Trump’s Desire to Seize Bagram Airfield Will End in Disaster

This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 431 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page, which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. Read about why we’re doing this fundraiser, what we’ve accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, supporting our new Coffee Break/Sunday Movie features

Yves here. This post provides a tidy list of why the insane-sounding idea of the US recapturing the Bagram base in Afghanistan after our shambolic exodus is as loopy as it sounds. Readers can likely add to the list of problems this scheme.

The worst is that when Trump utters these brain farts, in many cases, he may intend them to be yet another bright shiny object to distract attention from his many initiatives that are going pear-shaped, from ending the Ukraine war to winning the trade war with China to getting Iran to knuckle under. But then when the press takes them up, Trump’s narcissism dictates that they become an extension of him and thus difficult to drop.

By James D. Durso, the Managing Director of Corsair LLC, a supply chain consultancy. In 2013 to 2015, he was the Chief Executive Officer of AKM Consulting, a provider of business development and international project management services in Central and Southwest Asia to U.S. clients in a variety of industries including telecommunications, homeland security, and defense. Originally published at OilPrice 

• Trump demanded the Taliban return Bagram Airfield to U.S. control, citing concerns over possible Chinese use of the base, but the Taliban firmly rejected the request.
• Regional powers—including Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asian states—oppose a U.S. return.
• Any U.S. attempt to retake Bagram by force would trigger violent resistance.

American President Donald Trump recently demanded that Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban allow the U.S. to take back Bagram Airfield, the military airfield near the capital city, Kabul. He declared, “BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN” if Afghanistan does not return the base to the U.S.

The Taliban promptly rejected Trump’s demand, though it said it seeks political and economic ties with Washington.

Why would Trump want U.S. forces to return to Bagram?

Trump is concerned that China may move into the airfield, and he recognizes it has a useful position for spying on China because, he says, “It’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.”

That is an interesting take, but there is little prospect the U.S. will return to Bagram. To start, how will all those troops and equipment get there?

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks on America by al-Qaeda, the world’s sympathy was with the U.S. and Iran, Russia, the Central Asian republics, and Pakistan cooperated with the U.S. punitive expedition to Afghanistan to seek and destroy al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. But that was 24 years ago, a vanished world.

Today, Russia and Iran have no interest in helping the U.S. into Afghanistan, unless it is to help trap the U.S. in another quagmire. Pakistan often cooperates with the U.S., but it has a Taliban problem of its own, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and helping the Americans will spur more terrorist attacks that are responsible for more than 4,600 deaths of civilian and security personnel since 2021. The Central Asian republics are friendly with Washington (and Kabul) but are unlikely to want to be considered America’s co-belligerent in a renewed campaign in Afghanistan.

The U.S. will have to seize the airfield by force and that would require many troops and aircraft that would have to be secretly staged somewhere in the region. The base occupies 5 square miles (or about 3,200 acres) and would have to be guarded by hundreds of U.S. troops who would be under continuous attack and would have to be provisioned exclusively by air.

The Central Asian republics are growing their relations with Kabul, a key hub for trade and investment, overland transport, and energy transmission, through a policy of “pragmatic cooperation free from political intentions.” The republics know they and Afghanistan are “neighbors forever” and feel pragmatic cooperation is the only way to peacefully integrate Afghanistan into the Central Asian community.

The neighboring countries have another reason to oppose the U.S. seizure of the airfield: they all rely on Afghanistan for much of their fresh water.

Afghanistan’s Qosh Tepa canal, being built to irrigate northern Afghanistan, will reduce water flow to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by up to 17 percent. Iran has claimed it is not getting its rightful share of water from Afghanistan in accordance with the 1973 Afghan-Iranian Helmand River Water Treaty, water that is needed for drinking water supply and agricultural irrigation.

Pakistan is concerned about Afghan plans to build dams on the Kunar and Kabul Rivers, as it is currently in a water dispute with India after Delhi suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty in retaliation for what it alleges was a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Kashmir.

Trump probably assumes it’s just a matter of applying the right incentives, positive and negative, for the Kabul government to agree. But the Taliban have staked their legitimacy on the defeat of the U.S.-led NATO coalition and when they say “No” they mean “No.” And if Taliban leaders showed any receptiveness to Trump’s demand, they would be attacked (literally) by local al-Qaeda and Islamic State forces whose ranks would grow with defections from the Taliban. But at least Taliban veterans could finally quit their boring office jobs and join the epic battle for Bagram Airfield.

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State would then join the hardline Taliban faction based in Kandahar, and the good old days of the Taliban “moderates,” Mullah Yacoob, the defense minister, and Siraq Haqqani, the interior minister, would end. Then Washington would have more problems as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State would undertake “self-defense” strikes at U.S. assets and allies across the region.

The ensuing violence and disorder would increase the number of refugees and displaced persons in a region that can’t afford to support them, and the migration would only benefit human trafficking networks that would weaken the sitting governments in Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asia, and be a burden on Turkey and governments in the South Caucasus.

The Foreign ministers of China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran met on the sidelines of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York and issued a joint statement that included, “The four sides emphasized that the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Afghanistan should be respected, firmly opposed the reestablishment of military bases in and around Afghanistan by the countries responsible for the current situation [NATO], which is not conducive to regional peace and security.”

Trump should leave well enough alone.

The U.S. is busily expending its scarce munitions supporting Israel and Ukraine, and may be in a “pre-war” position in Venezuela and the South China Sea. U.S. credibility is down after it failed to respond to the Israeli attack on Qatar, a formal ally, and even suggested ideas like retaking the airbase because “we built it” as Trump claims (the Soviets built it), and because then-President Joe Biden ordered the “total disaster” withdrawal from Afghanistan, it looks foolish.

If the U.S. attempts to retake Bagram Airfield, it will then have something in common with the British Empire: they were both run out of Afghanistan twice.