WP: U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan

[Pirate Smile]

U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan

By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 30, 2005; Page A01

Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday.

In a highly unusual move, the notice of eviction from Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2, was delivered by a courier from the Uzbek Foreign Ministry to the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, said a senior U.S. administration official involved in Central Asia policy. The message did not give a reason. Uzbekistan will give the United States 180 days to move aircraft, personnel and equipment, U.S. officials said.

If Uzbekistan follows through, as Washington expects, the United States will face several logistical problems for its operations in Afghanistan. Scores of flights have used K2 monthly. It has been a landing base to transfer humanitarian goods that then are taken by road into northern Afghanistan, particularly to Mazar-e Sharif -- with no alternative for a region difficult to reach in the winter. K2 is also a refueling base with a runway long enough for large military aircraft. The alternative is much costlier midair refueling.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld returned this week from Central Asia, where he won assurances from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the United States can use its bases for operations in Afghanistan. U.S. forces use Tajikistan for emergency landings and occasional refueling, but it lacks good roads into Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan does not border Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072902038.html

[Gloria]

1. And Kyrgystan is shaky......lots of indicators that the region is

again tilting toward Russia (recent story in the WMW from Asia Times Online)

[BeHereNow]

3. AND they sure don't want to be associated in

the invasion of Iran.
Providing bases to American military for an invasion/attack
on Iran could be rather harmful to their health.
I would say the recent announcement of 13 base closures
in Germany and the request from these other countries
for us to leave is a fairly good indicator that
they are planning a pre emptive strike on Iran
any day now...

BHN

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. the entire house of Cads is collapsing. A strong wind is all we need

about 10% of the rest of the world still trusts GW bush. About 90% see him for what he annd his fellow cads are. Cads. Had they not lied about Iraq, the Uzbeks would have been excited at earning hard currency and offering services at the base. Pity for Mr. Rumsfeld, the Uzbeks are also an honorable people with pride and knowledge.


now, watch the free republicans go crazy and compare them with the French.

[BeHereNow]

4. Welcome to DU- Actually, I don't think this is the case though

I think this is a rather frightening news because I think
it could possible mean that they know Cheney is
working up a massive air strike against Iran and they
REALLY don't want to be associated with hosting
the bases in the neighborhood for that. They would
be in a very dangerous position as far as becoming
targets themselves when Iran retaliates.
BHN

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. superb point

If I read and recall properly, China, several Stans, Russia and India all agreed that they really don't want an invading force on their continent. (translation - US)

You picked the right person who is causing all the trouble, though. Mr. Cheney is at the bottom of every single plot.
It is not so much Iran retaliating, as the refusal to accept Cheney's hegemony and Haliburton's influence after the initial attack.

[stepnw1f]

8. You Got It! (nt)

[converted_democrat]

15. I think you're correct!!! n/t

[wookie294]

24. Halliburton abruptly announced an exit strategy from Iran

Last January, Halliburton and General Electric suddenly announced they will not pursue new business in Iran due to the "bad business climate." But it seems strange they would make such an announcement since the business climate in Iran had not changed much. It fits with your theory that Bush is preparing for some kind of military action against Iran and the Uzbek's are positioning themselves (as Halliburton is doing). Yesterday, the newly-elected Iranian government arrested Iranian oil executives for doing business with Halliburton over the last few years.

[BeHereNow]

28. Link about same-

Apparently Philip Giraldi, a CIA analyst and leaker on
the madness of the Bush/Cheney dynasty,
recently published a piece in the American Conservative
about Cheney's plan- while it the American Conservative
copy is not available online, excerpts from it are appearing
all over the net now-
Here is one such, from Antiwar.com-
"One can only wonder, then, what
their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in
a recent issue of The American Conservative by
intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from
Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has
tasked the United States Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to
be employed in response to another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States. The plan
includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing
both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many
of the targets are hardened or are deep
underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons,hence the nuclear option.
As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional
on Iran actually being involved in the act of
terrorism directed against the United States. Several
senior Air Force officers involved in the planning
are reportedly appalled at the implications of what
they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an
unprovoked nuclearattack – but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any
objections.' "


Did you get this part? Un-friggin believable!!!

