course, today everyone knows better...).

Saddam was the buffer between the Ayatollah regime in Iran, and Israel. Iran started becoming a threat to Israel, while Saddam never showed much interest in religious wars. However, his star started to fade when he made more and more oil deals with France and his old friends in Russia (guess why they showed no interest in joining the US war against Iraq).

The Mudjahedin fought the Red Army in Afghanistan - certainly, this was not unwelcomed by the US administration. And basically, who else would have sponsored the armed fight against the Russians?

And yes, the US did not recognize the Taliban government, but they had a rather close inofficial diplomatic relationship with them, even in times when the Taliban was depicted as the impersonated devil by the US propaganda.

As for Uzbekistan, I was perhaps a bit too sarcastic. No US bashing intended. As I said, there may be many good reasons to take actions against Uzbek government. And you are right - the US will be criticised anyway, no matter if they take actions or not.

However, I just recently heard that US consulatations with Turkmenistan are developing rather well, and Turkmenistan may agree to NATO bases being installed in their country (for a price, of course). It kind of surprised me, but regarding the level of insanity the "great leader of the Turkmen people" (as Mr. Nyasov calls himself, "Turkmenbashi"), nothing should surprise you anymore. If NATO can install a base in Turkmenistan, this would certainly help improving their strategic airforce presence in the region.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 5):
Mudjaheddin and Taliban were supported by the USA.

While many members of the Taliban were mujahideen, not all mujahideen were Taliban and not all mujahideen were supported by the US, particularly most of the top leadership of the Taliban and the leadership of al Qaeda. The second group includes people like Mahsood, the military leader of the Northern Alliance up until his assassination the day before 9/11, Karzai, and Abdul Haq who was killed the in the period after 9/11 when he was trying to create an anti-Taliban force in Pashtun regions of Afghanistan prior to the brunt of the US bombing attack in support of the Northern Alliance.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 5):
Saddam was the buffer between the Ayatollah regime in Iran, and Israel. Iran started becoming a threat to Israel, while Saddam never showed much interest in religious wars. However, his star started to fade when he made more and more oil deals with France and his old friends in Russia (guess why they showed no interest in joining the US war against Iraq).

Saddam never showed a serious interest in religious wars, but showed plenty of interest in racial wars. He was a leader of an Arab Nationalist party after all. And he was, after all, a supporter of Palestinian terrorist groups like the Abu Nidal organization which ran operations out of Iraq during the 70s and 80s. And that is why Israel destroyed the Iraq's nuclear reactor during the early part of the Iran-Iraq war.

His star faded completely when he invaded Kuwait, not when he started making oil deals with France and Russia before or after the Gulf War. Up until that point the US, European, and Arab governments all thought that they could moderate his behavior through engagement.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 5):
And yes, the US did not recognize the Taliban government, but they had a rather close inofficial diplomatic relationship with them, even in times when the Taliban was depicted as the impersonated devil by the US propaganda.

The relationship was not close, since after all the US had been trying to work with the Northern Alliance to eliminate bin Laden because the Taliban was sheltering him. And it certainly was not close after Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles at bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan after the 98 embassy bombings. That was just a few years after the Taliban won the civil war, which was entirely a result of Pakistani and certain Arab governments assistance.

[

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 4):
The Taliban were radical Pakistani madrassa students. The radicalization of these terror schools was a direct result of finances and arms the US & Saudi Arabia channeled to the mujahideen who were indoctrinated there for the Afghan jihad.

While it is true that the US funneled support for Afghan mujahideen through Pakistan, Pakistan had a lot of control over who received that funding and arms. The US preferred its aid to go to certain Afghan groups, like those of Haq and Mahsood. And most of the advanced weapons went to these groups. The radicalization of mujahideen had little to do with arms and more to do with indoctrination by Wahabbi and Deobandi followers. And Arabs did not receive US aid, they received aid directly from Arab countries.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2237 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 6):
While it is true that the US funneled support for Afghan mujahideen through Pakistan, Pakistan had a lot of control over who received that funding and arms. The US preferred its aid to go to certain Afghan groups, like those of Haq and Mahsood. And most of the advanced weapons went to these groups. The radicalization of mujahideen had little to do with arms and more to do with indoctrination by Wahabbi and Deobandi followers. And Arabs did not receive US aid, they received aid directly from Arab countries.

LOL! You gave arms to a bunch of thugs with the 'hope' that they stayed with those thugs that were not likely to fall into wrong hands, or that the friendlier ones wouldnt go postal - they're mercenaries after all ? That argument is downright hilarious. Sure its not the guns that radicalized em; the US gave a bunch of yahoos those arms. That's like justifying giving a gun to a mass murderer because he's only killed blacks so far and you're white.

