5 ms·

It's worth going back a decade and looking at US plans for Afghanistan's mineral wealth during Obama's first term in office, which coincided with increasing US

It's worth going back a decade and looking at US plans for Afghanistan's mineral wealth during Obama's first term in office, which coincided with increasing US military personnel in the country to 100,000. Department of Defense report pointing to several trillion dollars worth of minerals (2010): https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-mining-idUSLDE65O0FS20100625 https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-mining-idUSLDE65... State Department plan for "New Silk Road" (2011): https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/clintons-dubious-plan-to-save-afghanistan-with-a-new-silk-road/247760/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/cl... The latter was also about promoting the TAPI pipeline route for moving Central Asian oil and gas directly to the Indian Ocean, a project once meant largely for Chevron and Exxon (major operators in Kazakhstan) exports but which now appears to have been taken over by China: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-joint-statement-signals-revival-of-tapi-gas-pipeline-via-af-pak-to-india-101648804560322.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-joint-statem... China's approach to obtaining deals in Afghanistan appears to be strictly economic and diplomatic; there are no Chinese soldiers in the region.

alephnerd 4y ago
TAPI is a pipe dream (pun very much intended). It's been a Pakistani national security goal since the 1990s. As such, it's not surprising that Pakistan's closest ally announced their interest.
josephcsible 4y ago
Could the American plan be described as "use military force to suppress the terrorist group, and then give money to the legitimate government in exchange for minerals", and the Chinese plan as "give money to the terrorist group in exchange for minerals"?
- xtian 4y ago
  It’s incredible that an illegitimate government can take over the entire country in ten days whereas the legitimate one wasn’t sustainable after twenty years of military and economic support.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    Turns out that Afghans as a whole don't believe much in traditional Liberalism! Whereas it seems like Ukrainians do.
    - nortonham 4y ago
      Most people don't like their nation being invaded and seeing their families die. Why would Afghanis be any different?
    - xtian 4y ago
      What’s the relevance of Ukraine?
    - photochemsyn 4y ago
      Didn't much of the conflict in Ukraine from 2014 onwards arise from an effort to treat Russian-speaking Ukrainians as second-class citizens by the newly installed government? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-010539_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-01053... For comparison, this would be like the U.S. government banning the use of Spanish or any other minority language, refusing to print translations of government documents in those languages, etc. Such a policy would certainly generate tension and resentment in areas like the Southwestern USA, and would be hard to characterize as 'liberal'. Of course, in the context of TAPI and Afghanistan, the Ukraine war is just part of the ongoing struggle over who gets to sell fossil fuels to Europe, i.e. Russian pipeline gas vs USA tanker LNG.
      - throwaway6734 4y ago
        The conflict in Ukraine is caused by Russia's imperialistic and colonial mindset towards the rest of eastern Europe. They invaded because a majority of Ukrainian peoples wanted closer relationships with Europe and to throw off the yoke of Russian authoritarianism.
        xtian 4y ago
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  There wasnt much legitimity in US-backed government, its empire ended at the border of Kabul. More moderate than extremists, but utterly corrupt, from what I read utterly incompetent in governing country properly. Typical resource curse place, without even getting to the resource part properly
- nortonham 4y ago
  China's plan could just be do business with current gov't rather than invade and install a puppet gov't at an incredible cost to human life. They tend to do business with nations all over the world. They don't comment much on the politics of nations they do business with (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc). I also think that is a very odd reading of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Even more so considering that the US has a track record of supporting fascists and terrorists for decades, and will overthrow gov'ts if it means access to natural resources, and greater profits for US corporations.
mlindner 4y ago
> there are no Chinese soldiers in the region. So China is bribing all the tribes in the area to not "salvage" their stuff for parts? The problem with not having troops in such places is that they're in constant states of near lawlessness toward outsiders. It would be more correct to say that "there are not yet Chinese soldiers in the region". It's only a matter of time.

alephnerd 4y ago

TAPI is a pipe dream (pun very much intended). It's been a Pakistani national security goal since the 1990s. As such, it's not surprising that Pakistan's closest ally announced their interest.

josephcsible 4y ago

Could the American plan be described as "use military force to suppress the terrorist group, and then give money to the legitimate government in exchange for minerals", and the Chinese plan as "give money to the terrorist group in exchange for minerals"?

xtian 4y ago
It’s incredible that an illegitimate government can take over the entire country in ten days whereas the legitimate one wasn’t sustainable after twenty years of military and economic support.
- beebmam 4y ago
  Turns out that Afghans as a whole don't believe much in traditional Liberalism! Whereas it seems like Ukrainians do.
  - nortonham 4y ago
    Most people don't like their nation being invaded and seeing their families die. Why would Afghanis be any different?
  - xtian 4y ago
    What’s the relevance of Ukraine?
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    Didn't much of the conflict in Ukraine from 2014 onwards arise from an effort to treat Russian-speaking Ukrainians as second-class citizens by the newly installed government? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-010539_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-01053... For comparison, this would be like the U.S. government banning the use of Spanish or any other minority language, refusing to print translations of government documents in those languages, etc. Such a policy would certainly generate tension and resentment in areas like the Southwestern USA, and would be hard to characterize as 'liberal'. Of course, in the context of TAPI and Afghanistan, the Ukraine war is just part of the ongoing struggle over who gets to sell fossil fuels to Europe, i.e. Russian pipeline gas vs USA tanker LNG.
    - throwaway6734 4y ago
      The conflict in Ukraine is caused by Russia's imperialistic and colonial mindset towards the rest of eastern Europe. They invaded because a majority of Ukrainian peoples wanted closer relationships with Europe and to throw off the yoke of Russian authoritarianism.
      - xtian 4y ago
saiya-jin 4y ago
There wasnt much legitimity in US-backed government, its empire ended at the border of Kabul. More moderate than extremists, but utterly corrupt, from what I read utterly incompetent in governing country properly. Typical resource curse place, without even getting to the resource part properly
nortonham 4y ago
China's plan could just be do business with current gov't rather than invade and install a puppet gov't at an incredible cost to human life. They tend to do business with nations all over the world. They don't comment much on the politics of nations they do business with (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc). I also think that is a very odd reading of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Even more so considering that the US has a track record of supporting fascists and terrorists for decades, and will overthrow gov'ts if it means access to natural resources, and greater profits for US corporations.

mlindner 4y ago

> there are no Chinese soldiers in the region. So China is bribing all the tribes in the area to not "salvage" their stuff for parts? The problem with not having troops in such places is that they're in constant states of near lawlessness toward outsiders. It would be more correct to say that "there are not yet Chinese soldiers in the region". It's only a matter of time.