"As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional
on Iran actually being involved in the act of
terrorism directed against the United States."
Link:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

[wookie294]

30. I believe Cheney is mad enough to nuke Iran

I also think Cheney is mad enough to secretly orchestrate another 9/11 attack (maybe against the Sears Tower in Chicago) in order to get his war with Iran. I spoke to a military official on the airplane once. He said we have bombs that are more powerful than nuclear bombs. Can't remember the details, but I imagine if we drop bombs on Iran, they won't be nukes. They will be far more deadly and powerful than nukes.

[BeHereNow]

31. PLEASE don't say Chicago!

I am taking my daughter to her
first year of study at the School of the Art Institute
in three weeks...

9-11 happened just weeks into her
freshman year at her arts high school.

BHN

[achtung_circus]

6. They're about 3 weeks ahead of you.

To: TigerLikesRooster
Screw Uzbekistan. Karimov is going to find out the hard way that you he's creating domestic political opponents faster than he can shoot them, and his enemies aren't just radical Islamists anymore. If America continues to support Karimov, the next regime will be an enemy of America's (a possibility in any event) and that will hurt America's national interest.

Let the Russians back Karimov, let Americans back real democrats like Karzai in Afghanistan and the new Kyrghyz regime -- create incentives for good behavior.
7 posted on 07/08/2005 8:52:30 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439082/posts>

[moodforaday]

11. It's murkier than that

Recall that Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, is an absolutist leader who likes to have his opposition tortured:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

Bush loves him because he also happens to be tough on Islamic fundamentalists. Here's a quote from Karimov:

"I'm prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic…If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head." - President Karimov reacting to acts of violence in Uzbekistan in March 1999. The government originally blamed the incidents, including a bus hijacking, on "criminals" and later on "Islamic extremists." Agence France-Presse, April 2, 1999.
surce: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/karimovprof.htm - more interesting stuff there.

[whistle]

5. This is not so good....

....I don't have a regional map but if you look at Iran's eastern border, you will see that it borders on Pakistan to the south east, Afghanistan to the direct east and Turkestan to the north east. Uzbekistan borders on Tristan and Afghanistan. If these five countries Iran, Pakistan Afghanistan, Turkestan and Uzbekistan were all to unite, they would become a major power to have to contend with. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Iran has the military and substantial oil reserves and the other three countries have armed soldiers who could be amassed into a major fighting force. With the extensive land mass and difficult terrain, a jihad against the west would become quite feasible.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. remember the neo con creed

Invade Iraq. grab their oil
invade Syria (an israeli request)
invade Iran. And push Pakistan to eradicate its religious schools, while supporting its attack of Indian territories.
control the ports, control the oil production. control the political events. Control the media.(much like they do to the US)

[cliss]

21. Yes; that is a possibility.

I think the US is doing high-stakes gambling right now. Recall a photo of RumsFool arriving with Stephen Young a few days ago. It was a "surprise visit". If you look closely at their faces, you could see desperation, tension. They are clearly worried about something.

I think they knew this was coming. They wanted to go over there are throw some more money at them, but it's tenuous right now.

Now as far as invading Iran is concerned, I believe Washington has discovered that Saudi Arabia doesn't have as much oil as previously thought. In fact, their supply is about to start a dangerous decline. The Ghawar Oil field could be close to finished.

It turns out that IRAN could have the world's #1 supply of oil (for sure natural gas), and they're not exactly friendly to the US.

I believe the US is absolutely desperate right now. Look at the photos from Abu Ghraib. Is this the work of a confident, supreme leadership? Hardly. Everything they do right now points to one thing: Desperation.

[hatrack]

29. Iran has probably already peaked in conventional oil

All the way back in 1973, according to some sources I've read. Grain of salt, though - their data doesn't outright suck like that of the Saudis, but it's somewhat opaque.

They still have lots and lots of natural gas, though . . .

[teryang]

10. A perfect example of the tactical insufficiency of neo-con plans

The archipelego of military bases used to supply ground forces by AIR in central Asia never made logistical sense. The enormous costs deliver minimal impact, very little bang for the buck. One political rejection here and there and you are out of business. The US military is at the wrong end of several judo throws thanks to hair brained neo con schemers.

US inland Asian strategy is militarily and economically unsustainable.

[jimshoes]

17. That won't stop them though

even after the unprecedented failure that is now the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, they will still push forward with their Dr. Strangelove like plans to take over the world. However this next strategic move, striking Iran should effectively cut them off at the knees. Trouble is America sinks with these assholes.

