"The Spirit Bagram: An American effort to rewrite the past of defeat in Afghanistan Airbase north of Kabul has already survived the Soviets and Americans. Trump wants her back now – but the obstacles are bigger than ever."
grazynarebeca5.blogspot.com 2 weeks ago
"We gave them 1 of the largest air bases in the planet for free. We are trying to get it back," US president Donald Trump late stated at a joint press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.He linked the request straight to Beijing, stressing that Bagram is “an hr distant from where China produces atomic weapons”.
A fewer hours later, Trump clarified his message on the fact Social portal, writing in its distinctive capital letters: “If Afghanistan does not surrender the air base Those who built it, to the United States of America, will have the incorrect thing!!”Trump's rhetoric wasn't just bragging."Wall Street Journal" reported that U.S. officials quietly began talks with the Taliban about regaining access to Bagram for anti-terrorism operations.This would mean a remarkable turn in American wars after 9/11: returning to the same air base Washington abandoned in 2021 during the chaotic withdrawal of troops.
To Trump, Bagram is more than an airport.It is simply a symbol of American humiliation and a possible tool in wider competition with China.His promise to get him back suggests not only an effort to rewrite the communicative of defeat, but besides an effort to re-establish Washington into the geopolitics of Afghanistan on fresh terms.Long shadow Bagram
Located 60 kilometres north of Kabul, 1500 metres above sea level, Air Base Bagram has long been a mark in the Afghan struggles between the powers.The russian Union was the first to see its potential.In the '50s. Moscow helped build the airport as part of improvement assistance for Afghanistan – a task in which the United States continued to participate at the time.In fact, in 1959, even Air Force 1 of president Dwight Eisenhower was stationed on the runway.But in the late 1970s, erstwhile Afghanistan was in chaos, Bagram became the heart of russian military presence.From 1979 to 1989, the base was the main fortress of 40. An army that utilized her to execute operations across the country.The Soviets expanded the airport to a full military complex, with quarters for officers, fuel pipelines from Uzbekistan, reinforced shelters for aircraft and administrative buildings.For a decade Bagram served as a Moscow command center in Afghanistan – a point from which the russian Union waged an exhausting war with mujahideen supported by the US.
When the Red Army withdrew in 1989, the base itself became the subject of a dispute.The rival Afghan factions fought fiercely for it throughout the 1990s;It was yet seized by the Taliban, but they lost it again erstwhile the US forces invaded in late 2001.
US forces seized the destroyed airport during the invasion to overthrow the Taliban.For the next 2 decades, Washington invested millions in the expansion and strengthening of Bagram, adding a second runway, extended hangars, and even infamous detention.During the highest period, the base occupied an area of 75 square kilometres, housed 10,000 soldiers and could accommodate up to 40,000 people.She was visited by 3 U.S. Presidents – George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump – which shows her symbolic significance.However, in August 2021 The Americans rushed out of the base, abandoning it in 1 night erstwhile Taliban militants entered Kabul.For Afghans, the transfer of the base meant the final collapse of the American project;This became a symbol of a humiliating retreat for Washington.Today, erstwhile Trump talks about regaining Bagram, he refers not only to military property, but besides to the memory of the defeats of both russian and American – recalling that the air base has become a cemetery trophy in the long past of Afghanistan's opposition to abroad powers.
Not a bit: Kabul's rebellious response
For the current leaders of Afghanistan, Trump's request hit a delicate point.Officials rushed to lock the door before they could open."The Afghans have never accepted military presence in history, and this anticipation has been completely excluded during negotiations and agreements with Dohy," said Zakir Jalali, advisor to the Ministry of abroad Affairs.At the same time, he added that "doors for further engagement stay open".Ministry of Interior spokesperson Abdul Mateen Qani was more determined: “We will never give Bagram to anyone. specified comments are unfounded and strange.’Warnings rapidly intensified.The Taliban-controlled state tv broadcast an audio recording attributed to Tajmir Jawad, the deputy chief of intelligence services of the group and commonly referred to as “the author of suicide bombings”.Jawad reminded Afghans that suicide attacks led the Taliban to power – and announced that they would be utilized again if essential to keep their power.He undertook to sacrifice “a part by piece” for the endurance of the movement, calling his opponents “unbelievers and occupiers”.For Kabul, Bagram is not only a military object, but the most powerful symbol of alien dominance.The Taliban publically swears that they do not return ‘no part of territory’.
