This is a follow up of sorts to my post on "Operation Sapphire", which was the US operation to remove a large amount of highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan.

The Washington Post today has an online pictorial and story by Philip Pan that describe the results of Soviet nuclear weapons testing in Kazakhstan and the current struggle to control access to uranium in the country. Pan does a good job looking in depth at the issues of uranium access that cross borders from Russia, to Japan, North America and Europe. One note on the online pictorial, some of the images of the people affected by the radiation from the testing can be rather graphic and stark, so consider yourself warned before you click on the link.

What should be of concern in who ends up with control of Kazakh uranium are the regional concerns as Iran looks to develop its nuclear program. While it looks like there is no direct outright connection between Kazakh uranium and Iran's nuclear program has been acknowledeged officially that I know of, the geography of the area makes the possibility of a connection a little more real.

David Hoffman, a Washington Post contributing editor, has released a new book, Dead Hand, that explores the history of the US/USSR arms race during the 80s and 90s. In it, he devotes a few pages to Operation Sapphire in which he does report a connection between Kazakhstan and Tehran. His reporting only makes the concern of a connection between Central Asia and Iran's nuclear program a little more real. If you don't have time to get the book, take a listen to Terrry Gross' interview with Hoffman on her NPR Show Fresh Air.

Thanks to the Perry Castaneda online map collection at University of Texas for the map of Central Asia. Sphere: Related Content

Reflections on the Soviet Experience in Afghanistan

Two articles have caught my attention over the past few days in relation to the Red Army in Afghanistan. The first one comes from Danger Room as a crosspost from russian navy blog. It's an old Red Army document given to soldiers to better understand the Afghan culture in an attempt to keep the soldiers from crossing cultural lines. It comes across as pretty well thought out and seems similiar to another document that the US Army put out in WWII for US soldiers operating in Iraq.

The second was a Radio Free Europe news story via Dave Johnson's Reading List (awesome reading list BTW!!) that looks back at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 30 years ago. While the article is generally good in its arguments, one part stands out. Gregory Feifer, the author makes a somewhat flawed conclusion at the end of the article, italics added:

"Vostrotin and other veterans predict that the United States is doomed to the same fate the Soviet forces met in Afghanistan. But despite their obvious similarities, the conflicts differ in fundamental ways. U.S. and NATO fighting forces are far better trained and equipped, and Afghans still support the international drive to establish a viable Afghan state."

One could make the argument that the soviets were better trained and equipped with the latest in Soviet Army technology, or similarly about the US Army in Vietnam. At the end of the day, take a look at who was left standing in each country. Or better yet, recall the conversation between a US negotiator and his North Vietnamese counterpart at the end of the Vietnam War where the US Officer, in an attempt to salvage some pride tells the other officer that the US Army never lost a battle in Vietnam. The Vietnamese officer ponders the statement for a second and then tells the American that while true, it was the American, that was standing there suing for peace.

Though I wouldn't quite go along with the narrative that the US is doomed to failure in Afghanistan simply due to the past history of foreign armies in Afghanistan, it would be well served to have a complete grasp of history in Afghanistan and realize when its pitching down well down roads, as Feifer shows in his article. Sphere: Related Content