[bvar22]

12. Rent check bounced?

Neighbors complaining about all the noise and garbage?

[pfitz59]

20. ROTFLMAO!

Hit it outta the park!

[NVMojo]

13. Rummy knew this was coming ...so when do we get to know what is really up?

[NVMojo]

14. oh, and folks, don't forget about the OIL!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Pachamama]

16. What Oil?

:shrug:

:sarcasm:

[architect359]

18. 180 days is a long time

I suspect that before the deadline is up, there'll be some kind of reversal on the base eviction.

[Richard Steele]

26. Probably following a COUP in their government....

[meganmonkey]

19. This does not bode well

When a nation with an economy like Uzbekistan kicks out a nation who spends so much of its economy on military....

This has been brewing for a while, and now that it is 'formal' it makes me very nervous about what the US is about to do...

:yoiks:

[jburton]

22. Betcha we don't get the deposit back

nt

[Pystoff]

23. The Iran angle is over

Bushy and Co screwed the pooch in Iraq so now Iran is in the clear. My reason to say this? Because behind the scenes the more moderate Pugs have quietly revolted and will not go along for another ride. Uzbekistan then Turkmenistan will tell us to remove our base there next. The base in Turkmenistan was the staging point for land invation of Iran 500 miles from Tehran. Russia and China have nudged these countries to toss out because they have alerted them to one central theme...when we build a base in a country we never seem to leave and tend to control the goverment so we can stay. The asshats we have in control now are particularly vile and repulsive to Muslims which these ppl are so nudging them this direction was very easy. Also considering the fact China is gonna be the econmomic big dog very soon made it even easier. Watch as we drift off into the world power sunset folks the time has come for us to step aside. BushCo blew our collective wad economically, energywise, and militarily. Nice ride while it lasted folks time for us to prepare to be like a western european country after WW2.....if we have the brains to do it that is....american egos are a bitch.

[geek tragedy]

25. Go ahead and flame me, but this is a result of Bush doing the right thing

From the article:

<snip>
Karimov has balked at an international probe. As U.S. pressure mounted, he cut off U.S. night flights and some cargo flights, forcing Washington to move search-and-rescue operations and some cargo flights to Bagram air base in Afghanistan and Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. As relations soured, the Bush administration was preparing for a further cutoff, U.S. officials said.

The United States was given the notice just hours after 439 Uzbek political refugees were flown out of neighboring Kyrgyzstan -- over Uzbek objections -- by the United Nations. The refugees fled after the May unrest, which Uzbek officials charged was the work of terrorists. The Bush administration had been pressuring Kyrgyzstan not to force the refugees to return to Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan has been widely viewed as an important test for the Bush administration -- and whether the anti-terrorism efforts or promotion of democracy takes priority. "We all knew basically that if we really wanted to keep access to the base, the way to do it was to shut up about democracy and turn a blind eye to the refugees," said the senior official, on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive diplomacy. "We could have saved the base if we had wanted."
<snip>

If we're going to criticize Bush for supporting ruthless dictators in order to help with foreign policy goals, we should also be prepared to accept the consequences if he does the right thing.

Now, I don't know that he did the right thing for the right reason, but with Bush I'll take it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

32. I guess we can go back to criticizing their human rights record now

If anyone's noticed, the annual Country Human Rights Reports that the State Department issues each year on each country has been softpedalling the criticism of Uzbekistan since Bush has been in office. While they mention police brutality and lack of redress in the courts for political prisoners, the report also states that Uzbekistan is improving on its record. These mixed messages regarding a known abuser have obviously been an attempt to offer some justification for the U.S. relationship with the Karimov regime while the U.S. has needed the bases.

[geek tragedy]

33. You're absolutely right. Again, I'm not saying that Bush has found

a new dedication to human rights. He probably did this because Karl Rove told him he needs to look like he cares about democracy.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad that's one less dictator my government is cozy with.

Edited to add:

Of course, knowing Bush, he'll mend fences with Karimov soon. Probably too early to give Bush any credit here.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. I knew you weren't saying that and I agree with you n/t

[Emendator]

27. Karimov is about

to undergo the commonly seen metamorphosis into the "next Hitler". Yikes. Watch out.