The Boy Prince really hasn't a clue, does he?
What a shit head.
I'm pretty sure he had a Johnson moment.
He looked at the options available, put his head in his hands, and muttered, "What the fuck am I going to do?"
So he decided to punt. Not enough for a massive fuck-all boot stomping, but more than the piddling chum-in-a-hummer he's got now. I guess he's gonna rely on the massive power of "HOPE"; as in, "I hope something good happens in the next 3 years."
Yeah, I have to say I don't envy the man one bit. Who the fuck want to make that decision? He certainly didn't look very happy about the decision he had to make. I mean, if things go badly, he'll probably be kissing 2012 goodbye. He'll lose a bunch of seats in Congress. I'm not terribly on board with the decision, but it certainly wasn't a politically expedient one. But really, the guy was pretty much fucked when he got into office. Bush left such a clusterfuck, he probably had very few ways to win on anything.
Also, he did leave an awfully big loop-hole into the so-called timetable. I'll call it now, we won't be withdrawing in the middle of 2011. Yeah I know not much of a stretch to make that call.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2009, 11:21:45 AM
The Boy Prince really hasn't a clue, does he?
What exactly would you recommend he do?
First, "more!" is not a strategy, so by definition, anything I propose is automatically better.
Second, I wouldn't use a cut-and-paste plan that "worked" in a mostly urban environment and expect it to work in a country full of goats, mountains, caves and more goats.
Third, I'd fire anyone who mentions any of the following:
- creating a tribal militia
- bribing the Taliban
- concentrating on southern Afghanistan because "that is where the fighting is".
- metrics for leaving which are actually Agitprop for the rubes at home (ie; "democracy", "degrading the ability of Al-Qaeda to fight" etc)
- any buzzword from either the ISAF press releases or Centcom's power slides, because the sort of person who does that is an ass-covering know-nothing
- arbitrary troop numbers which will, by themselves and with no change in strategy, solve everything. Or anything, even.
I'd also fire Petraeus, and tell him he can play at being President once, oh, I don't know, he's won an election, maybe?
Then I'd hire the best experts on Afghan culture, history and sociology, along with Central Asian experts with security backgrounds, and ask them what they think, instead of running to my pet foreign policy advisors like the Kagans to see what should be done.
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
No Western European power can hold Afghanistan. Ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. The only powers who can dominate the country are Central Asian ones, who, coincidentally, are the ones who have sat on their hands and done nothing for the past eight years.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2009, 03:54:21 PM
First, "more!" is not a strategy, so by definition, anything I propose is automatically better.
Second, I wouldn't use a cut-and-paste plan that "worked" in a mostly urban environment and expect it to work in a country full of goats, mountains, caves and more goats.
Third, I'd fire anyone who mentions any of the following:
- creating a tribal militia
- bribing the Taliban
- concentrating on southern Afghanistan because "that is where the fighting is".
- metrics for leaving which are actually Agitprop for the rubes at home (ie; "democracy", "degrading the ability of Al-Qaeda to fight" etc)
- any buzzword from either the ISAF press releases or Centcom's power slides, because the sort of person who does that is an ass-covering know-nothing
- arbitrary troop numbers which will, by themselves and with no change in strategy, solve everything. Or anything, even.
I'd also fire Petraeus, and tell him he can play at being President once, oh, I don't know, he's won an election, maybe?
Then I'd hire the best experts on Afghan culture, history and sociology, along with Central Asian experts with security backgrounds, and ask them what they think, instead of running to my pet foreign policy advisors like the Kagans to see what should be done.
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
No Western European power can hold Afghanistan. Ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. The only powers who can dominate the country are Central Asian ones, who, coincidentally, are the ones who have sat on their hands and done nothing for the past eight years.
Cain, it's exactly this sort of clear-headed reasoning that will keep you out of your chosen field forever.
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 01:32:08 PM
I'm pretty sure he had a Johnson moment.
He looked at the options available, put his head in his hands, and muttered, "What the fuck am I going to do?"
So he decided to punt.
THIS.
Academia beckons, then!
Fortunately there, no-one gives a rats ass about my nationality or habit of mocking the entire national-security establishment.
Unfortunately, they're also know-nothing dickheads, but at least they don't have a say over policy.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2009, 04:03:07 PM
Academia beckons, then!
Fortunately there, no-one gives a rats ass about my nationality or habit of mocking the entire national-security establishment.
Unfortunately, they're also know-nothing dickheads, but at least they don't have a say over policy.
