The representative of the command of the NATO alliance in Afghanistan - US General William Slavin - said that the destruction of the Islamic state militants (banned in Russia) in Afghanistan by the end of this year is one of the main goals of NATO troops in this country.

The IG has been actively expanding its presence in Afghanistan since January 2015, when the leadership of the terrorist organization announced the creation of the Emirate of Khorasan, a regional cell that is responsible for Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

"Our goal is to effectively combat IG so effectively in 2017 that extremists know that in Afghanistan they will not be able to operate with impunity. If they penetrate into Afghanistan, they will either be arrested or destroyed, "the general information agency Pajhwok quotes General Slavin as saying..

According to him, recently the IG lost about 50% of the manpower on the territory of the Islamic Republic, the extremists were also forced out from the greater part of the territory they controlled earlier in a number of Afghan regions. Since March of this year, more than 200 terrorists of an extremist organization were killed by NATO forces in the territory of the Afghan province of Nangarhar, Slavin said..

The statements of the general do not mean yet that the world is on the verge of a new war, but the revision of the US strategy on the local issue of military presence in Afghanistan is very likely, believes the political scientist, head of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan Institute of the CIS Andrei Grozin. He recalled that under Obama (especially with his second cadence), the policy of reducing the quantitative presence of Americans in Afghanistan. At the peak, in 2012-13. , Some American servicemen there were almost 100 thousand, now, according to various estimates, there are less than 10 thousand there, and, most likely, with the allies, who fled from there earlier and on a much larger scale.

"Many, including the military, were criticized by Obama for this strategy, for the fact that a quantitative reduction in the Iraqi type will ultimately lead to a loss of the American positions that have been won in Afghanistan for so many years. In Trump's election campaign, the Afghan question did not sound very specific, but observers in the United States had an opinion that he would rather reduce the presence. There were pendulum movements there, but even with Obama, the presence in Afghanistan was also increasing or decreasing, but still more. And the military is interested in the first option, as it is finance, and ranks, and logistics and other. The belligerent in all senses is a more fortunate man than the non-belligerent, "said the analyst" Utru ".

Photo: John Moore / Global Look There are "hawks" in the USA, realists, idealists, and different projects were realized on Afghan soil in different periods, reminds A. Grozin. In Afghanistan, America is interested in a whole range of issues, ranging from geopolitics and ending with ideological considerations (to remove the veil from an Afghan woman, to build schools for boys and girls and in general to build a democratic society). But the main interest is still geopolitical: the Islamic Republic borders on Central Asia (and through it with Russia), and with Iran, and with China (via the Vakhan corridor), and with Pakistan.

"Apparently, the Americans therefore got there and climbed: there is no oil, it is either very deep, or very little. That is, it is purely a geopolitical game, which the Americans at one time started against the Taliban, "the expert notes..

But under Tramp, there is no certainty: someone is for reducing the presence until the withdrawal of the contingent, someone suggests returning to a full-scale military presence. Obviously, there is a struggle for choosing a strategy for Afghanistan, and Slavin's statement is one of the approaches that should pressure the administration from the military in order to expand the US presence in this country - otherwise it will be like in Iraq. Hence the rhetoric of the IG, and so on.

It should be noted that the Taliban with the "Islamic state" there are rather complicated relations: they are at war, they conclude some pacts. Rather, they are competing forces, but the Taliban remain the dominant armed group in both quantitative and organizational terms. The IG in Afghanistan is at the stage of trying to form its own zones of influence, and the Taliban are interfering with it. In addition, there are quite a few different international groups on the territory of the country that formally do not obey anyone.

However, before the hostilities of the Russian Federation in Syria, the IG in Afghanistan saw a certain rise: then the terrorists offered the neophytes big money, according to Afghan measures (which the Taliban could not afford), and the outflow began to join the ranks of Islamic state militants from the Taliban detachments And international gangs. As the IG's position and financial strength have been undermined, over the past couple of years, attempts to gain control over Afghanistan have also been reduced: the brand has lost much of its attractiveness, there has been less money. And the Taliban, on the contrary, actively fought against the "igilizatsiya" of the country, and much more than the official Kabul, said Andrei Grozin. Now the "Islamic state" holds certain positions in the country at the level of individual provinces, but they are incomparable with what was before 2014. In addition, IG resources go to Syria and Iraq, and without much success.

But this medal also has two sides: if the "Islamic state" is eliminated in these countries, it remains an open question where they will flee from there. More often than not, experts mention Afghanistan and Libya. If the process of victory over the IG is delayed, there is a chance to avoid the danger of a mass exodus of terrorist organizations from Syria and Iraq with completely unpredictable results. Otherwise, if the process of defeating the "Islamic state" is completed, for example, within six months, the statements of the Americans (in case of real expansion of their presence in Afghanistan) are intended to demonstrate readiness to defeat the terrorists of the organization at the next point of their supposed activation, in order not to allow them to create Threat to the entire Eurasian region.

Photo: Spencer Platt / Global Look "But in fact, how will they defeat the" Islamic state "? They could not defeat the Taliban in more than ten years, and the same will happen to the IG," the expert predicts.. The funny thing is that competent specialists in the directions of Central Asia or Afghanistan in the new US administration have not yet been appointed: the work of the apparatus, which is already not the most effective, is now paralyzed. Formally, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson answers for Afghanistan, but experts consider him not the most knowledgeable in regional problems by man. Therefore, the lack of competent work, the Americans are now partly forced to replace loud demagogy.

Will the strategy of the new administration of the United States be popular, time will tell. On the one hand, American society is tired of wars, on the other, people want a real filling of Trump's slogan of "the return of greatness to America". "It's hard to launch production and pull money out of China, it's much easier to send out some tens of thousands of people somewhere, shoot a beautiful film, shoot rockets. People like it, the rating rises, "- concluded Andrei Grozin.