5 ms·

>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly

>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set. Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics. Can you articular which particular aspects of our nation-building and counter-insurgency techniques are distinct from our equally-failed predecessors? Have you considered that the objective may not have been to erect a fully-functional Afghan government and military, but instead to conduct a multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?

bawolff 5y ago
Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? (I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? To humiliate America Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.
- Guthur 5y ago
  Potentially with the belt and road initiative, which may now even expand into Afghanistan with the US redrawal.
- belter 5y ago
  Because of this: "Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afghanistan-sits-1-trillion-minerals-n196861 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh... The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.
  - smhost 5y ago
    > freedom and democracy Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?
    - belter 5y ago
      Not about that one but I heard one that I found relevant: How can the US promote Democracy abroad if it can’t even protect it at Home?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- pishpash 5y ago
  I don't think there were designs on Afghanistan, but these strategies usually work like chess, where having an opposing piece in one place constrains actions in another. Afghanistan is next to Xinjiang, where some subversive actions were demonstrated, so China ended up having to pay a lot of attention to the western front and therefore had less strategic flexibility in the near Pacific where her main interests lie. Having said that, it didn't work at all. China patiently used those 20 years to develop its economy and infrastructure, locked down Xinjiang against subversion, set up Belt and Road, and gained strategic tempo in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait while the US got much too carried away in Central Asia.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Here is a quick review of the geopolitics: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afghanistan-us https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afgha...
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Unchallenged access to the west
- powerapple 5y ago
  China would be happy if US stayed and maintained stability in the region, so US didn't lose, they created a problem for China. The military industry made a lot of money, Afghanistan has been the training ground for terrorists attack in Pakistan (recently a bus bomb against Chinese), and Xinjiang. Let's see how Taliban manage the country. If Afghanistan become stable, then US might not be very happy about it.
CydeWeys 5y ago
> Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics. I recommend checking out this thread, as the whole Afghanistan = Graveyard of empires meme only applies to quite recent history. https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166?s=19 https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166...
pjc50 5y ago
> multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible? That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years? Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead. Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?
- laurent92 5y ago
  China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering. On the other hand, it seems a lot of Afghan soldiers deserted to the other side. They see no upside to the new Afghan regime.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    Americans love to say this: "China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering." But, really, China is pretty peaceful compared to US thuggery. I prefer China. At least they are rational.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- pishpash 5y ago
  The media narrative is only the cover story for the plebs and democracy/terrorism have been great ones over the years. US military actions around the world, especially decades long ones, tend to be strategic in nature. Although as some point out above, even that might be a cover story for Congress, and the real motive is private profit.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years? Yeah it's one of those unspoken "national interests" that underlies how the US plays The Great Game, but rarely states explicitly. >>>Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead. If we are lucky, that will be the outcome. If the Chinese find a way to balance transit routes and natural resource extraction without somehow pissing a conservative Muslim population (while they are simultaneously oppressing Muslims in their home territory)....that could turn into a problem. If they build out links to Iran, it will not only throw a lifeline to that economically-struggling adversary, it will help China pivot away from reliance on maritime lines of communication. That maritime reliance is key to the US's strategy of threatening economic strangulation of Chinese coastal industry in the event of a conflict. >>>Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there? Via their shared border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord... Via China's ally Pakistan, the same routes most of US military logistics took into Afghanistan for the first decade? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afghan_war_US_transit_reliance_on_Pakistan_and_its_search_for_alternatives https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afgha...
yyyk 5y ago
The British actually got their war goals despite losing most of the time. That's why the Pashtun are divided by a line the British made. The Soviets managed to create a state that outlasted them, stopping the equivalent mujahideen attack in its tracks[0]. That state only fell when the USSR itself fell. The US failure is exceptional in the amount of resources cost, the quickness of collapse, and in failure to reach objectives. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%931992)#Battle_of_Jalalabad_(1989) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%9...
pishpash 5y ago
Certainly, Afghanistan was for the containment of China/Russia and Iraq was for the containment of Iran/Russia. Still, were those really successes?
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>Still, were those really successes? Probably not. There's definitely something we are doing wrong. Personally I look at the Russian intervention in Syria as a model for "hybrid warfare done -r-i-g-h-t- well enough". I think they manage to prop up client states, accomplish strategic objectives, and do it all without completely breaking the bank.
yalogin 5y ago
Your blurb further clarifies not just our deep incompetence but also our extraordinary arrogance. Even though there is a history of nations failing in Afghanistan we somehow thought we will succeed. This is nothing but a power and money grab by our politicians and defense contractors.