You should try getting hired on at one of these "think tanks", and become the dirty little whore you know you can be. Sure, you might not be able to look in the mirror when you shave every morning, but there's plenty of boodle to be had pumping sunshine up peoples' arses.
I actually did an internship here (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cstpv/). They only paid for the coffee, and I had to cut my time short due to being quite ill, but it was alright.
If you really wanted to be serious about Afghanistan, you'd need 2.1 million troops and a decade, minimum. It costs the US roughly $1 million to field a soldier for a year in Afghanistan. You'd also need to train the troops to speak the local languages and to learn the basics of counterinsurgency practice.
And even then you'd have no guarantee of success, plus you'd be massively restricting your ability to deploy in other regions of the world for a decade to come. Even without taking into account the recession etc it's a losing proposition.
Oh, and then, Al-Qaeda would just move to Yemen or somewhere anyway.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2009, 04:17:06 PM
I actually did an internship here (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cstpv/). They only paid for the coffee, and I had to cut my time short due to being quite ill, but it was alright.
If you really wanted to be serious about Afghanistan, you'd need 2.1 million troops and a decade, minimum. It costs the US roughly $1 million to field a soldier for a year in Afghanistan. You'd also need to train the troops to speak the local languages and to learn the basics of counterinsurgency practice.
And even then you'd have no guarantee of success, plus you'd be massively restricting your ability to deploy in other regions of the world for a decade to come. Even without taking into account the recession etc it's a losing proposition.
Oh, and then, Al-Qaeda would just move to Yemen or somewhere anyway.
We don't have 2.1 million combat troops, and we don't have $210 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
But what we DO have is a plethora of pundits screeching shit about "nuking them all".
At least everyone knows they are retards though. Well, everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. It's supposed geostrategic geniuses like Fred Kagan who bother me more. Obviously reading too much of Brezinski's The New Chessboard has added their brains and they really think a distant, foreign, amphibious power like the United States can project power into Central Asia, in the face of an insurgency, for all eternity.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2009, 04:33:18 PM
At least everyone knows they are retards though. Well, everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
Okay, but what about the OTHER 300,999,000 Americans?
Quote
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
So basically, we've fucked up beyond belief and the only thing left to do is admit it?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 02, 2009, 09:57:53 PM
Quote
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
So basically, we've fucked up beyond belief and the only thing left to do is admit it?
it's the only "Afghan Strategy" that's ever worked in 2000 years of foreign powers failing to successfully occupy and/or pacify Afghanistan.
Stop talking like that.
You are making me like Afghanistan.
I don't think I'd wanna go there on vacation (I hear the beaches suck and the women don't shave much), but my respect for them as a people in general has usually been reinforced by any Afghans I've ever met in person.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 02, 2009, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 02, 2009, 09:57:53 PM
Quote
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
So basically, we've fucked up beyond belief and the only thing left to do is admit it?
it's the only "Afghan Strategy" that's ever worked in 2000 years of foreign powers failing to successfully occupy and/or pacify Afghanistan.
Yay, Vietnam repeat. Who didn't see that coming? :horrormirth:
there is one HUGE difference, which is that we COULD have won in Vietnam if we had had the cultural and political will to do so.
"Winning", by current definition, in Afghanistan is just an impossibility.
Quote from: Kai on December 02, 2009, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 02, 2009, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 02, 2009, 09:57:53 PM
Quote
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
So basically, we've fucked up beyond belief and the only thing left to do is admit it?
it's the only "Afghan Strategy" that's ever worked in 2000 years of foreign powers failing to successfully occupy and/or pacify Afghanistan.
Yay, Vietnam repeat. Who didn't see that coming? :horrormirth:
Wanna hear something scary? In April we will have had been
* in Afghanistan longer than we were in Vietnam. Also, Turd Blossom (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571852549048542.html) just praised Obama's plan which means we are definitely fucked.
* - Hooray for the future perfect tense!!
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 02, 2009, 09:57:53 PM
Quote
And then I'd ignore all their advice and dump the problem on the laps of Iran, Russia, India and China, and tell them to enjoy the spillover effects, as a fuck you for all the "help" they have provided in the country.
So basically, we've fucked up beyond belief and the only thing left to do is admit it?
Pretty much.
Now, if an effort had been made back in 2001 to undertake a concerted counterinsurgency strategy, and troops hadn't been diverted in 2002 and 2006 to Iraq and if several other factors had come together fortuitously, then perhaps it would be almost over by now (it takes about a decade to successfully carry out counterinsurgency).
However, it hasn't, so things got worse, and such a strategy would have a starting point of, well, now.
