Hacker News Reader

Comment by binarray2000 | Hacker News Reader

binarray2000

Honest question (since it is essential for any further discussion and the article says nothing about it): Why the USA has to be in Uzbekistan?

View on HN

“... to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” See Wolfowitz Doctrine

Hearts and minds then.

To ensure a ring of bases around Russia (like a potential base in Crimea before the war in Ukraine) so that any military activity of the latter can be interpreted as aggression (e.g., "Russia tries to re-establish its evil Empire"). [Here we skip intermediate steps]. To make sure people fight "left vs right", "West vs East" instead of the only really important battle of "poor vs rich".

p.s. this particular base is of importance because it is relatively close to future super-powers like China and India.

Schyy.

Americans don't like to be reminded that they are a part of an empire ... but they are.

Deployment as part of Afghanistan operations.

3rd Paragraph

>The base became a critical hub in the early days of the war to provide airdrops, medical evacuation and airstrike support to U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan.

I wasn't precise, I am sorry: I get it that it was/is used for the support of US forces.

I am interested in how the US can put a military base on a piece of land that in not so distant past (ten years prior to 9/11) was part of its arch enemy - the USSR? It may be completely natural to some, but to me that's awkward.

Isn't that, in particular, the land you would most want to put new bases on?

You are right. But, why then do I keep hearing in the western mainstream media about Russia being a threat when it is the USA that puts its base near Russia?

Because when you feel threatened, you are fine that your government passes laws (e.g., surveillance laws) you would never let them to pass.

You don't go out of your way to place a base near another state unless you consider them a threat, or consider them no threat at all but want to conquer them in the near future. I think the former is more likely the intention in this case. If a state's not perceived as a threat and also isn't a likely target for a very one-sided invasion, you probably don't care much about having bases near them.

This dynamic is behind military build-ups, arms races, and increasing tensions and effective ability to act threateningly. You believe a state threatens yours, so you build up on their border, now you threaten them, so they build up more, repeat. Notably this does not happen if neither side perceives the other as threatening in the first place.

IOW placing a base on a rival state's border both is threatening and is also exactly what one does when one perceives same rival as a threat.

That base was there long before "the western mainstream media [talked] about Russia being a threat". Its original purpose was to support operations Afghanistan.

Look on a map -- the base is nowhere near Russia proper. You'd have to go well north through the rest of Uzbekistan, then Kazakhstan. If anything it is a statement to Pakistan or Iran.

There are many vectors that foreign adversaries can be a threat. In Russia's case, they are a threat to our Democratic institutions, but more so a threat to our allies in the region. They are a country well known for their desire for expansion into adjacent nations, even after the fall of the USSR. That's the #1 reason neighboring nations are our/NATOs allies, because they are in fear of Russia.

Pretty much this:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/64/9f/29/649f29232b7d89e9aee662222...

According to the graphic, those are NATO bases. NATO != USA. Countries join NATO willingly because they perceive some kind of threat and want help from others if they're attacked.

Those are all US military bases. Other NATO countries have equipment based there as well, but they're ran and funded by the US.

They were supposed to pay the Uzbeks for access to the base (an old Soviet base) for the Afghanistan war. In the mid-2000s, when it came time to pay the Uzbeks (about $500 million, if memory serves), the Americans decided the Uzbeks were terriss and opted not to pay. The Uzbeks hated the US after that. Absolutely loathed.

(I ended up living there for a year at the end of 2005, so my recollection of details around the finances might be spotty, but my recollection of having Uzbeks explain why it was so fucked up what we did, I will live with forever.)

The US and Uzbekistan initially signed an agreement that let them use the base for free. Then the Uzbeks wanted money, so we started paying ~$20million a year.

Relations got really bad after the Andijan Massacre. The US government (state department and congress) was REALLY critical of Uzbekistan and talked a lot about human rights abuses and cutting aid. Maybe that's where you're getting the $500 million figure from? Canceled aid payments that were conditional on the government making humans rights improvements, not the use of the base? Anyways, 2 months after Andijan and one day after the first planeload of refugees got a flight to Romania, the US received an eviction notice. We continued to pay the rest of the lease, and actually delivered a final $22.9 million payment after we got the eviction notice, days before the final Americans left.[1] If you want to read a description of events that is still biased, but in the other direction you can see the Air Force's timeline of what happened [2].

[1]: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/12/why-did-we-send-...

[2]: https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Documents/20...

Very interesting, thanks.

Based on these revelations about the cancer, they did us a massive favor when they evicted us.

In the era of John Yoo and Dick Cheney, the Uzbeks felt like any US posturing on human rights was just that -- posturing. They were also resentful at the US treating their sovereignty as a new-millennium extension of the Great Game. As for the $500 million, you're right, I don't remember what they said it was for, it's been close to 15 years.

>I am interested in how the US can put a military base on a piece of land...

First the US didn't put the military base there, the military based was already there, the US just put troops and supplies there.

Not sure what the land being part of the USSR in the past has anything to do with the then current military campaign, when the USSR no longer existed. For example the US has maintained military bases and presence in both Germany and Japan since WWII...no one asks how the US could do that in Countries that were former enemy combatants...not to mention no one asks why the US came to the aid of the UK in WWII when they too were former military combatants.

Today that is an US base, it doesn't matter if it existed before or not.

The US has not "maintained" the presence in Germany and Japan. US still maintains presence there. And that 75 years after the WWII ended! Also: The US has fought a major war with Germany and Japan and after their defeat it occupied them (still ocupies them?). All that does bot apply to the former USSR.

> it doesn't matter if it existed before or not.

In the context of your "honest question" it matters. The US was conducting military operations in nearby Afghanistan and there was an unused military base nearby that the US could lease and the US leased it...its not their base or their land, its leased and belongs to Uzbekistan.

>The US has not "maintained" the presence in Germany and Japan. US still maintains presence there. And that 75 years after the WWII ended!

I am having a hard time following your English, but you seemed surprised the US would have a base in former enemy territory (USSR).

So here is a question, how much military experience do you have if any? Because it seems to be basic military strategy, going back to the times of Alexander the Great.

>The US has fought a major war with Germany and Japan and after their defeat it occupied them (still ocupies them?)

Well the US and USSR engaged in a very lengthy cold war...the USSR was defeated resulting in their own voluntary dissolution.

And no the US does not occupy Japan or Germany. We maintain a presence...the same as we maintain a presence in South Korea ever since the Korean war (and South Korea was never our enemy), we certainly don't occupy them.

Here is a list of Russian Military Bases around the World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases...), as you will note, they have bases in former territories they once occupied/controlled and no longer do. Of course Crimea is of particular concern as that was a sovereign territory and Russian recently violated their sovereignty with illegal use of military force and annexation.

The US asked to put one there, offered them some assistance with security and their own terrorism problems, and they agreed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Uzbekist...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com