bawolff 5y ago

Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? (I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)

baybal2 5y ago
> Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? To humiliate America Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.
Guthur 5y ago
Potentially with the belt and road initiative, which may now even expand into Afghanistan with the US redrawal.
belter 5y ago
Because of this: "Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afghanistan-sits-1-trillion-minerals-n196861 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh... The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.
- smhost 5y ago
  > freedom and democracy Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?
  - belter 5y ago
    Not about that one but I heard one that I found relevant: How can the US promote Democracy abroad if it can’t even protect it at Home?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
pishpash 5y ago
I don't think there were designs on Afghanistan, but these strategies usually work like chess, where having an opposing piece in one place constrains actions in another. Afghanistan is next to Xinjiang, where some subversive actions were demonstrated, so China ended up having to pay a lot of attention to the western front and therefore had less strategic flexibility in the near Pacific where her main interests lie. Having said that, it didn't work at all. China patiently used those 20 years to develop its economy and infrastructure, locked down Xinjiang against subversion, set up Belt and Road, and gained strategic tempo in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait while the US got much too carried away in Central Asia.
temp8964 5y ago
Here is a quick review of the geopolitics: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afghanistan-us https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afgha...
naruvimama 5y ago
Unchallenged access to the west
powerapple 5y ago
China would be happy if US stayed and maintained stability in the region, so US didn't lose, they created a problem for China. The military industry made a lot of money, Afghanistan has been the training ground for terrorists attack in Pakistan (recently a bus bomb against Chinese), and Xinjiang. Let's see how Taliban manage the country. If Afghanistan become stable, then US might not be very happy about it.

CydeWeys 5y ago

> Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics. I recommend checking out this thread, as the whole Afghanistan = Graveyard of empires meme only applies to quite recent history. https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166?s=19 https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166...

pjc50 5y ago

> multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible? That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years? Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead. Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

laurent92 5y ago
China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering. On the other hand, it seems a lot of Afghan soldiers deserted to the other side. They see no upside to the new Afghan regime.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  Americans love to say this: "China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering." But, really, China is pretty peaceful compared to US thuggery. I prefer China. At least they are rational.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pishpash 5y ago
The media narrative is only the cover story for the plebs and democracy/terrorism have been great ones over the years. US military actions around the world, especially decades long ones, tend to be strategic in nature. Although as some point out above, even that might be a cover story for Congress, and the real motive is private profit.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years? Yeah it's one of those unspoken "national interests" that underlies how the US plays The Great Game, but rarely states explicitly. >>>Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead. If we are lucky, that will be the outcome. If the Chinese find a way to balance transit routes and natural resource extraction without somehow pissing a conservative Muslim population (while they are simultaneously oppressing Muslims in their home territory)....that could turn into a problem. If they build out links to Iran, it will not only throw a lifeline to that economically-struggling adversary, it will help China pivot away from reliance on maritime lines of communication. That maritime reliance is key to the US's strategy of threatening economic strangulation of Chinese coastal industry in the event of a conflict. >>>Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there? Via their shared border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord... Via China's ally Pakistan, the same routes most of US military logistics took into Afghanistan for the first decade? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afghan_war_US_transit_reliance_on_Pakistan_and_its_search_for_alternatives https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afgha...

yyyk 5y ago

The British actually got their war goals despite losing most of the time. That's why the Pashtun are divided by a line the British made. The Soviets managed to create a state that outlasted them, stopping the equivalent mujahideen attack in its tracks[0]. That state only fell when the USSR itself fell. The US failure is exceptional in the amount of resources cost, the quickness of collapse, and in failure to reach objectives. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%931992)#Battle_of_Jalalabad_(1989) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%9...

pishpash 5y ago

Certainly, Afghanistan was for the containment of China/Russia and Iraq was for the containment of Iran/Russia. Still, were those really successes?

CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>Still, were those really successes? Probably not. There's definitely something we are doing wrong. Personally I look at the Russian intervention in Syria as a model for "hybrid warfare done -r-i-g-h-t- well enough". I think they manage to prop up client states, accomplish strategic objectives, and do it all without completely breaking the bank.

yalogin 5y ago

Your blurb further clarifies not just our deep incompetence but also our extraordinary arrogance. Even though there is a history of nations failing in Afghanistan we somehow thought we will succeed. This is nothing but a power and money grab by our politicians and defense contractors.