Afghanistan Conflict is Welfare for NATO

President Obama is due to meet with President Medvedev in a few days to do some old fashioned bazaar bargaining. He will try to get an open ended permission to use Russian airspace and rail for transport of military supplies to Afghanistan. Currently, only non-military supplies are being allowed to travel by train from NATO bases in Europe. Considering the depth of the recession throughout Eurasia, Moscow will be all too happy to allow hundreds of cargo containers to travel on its soil every month. Each container costs over $4,000 to ship to Afghanistan from NATO supply points in Europe. Western tax payers will thus be pouring millions of dollars/euros to help state owned Russian Railways modernize its central Asian infrastructure. This doesn't include the price of the air corridor permission or some containers going "missing" (so Russian authorities can examine latest military hardware of their geopolitical enemies). The supposed closing of the Manas airbase earlier in the year seemed to have served as a tool for Medvedev to negotiate for higher prices next week.

Washington of course benefits by boosting supplies in this way versus the costlier longer train route through multiple central Asian states or the conflict ridden Pakistan. Moscow realizes perfectly well that it is helping the goals of its competitor in central Europe by providing a cheaper way for NATO to escalate the war in Afghanistan. However the hand that helps is the hand that influences. We should soon see some further "concessions" from Obama concerning things like missile defense in Poland. Once the trains start rolling, the threat of Moscow stopping them will be heavy in terms of time and logistical setbacks. "Concessions" are inevitable. The reason for putting concessions in quotes is that for Obama, reduction or elimination of missile defense in central Europe goes hand in hand with his policy of cutting defense costs. Pentagon already began substantial demilitarization this year by cutting funds to conventional programs. Research and development for George Bush's missile defense, Future Combat Systems, additional procurement funds for F-22 Raptor, and Homeland Security spy satellite program have all been scrapped or frozen. I'll be easy for Obama to agree to what he wants to do anyway while using it as a bargaining chip to prolong NATO's lifespan.

As Frederick Douglass observed, power never yields unless there is massive resistance or it has fully exhausted every way of continuing its dominion. Obama's escalation in Pashtun regions serves as a great artificial prop for a Washington centric NATO structure. American European satellites, united under US management and funding, sends a message to the rest of the world that the global status quo is being maintained. Increase of funding to prop up the puppet regime in Kabul counterbalances the perception of weakness created by failure in Iraq.

Although NATO's conclusion in Afghanistan can only end as in Iraq (political arrangement and truce with some insurgent leadership), parallel pullout with Iraq after close to a decade of involvement will be a humiliation and demonstration of impotence not just for United States but its alliance as well. The way NATO behaved so far in fighting the Taliban might SEEM that they're already humiliated but it demonsrates more that they weren't fully trying. Considering the insufficient troops and lack of funds for agriculture and development, the Afghanistan mission so far has been an artificial welfare project to give the alliance something to do relatively cheaply. After 8 years however, it makes sense for Germany, France, England, Canada, U.S. to start trying to wrap up the mission. Continuing to sit on their hands will make the world's citizens begin to smirk at the alliance.

Karzai's poll numbers (if one can trust any polling done in a Somalia-esque territory) are virtually in the single digits and he doesn't have access to oil like Malaki to keep funding the puppet troops. Afghanistan is due to have an election later this year at a time of an international recession and escalation of violence in Pakistan. As things stand now, NATO forces will have their hands full. That goes wonderfully with Obama's broader international interest of scaling down American imperialism very gradually. NATO can not be allowed (in Washington's view) to dissolve abruptly like the Warsaw pact did.

Taliban insurgency gives NATO a reason to exist and not only exist but under Washington's command as was the case for decades. As long as NATO troops are fighting and dying side by side, there is some pressure to further streamline the alliance not just in Afghanistan but in Western Europe as well. American global monetarist empire can only function if most of the world sees US capable of two things:

1) be able and willing to use violence
2) be able to maintain substantial influence among European satellites such as England, Japan, and Poland.

If these two things are not present, then there is possibility of broad international passive rebellion to dominance of American financial institutions and the dollar as reserve currency. Obama's ultimate goal is domestic structural reform and clawing out of the economic depression. He will not be able to do that if overseas imperial influence is also collapsing. As such, he will fan the flames that NATO needs to put out even as he disassembles large parts of American military-industrial complex. We will see who thinks more moves ahead when Obama makes his first visit to Moscow.