The problem is our military and political elites think that war is like some sort of computer game, that victory is always possible and even if you've made mistakes before, realizing them now is a short-cut to finishing it all off. It isn't. Sometimes you screw up so horribly, your chances of winning vanish into nothing.
Also, Vietnam is a bad analogy, but I'm convinced the US political-security elites are only capable of understanding the world through analogy (because they aren't very bright), which is probably why Vietnam has been mentioned 50,000 times by every single foreign affairs pundit since yesterday. Vietnam was a nationalist uprising disguised as a Communist revolution, set against the backdrop of a regional and global ideological struggle. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a hodgepodge of competing loyalties in a region with a hodpgepodge of governments and movements, and the only unifying force in the region may well be the ISAF (that is, unifying groups against it through continued occupation - read Kilcullen's The Accidental Guerrilla for more).
Also also, setting a withdrawal date might be the most sensible thing Obama has done. I've seen
lots of pissing and moaning suggesting that this "just tells the Taliban they only need to wait out the US forces". Well,
duh. This is a guerrilla war, is it not? I would think any guerrilla commander might have just figured out the basic guerrilla strategy is outlasting the occupying force.
I've never really figured out how this was supposed to be like Vietnam myself. Nothing about it seems similar except the bit with guerrilla warfare.
And even that isn't really all that similar, since they were guerrilla forces backed by the NVA, a regular military organization.
The war is like Vietnam because the US just keeps stupidly throwing troops in when in the end it's just going to mean a loss anyway. It's a repeat of "but we can't just /LEAVE/!!1", a repeat of bringing democracy to the heathens and a repeat of local guerrilla warfare ruling over foreign invasion.
ehh, that's not REALLY what Vietnam was about (it was an ideological proxy war with the USSR and we didn't give one shit about bringing democracy), and we COULD have won the Vietnam war with overpowering force if we had the nutsack to actually do what it takes to win a guerilla war. Even thought the Vietnam war really wasn't a guerilla war, for the most part.
What makes Afghanistan so special is that even doing what it takes to win a guerilla war won't work there.
Afghanistan is rotten inside and out. There's no real ally source to hold on to that's worth anything that will net any organizational foothold. At all. It's a bleak picture, from all angles. And the West becomes just as dirty when they get over there--it's too tempting NOT too, which is what Karzai adores to point out when folks get up in his grill about his peccadilloes.
What Cain said about letting all the separate factions in the ME and Asia that have helped create and maintain this monster take it over and clean it up as they would (or let it necritize further) is apt. The theory in this house is that an Attaturk-style hostile takeover and prolonged fisting up the ass of everyone who's currently in power is the only other alternative.
So, who wants to sign up to be the Afghan Attaturk, raise your hand. {crickets} (Yeah, because King of a Shitpile is STILL King of a Shitpile, no matter what power that may bring)
I bet Uzbekistan would jump at the chance to exert dominance over a country where Uzbeks are one of the largest ethnic group.
And I'll tell you what, if Uzbekistan was running the show in Afghanistan for a bit, the Afghans would suddenly get ALOT more motivated to catch up to teh rest of the civilized world and start dealing with their own internal problems in a productive manner.
If there's one group of people that make the Pashtuns look like a pack of simpering wimps, it's the Uzbeks.
The way things are currently going, a military coup is in the probable future. Far larger army than the economy can support, etc etc I believe most Afghan army officers are ethnically Tajik. However, the former Commander of the Afghan Army, General Rashid Dostum, is ethnically Uzbek. He's pretty anti-Taliban in his personal views, almost cosmopolitan in fact (he has a nasty tendency to butcher POWs, however if that's your greatest crime as an Afghan warlord, you're not doing bad) but he does have a habit of being fairly mercenary, and has both worked with and against the Taliban before. In fact, he's pretty much the Alcibiades of Central Asia.
I don't think his ties with the Uzbek government are good though. Last time he was in trouble, last year, he fled to Turkey. Still, the guy is unpredictable and has a knack for making friends (and enemies) everywhere. He'd be a nightmare for everyone as a leader, and perhaps that is the best that can be hoped for.
Iran also has a stake in Afghanistan, I believe the Hazara are Shi'a, and one of the most powerful blocs in the country. Karzai has gone out of his way to court them and give them special privileges.
Russia and India both bankrolled the mostly Tajik and Uzbek Northern Alliance, too. Both have their own reasons to hate Pakistan (unsurprisingly, these reasons involve the ISI and Islamic terrorist groups) and to deny it the strategic depth it wishes.