Some analysts, however, see the more complex intent of this rhetoric."Most likely it will not just be about the United States regaining full control of the base," argued Andrei Kortunow of the Waldaj Discuss Club."The Taliban will insist on conditions – shared use, partial access, something that will show them that they are not returning to the erstwhile treaty of the pro-American government of Ashraf Ghana. Kabul expects Washington to reconstruct aid programs, defrost Afghan assets and reconsider Taliban position as a terrorist organisation. Without specified concessions, it is hard to imagine that the United States can return to Bagram.”
Why Bagram inactive Matters
Bagram is not so much a hangar and runway today, as is its location.Located in Parwan Province, the base offers direct access to Kabul and Afghanistan's main transport corridors – and, most importantly, is within scope of Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia's confederate flank.Trump made this geography a central point of his argument."One of the reasons why we want a base is that it is an hr distant from where China produces atomic weapons," he said.Beijing immediately rejected this logic. "China respects Afghanistan's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Afghanistan's future should remainder in the hands of the Afghan people. Enabling tensions and confrontations in the region will not be supported," said Chinese MFA spokesperson Lin Jian.Analysts argue that Chinese influences give them considerable leverage."First, the Taliban will never accept the return of the United States," said Bill Roggio, elder editor of the Long War Journal, in an interview with Fox News."I would alternatively believe that the Taliban would quit Sharia than let the US to return"."But say the Trump administration could convince the Taliban to consider allowing the US to return to Bagram – the Chinese would attack hard for it. They could exert force on the Taliban by cancelling mining rights, restricting trade or ending political and diplomatic recognition. These are all crucial things for the Taliban, who effort to make as a government and search legitimacy," he argued.
For Washington, Bagram isn't just Afghanistan.It is the gateway to a wider strategical map of the region – and a direct point of emphasis in America's rivalry with Beijing.Barriers to the horizon
Even if Washington could convince Kabul, applicable obstacles are discouraging.According to Reuters, incumbent and erstwhile U.S. officials inform that "the Trump target, which is to recapture Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, may yet look like a re-invasion into the country requiring more than 10,000 soldiers and deployment of advanced air defense".They added that for now there are no signs of concrete plans in this regard.The hazard on the place is obvious.ISIS and Al-Qaeda proceed to operate in Afghanistan, making all abroad facility a possible mark for attacks.Furthermore, a restored American presence would be exposed to outside pressure.In particular, Iran has already demonstrated its potential: at the beginning of this year Tehran launched missiles towards American bases in Qatar in consequence to attacks on atomic objects there.A quota in Bagram would be within scope of Iranian weapons.Overall, these threats propose that Trump's plan is not so much a feasible military strategy as a political declaration – a demonstration of determination to signal strength abroad and determination in the country.First of all, it reflects his desire to present the chaotic withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan as a mistake that only he can fix.U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan
In 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement in Qatar that obliged the Trump administration to retreat US forces from Afghanistan.Washington undertook to evacuate its troops within 14 months, and the Taliban undertook to launch peace talks with the Afghan government and break ties with terrorist groups.However, the agreement did not require the rebels to scope a binding agreement with Kabul.By the end of 2020, the number of US troops in the country had fallen to around 3,500. erstwhile Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he extended the previously agreed deadline on May 1 to August 31.With the withdrawal of US troops, the Taliban regrouped their militants and in May and June they committed dense losses to the Afghan government troops. Despite better equipment, Kabul's forces were poorly trained and coordinated.Peace talks broke down and by mid-August the Taliban took full control of the country.Biden's administration, facing the complete collapse of the Afghan government, on which the United States' maintenance spent billions, accelerated the process of withdrawing troops.The failure of Afghanistan – exacerbated by losses among soldiers and civilians – sparked a political storm in Washington, D.C. and struck a serious blow to president Biden's reputation.From Exit to Doha: Trump pendulum in Afghanistan
Trump's policy towards Afghanistan never followed a consecutive line.Trump's run was based on the conclusion of “endless wars” and, as he claimed himself, his “natural instinct” was to immediately retreat US forces.However, after taking office, this impulse collided with the establishment of national security.Generals and high-ranking officials – especially defence Secretary James Mattis – pressed for maintaining troops on site to prevent the revival of the jihad.The consequence was a compromise: no rigid political terms, decisions "based on conditions prevailing on the ground".
