For operational secrecy, there may be
no better place than Uzbekistan
ww2.pstripes.osd.mil
By Scott Schonauer, Stars and Stripes
Friday, October 19, 2001
TASHKENT, Uzbekistan — U.S. troops operating in Uzbekistan are guests of a government that Western observers assert is more authoritarian and closed than when the Soviet Union ruled.
Most of the newspapers are state controlled. Freedom of speech is limited. Motorists cannot drive long distances without stopping at a police checkpoint. The president is known for taking a harsh stand against Islamic extremists, throwing hundreds of Muslims in jail with little or no evidence of conspiring or committing violence, human rights activists say.
While the Uzbek government’s strong grip on society might disturb the average American, the Pentagon is not complaining: At least, not publicly.
That is because the situation might actually be ideal for troops, some analysts say.
If the U.S. military wanted to launch a covert mission into neighboring Afghanistan, it could do so from a base in Uzbekistan heavily insulated from the public.
Secrecy is especially critical to special operations forces, said Tomas Valasek, a senior analyst Center for Defense Information, and Uzbekistan might be willing to provide the curtain. Although the Uzbek government has allowed the United States to use one of its bases for humanitarian and possible search and rescue mission, there is speculation that military forces might quietly expand their role.
"Having this kind of separation helps special forces in particular, who count on the element of surprise in their operations," Valasek said. "Last thing they want to see is someone calling Afghanistan on a satellite phone reporting that a large helicopter force is on its way south."
Isolated bases also offer troops tremendous protection, especially from Islamic militant groups interested in carrying out a "holy war" against U.S. military forces.
Although Uzbekistan has closed its 84-mile border with Afghanistan, it is "notoriously porous," Valasek said.
In the past two years, Islamic guerrilla fighters have twice attacked the country.
"The whole world knows there are U.S. troops in Uzbekistan, and where approximately they are," he said "It is not inconceivable that anti-U.S. elements would try to stage a terrorist attack at the base and its troops, just as it happened in Lebanon or, more recently, Saudi Arabia. A tight security corridor around the base reduces the chances of a successful attack."
In addition to making it difficult for terrorists, solitude almost eliminates any chance for observers to watch movement in and out of the base and make predictions about the timing of strikes on Afghanistan.
During NATO’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, journalists and other observers reported nearly every take-off and landing from the Aviano, Italy, air base, a main staging ground for U.S.-led air operations. The Pentagon complained that the Serbs could use the information to prepare a better air defense.
While there is no indication that U.S. forces have used Uzbek bases in its two-week air attack in Afghanistan, it is difficult to imagine a similar Aviano scenario in a place where bases are guarded much like they were during the Cold War.
Outside Khanabad Air Base in Karshi, where about 1,000 U.S. soldiers are believed to be operating, police have set up a cordon of several miles. Journalists are prohibited from entering the base. Only authorized personnel can get past a series of security forces that ring the installation.
A distant police checkpoint might be the closest the media will ever get to U.S. troops in the near future. An Uzbek government official said that the last time a journalist was allowed onto the base was in 1998, when the BBC was doing a story about the government’s drug interdiction efforts along the border.
After the United States and Uzbekistan announced a deal last Friday allowing U.S. troops to use one of its bases, both the Pentagon and the Uzbek officials have been silent.
Although news crews have captured video footage of American cargo planes landing and taking off from Uzbekistan, the government has publicly denied there are any U.S. soldiers in Uzbekistan.
The U.S. Embassy in Tashkent and the Pentagon also have provided little or no information. When asked about troops in Uzbekistan, a Pentagon spokeswoman reached by telephone said she would not confirm or deny it.
Unlike in Pakistan, where the foreign ministry holds almost daily press briefings, the Uzbek government is skittish about answering questions from foreign journalists. News conferences are rare. And if they do not deny requests for interviews, they require reporters to fax questions to press officers who often do not promptly return phone calls.
And the international media will get little help from the local media pack.
Although Uzbekistan is in the global spotlight for the first time since it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the state-controlled press is ambiguous about the country’s role in the U.S.-led campaign against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and his suspected terrorist network. In one newspaper, the biggest story was Mike Tyson’s return to the ring. Another had a story about the United States and Uzbekistan cooperating in the fight against terrorism, but it called reports of American troops landing in the country only a rumor.
That doesn’t mean people on the street in the capital do not know what is going on in their country. Most people are supportive of U.S. troops using Uzbekistan as a staging area, even if they have to get the scoop by word of mouth or over the Internet. The capital has several cyber cafes in which people can get the latest news from western sources.
"I know what I need to know, what is necessary for me," said Sergey, 22.
The lack of information about U.S. troops operating in Uzbekistan has good and bad aspects, said Baker Spring, a scholar with the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institute.
While sealing the base from reporters and the public might offer better protection, the secrecy could fuel outlandish rumors. The Pentagon loses the ability to shape public opinion by not giving journalist at least some access.
"It creates an environment of suspicion of what the military does," Spring said. "I don’t think that serves them well."
Putting the troops in such isolation probably was not the Pentagon’s idea, Spring added. He speculates that the Uzbek government wants the U.S. military to keep a low profile in the country for the time being.
Although U.S. forces have partnered with a repressive government accused of human rights violations, Spring said that doesn’t mean the Pentagon or the United States endorse the Uzbek government’s policies. However, they do have to respect the host country’s rules, making for a tricky arrangement.
"That, to a certain degree, comes with the territory," he said. |