We're not even talking of pistols here, but HMGs and Stinger SAMs, a huge number of which were *left behind* and unaccounted for. One of them, in the hands of a Pakistani armyman, brought down an Indian copter *in Indian territory*. We don't care to suffer because of the US' incompetence.

That the Pakis controlled the Taliban and the US had no control is either flawed or a colossal security failure. Flawed because you got them in line days after 9/11. A security failure because of what it caused - 9/11 . That day just brought the cost of the actions of the US during the Afghan Jihad home, and your still footing the bill, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would have been far cheaper for you and other countries that suffered if you cleaned up behind you fifteen years ago.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 7):
We're not even talking of pistols here, but HMGs and Stinger SAMs, a huge number of which were *left behind* and unaccounted for. One of them, in the hands of a Pakistani armyman, brought down an Indian copter *in Indian territory*. We don't care to suffer because of the US' incompetence.

And of course, India released a Omar Sheikh to comply with the demands of hijackers of that Indian Airlines flight several years ago. He ended up being a key conspirator in 9/11 and in the murder of Daniel Pearl, so right back at you.

Anyway, the US made efforts to retrieve or buy back those Stingers after the Soviets pulled out. There are quite a few out there, but they are near or past their operational life. And the Stinger is somewhat crude (not as crude as SA-7s). There is a more modern Soviet stuff (and knockoffs) floating about which is probably of more concern.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 7):
That the Pakis controlled the Taliban and the US had no control is either flawed or a colossal security failure. Flawed because you got them in line days after 9/11. A security failure because of what it caused - 9/11 . That day just brought the cost of the actions of the US during the Afghan Jihad home, and your still footing the bill, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would have been far cheaper for you and other countries that suffered if you cleaned up behind you fifteen years ago.

Sure it was a failure, but not the sole failure. There were far more proximal security failures dealing with immigration and visas that are far more key in 9/11. Also, without 9/11, no one could bring themselves to say the diplomatic unniceties to Pakistan to clean up their act.

As for long lasting bills, the same could be said of the decision to support the Stalin and the Soviets with huge amounts of military aid (and not clean out the communists in the US) during WWII. We paid a far greater bill in lives and dollars for many decades over the course of the Cold War than we have in supplying the mujahideen in Afghanistan.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2237 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):

And of course, India released a Omar Sheikh to comply with the demands of hijackers of that Indian Airlines flight several years ago. He ended up being a key conspirator in 9/11 and in the murder of Daniel Pearl, so right back at you.

You're comparing the release of a terrorist under duress after the killing of Indian citizens held hostage, with the lunacy of first giving and then not bothering to scrupulously account for the weapons your government handed out to a bunch of Islamic thugs ? Amazing. One intrepid American reporter who went to a place that was known to be extremely dangerous to Americans, and even more so to a Jew, losing his life while on the job, is a lot worse than nearly 200 Indian lives saved, eh ?  Yeah sure

The Afghan Jihad and the legions of thugs it bred under the financial and armed support of the US, Pakistanis and Saudis are the cause of the terrorism that nations like India face today. Now that you mention it, you might as well rollover the tab of the Cold War with the bill you're footing to face terrorism today, because it was what you did to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan that bred the monster you face now. What goes around ultimately comes around. It's a tragedy that it took 3000 lives, billions in property damage and the loss of two iconic buildings for the US to figure it out.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

I had a feeling that this would turn into some sort of geopolitical debate.  Big grin

On a side note, US officials have been anticipating this request for some time now. The relationship really came to head in the past several months, but has been pushed to the limits over the past several years. In fact, I can tell you that certain areas of the base were already being dismantled and pulled out for relocation before the formal word was given.

Too bad, though. I hate to see our image being tossed around so much these days. There's a lot of misunderstanding on both sides that fuels the fire. Perhaps in time this will subside, but I would imagine that it will only get worse before any gain is felt.

Cheers!



Crye me a river
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force Base In Or Near Travis, California posted Sun Nov 3 2002 17:01:18 by Airlinelover
American AF Base In Botswana? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 14:35:46 by BHXDTW
Rhein-Main Air Base Closure posted Tue Sep 27 2005 05:33:15 by PanAmerican
IAF Base In Other Countries posted Sat Sep 3 2005 17:33:21 by HAWK21M
IAF First Foreign Base In Tajikistan posted Wed Feb 9 2005 18:58:02 by HAWK21M
Marine Corp Air Units In Afghanistan? posted Fri Apr 9 2004 04:29:58 by CX747
Open A Base In Iraq For The Usaf? posted Tue Jul 29 2003 15:05:13 by CX747
3rd A319CJ For Italian Air Force In New C/s posted Tue Jul 15 2003 08:38:47 by Alpha
Air Bases In Toscana - Italy posted Sat Jun 14 2003 09:08:45 by LMML 14/32
Air Conditioning In Military Jets? posted Fri Feb 28 2003 20:14:36 by Twalives

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format