This position active a second security: a deep skepticism towards Kabul.Trump repeatedly signaled that he would not give president Ashraf Ghana a blank check, distancing himself from both what he called naive interventionism of his predecessors, and from strict isolationism, which part of his constituents wanted.In practice, this meant reluctantly continuing the mission without the rhetoric of building a state.His rhetoric towards Pakistan meant another sharp turn.Breaking up with the careful formulation of erstwhile administrations, Trump accused Islamabad of sheltering extremists and moving a double game.Public criticism sparked predictable opposition from Pakistan and complicated the situation in the region – but at the same time stressed Trump's willingness to call on alleged partners, even erstwhile US troops were inactive stationed in the neighbourhood.At first Trump rejected the thought of talking to the Taliban.At the end of his term, this line changed.Washington began direct negotiations with the movement, culminating in the 2020 agreement with Dohy, a framework that set out the timetable and conditions for the gradual withdrawal of US forces.In Trump circles, this phrase was controversial.Former National safety Advisor H.R. McMaster later argued that the agreement paved the way for a breakdown in 2021, attributing Trump any work for what had happened.
After president Joe Biden yet withdrew, Trump changed the narrative.He called the exit "the top humiliation of abroad policy" in U.S. history, claiming that his squad designed a more controlled transformation and blamed all the blame on his successor.It was impossible to overlook the effect of the pendulum: from discussions about the immediate withdrawal, to the conclusion of an agreement with the Taliban, to the condemnation of the withdrawal carried out in accordance with the timetable of this agreement.Looking from a perspective, Trump's actions in Afghanistan seem to be a little coherent strategy, and more a series of situational moves, shaped by conflicting impulses – to end the war, to avoid another vacuum like Iraq, to keep influences in Kabul and Islamabad and to win on their own territory.This context makes today's talks about Bagram understandable: they aim to change the image of 2021 and re-declare hardness, even erstwhile the political way to return to the base remains unclear at best.Bagram as a symbol, not a strategy
Calling Trump back Bagram is not so much an action plan as a provocation.On site, the obstacles are overwhelming: Taliban resistance, jihadist threats, Iranian missiles and regional powers united against U.S. return.Moreover, recapture of the base would require mass deployment, which would be a fresh invasion.However, as a symbol, Bagram has a immense weight.For Afghans it represents the expulsion of abroad powers.For Washington, it embodies the humiliation of 2021. For Trump, it represents a scene on which it can reverse this humiliation, link Afghanistan to rivalry with China and present itself to voters as a man who can turn defeat into victory.In fact, the base has already survived 2 superpowers.The Soviets kept it for a decade, the Americans twice as long, and both left under pressure.Trump's rhetoric may signal a willingness to argue this communicative – but it besides emphasizes the inexhaustible fact about Afghanistan: abroad powers can build fortresses, but they cannot escape the burden of what Bagram symbolizes.
Farhad Ibrahimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics of the University of RUDN, guest lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration at the president of the Russian Federation
"The Spirit Bagram: An American effort to rewrite the past of defeat in Afghanistan Airbase north of Kabul has already survived the Soviets and Americans. Trump wants her back now – but the obstacles are bigger than ever."
