Comments on: U.S. Policy in Central Asia, maybe Part Three http://registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/ Central Asia News -- All Central Asia, All The Time Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:17:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian http://registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-379535 Brian Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:24:47 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/#comment-379535 That's my point, Bishkek is not in the European direction. In fact it's further way from Europe than Kabul is. For example, let's say that NATO cargo planes start at the US base in Turkey (because they weren't allowed to overfly Russia). Here's the approximate distances: Ankara to Bishkek 3463km Ankara to Kabul 3251km So clearly the base is not a refuelling point on the way from/to Europe. I suspect it has something to do with the infrastructure of and around the base. But still, I'm thinking why they couldn't have improved the existing airbase in Mazar-i-sharif or something. That’s my point, Bishkek is not in the European direction.
In fact it’s further way from Europe than Kabul is. For example, let’s say that NATO cargo planes start at the US base in Turkey (because they weren’t allowed to overfly Russia). Here’s the approximate distances:
Ankara to Bishkek 3463km
Ankara to Kabul 3251km

So clearly the base is not a refuelling point on the way from/to Europe.

I suspect it has something to do with the infrastructure of and around the base. But still, I’m thinking why they couldn’t have improved the existing airbase in Mazar-i-sharif or something.

]]> By: matt http://registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-379534 matt Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:09:23 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/#comment-379534 Brian, I'm not sure what you're talking about- flying the distance from Bishkek to Kabul in the European direction wouldn't even take you out of Iran. Brian, I’m not sure what you’re talking about- flying the distance from Bishkek to Kabul in the European direction wouldn’t even take you out of Iran.

]]> By: Brian http://registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-379522 Brian Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:35:19 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/#comment-379522 So my dad pointed out something to me today. Look at the map above. Now try to locate where Bishkek and Kabul are on that map. Now imagine flying in from Europe somewhere... doesn't it seem like Kabul is just as close, if not closer, to Europe than Bishkek? That's especially true if our planes have been forced to fly over the Caucuses countries. So if it's not a distance thing, do we need Manas because Kabul doesn't have the necessary infrastructure/space to support these additional cargo & refuelling planes? If that's the case, then what about this novel idea: build an airbase somewhere in northern Afghanistan. Say, near Mazar-i-sharif. That way we wouldn't have to rely on either brutal dictatorships (Uzbekistan) or extortionist governments (Kyrgyzstan). Constructing it would boost the local economy. And after the war is finished the Afghans could even convert it into a spiffy airport. If we would have started building an airbase there in 2002 it'd be long complete by now. So are the Russian's right? Is the whole super-secret real purpose of the Manas airbase simply to blunt Russian influence in Central Asia? So my dad pointed out something to me today. Look at the map above. Now try to locate where Bishkek and Kabul are on that map. Now imagine flying in from Europe somewhere… doesn’t it seem like Kabul is just as close, if not closer, to Europe than Bishkek? That’s especially true if our planes have been forced to fly over the Caucuses countries.

So if it’s not a distance thing, do we need Manas because Kabul doesn’t have the necessary infrastructure/space to support these additional cargo & refuelling planes?

If that’s the case, then what about this novel idea: build an airbase somewhere in northern Afghanistan. Say, near Mazar-i-sharif. That way we wouldn’t have to rely on either brutal dictatorships (Uzbekistan) or extortionist governments (Kyrgyzstan). Constructing it would boost the local economy. And after the war is finished the Afghans could even convert it into a spiffy airport. If we would have started building an airbase there in 2002 it’d be long complete by now.

So are the Russian’s right? Is the whole super-secret real purpose of the Manas airbase simply to blunt Russian influence in Central Asia?

]]> By: Ekspeditsya http://registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-379513 Ekspeditsya Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:31:58 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/#comment-379513 I started a retort to this post here, but it turned a bit of an unwieldy and lumpy essay, so I just posted it at my blog: http://ekspeditsya.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/manas-manas-my-kingdom-for-a-manas/ If bored by the text, there are some funny animal pics to look at. I started a retort to this post here, but it turned a bit of an unwieldy and lumpy essay, so I just posted it at my blog:

http://ekspeditsya.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/manas-manas-my-kingdom-for-a-manas/

If bored by the text, there are some funny animal pics to look at.

]]> By: Reverend Doctor http://registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-379508 Reverend Doctor Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:48:16 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/02/05/us-policy-in-central-asia-maybe-part-three/#comment-379508 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/02/06/world/news-us-kyrgyzstan-usa-base.html?hp" rel="nofollow">It looks like this time they're for serious.</a> However it does seem like KG stretched out the process by threatening, then going back, then threatening, in order to give the US/NATO time to set up alternatives. Not a coincidence that this very week agreements are finally getting signed with Uzbekistan and Dushanbe has suddenly agreed to allow more flights. It looks like this time they’re for serious.

However it does seem like KG stretched out the process by threatening, then going back, then threatening, in order to give the US/NATO time to set up alternatives. Not a coincidence that this very week agreements are finally getting signed with Uzbekistan and Dushanbe has suddenly agreed to allow more flights.

]]>