China, however, will do fuck all. Why? China is following the US route to global power, by which it sits on its hands and trades with everyone, until it's economic power turns into military power. Next time a global war happens, China will sit by the sidelines until a winner becomes obvious (or a very threatening power looks like it could win) and then will win the war and use the gratitude of the world to forge a new system with it at the centre of global affairs. So like I said, the US route to power. In the meantime, it will try to not create any undue hostility from other countries, even if they are weeny losers like Afghanistan or Burma.
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Har.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Probably not. The very definition of hegemony is "being too big to suffer from your own stupidity". It fails to take into account just how stupid people can be.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Heh. If there's one nation on Earth that has made a bigger nightmare of capitalism than we have, it's China.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Heh. If there's one nation on Earth that has made a bigger nightmare of capitalism than we have, it's China.
They thought that about Japan about 20 years ago--remember the hysteria? But what wasn't figured in to the mix was how limited Japan's territory is.
China is VAST. China's BIG. And it's diversified more than most Westerners figure (all those Asians "look alike" donchaknow?~~>/dumbass attitudes that will bankrupt us eventually). Once they get some more buying power (and dammit, they're on their way) and are geared up to be United States Mach II, well, I think it goes without saying.
ETA: They meaning not the government but the people themselves. The higher educated the populace becomes, the better off China becomes, and Inida's falling way behind.
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Heh. If there's one nation on Earth that has made a bigger nightmare of capitalism than we have, it's China.
They thought that about Japan about 20 years ago--remember the hysteria? But what wasn't figured in to the mix was how limited Japan's territory is.
China is VAST. China's BIG. And it's diversified more than most Westerners figure (all those Asians "look alike" donchaknow?~~>/dumbass attitudes that will bankrupt us eventually). Once they get some more buying power (and dammit, they're on their way) and are geared up to be United States Mach II, well, I think it goes without saying.
ETA: They meaning not the government but the people themselves. The higher educated the populace becomes, the better off China becomes, and Inida's falling way behind.
China hasn't got 20 years. Their environmental issues (particularly desertification) will see to that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Heh. If there's one nation on Earth that has made a bigger nightmare of capitalism than we have, it's China.
They thought that about Japan about 20 years ago--remember the hysteria? But what wasn't figured in to the mix was how limited Japan's territory is.
China is VAST. China's BIG. And it's diversified more than most Westerners figure (all those Asians "look alike" donchaknow?~~>/dumbass attitudes that will bankrupt us eventually). Once they get some more buying power (and dammit, they're on their way) and are geared up to be United States Mach II, well, I think it goes without saying.
ETA: They meaning not the government but the people themselves. The higher educated the populace becomes, the better off China becomes, and Inida's falling way behind.
China hasn't got 20 years. Their environmental issues (particularly desertification) will see to that.
Well, it only took Japan 10 years to implode from the time they "peaked" in the 80's. They've been rebuilding since then. I don't think China will ever have that sort of issue. They have more green technology working away in their backsides than the US, btw. I think 3-4 of the leading "green companies" that deal with alternative energy sources and their output are in China, whereas only two are in the US. I just heard this this weekend.
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Heh. If there's one nation on Earth that has made a bigger nightmare of capitalism than we have, it's China.
They thought that about Japan about 20 years ago--remember the hysteria? But what wasn't figured in to the mix was how limited Japan's territory is.
China is VAST. China's BIG. And it's diversified more than most Westerners figure (all those Asians "look alike" donchaknow?~~>/dumbass attitudes that will bankrupt us eventually). Once they get some more buying power (and dammit, they're on their way) and are geared up to be United States Mach II, well, I think it goes without saying.
ETA: They meaning not the government but the people themselves. The higher educated the populace becomes, the better off China becomes, and Inida's falling way behind.
China hasn't got 20 years. Their environmental issues (particularly desertification) will see to that.
Well, it only took Japan 10 years to implode from the time they "peaked" in the 80's. They've been rebuilding since then. I don't think China will ever have that sort of issue. They have more green technology working away in their backsides than the US, btw. I think 3-4 of the leading "green companies" that deal with alternative energy sources and their output are in China, whereas only two are in the US. I just heard this this weekend.
"Green Technology"?
They've planted 150 million trees, and the desert just leapfrogs over them. It's not an energy issue, it's a farming issue, and they're pretty much fucked, because the piss-poor farming discipline they've shown has created a desert which is now generating its own weather patterns. Beijing itself will be under sand in 17 years.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:59:30 PM
"Green Technology"?
They've planted 150 million trees, and the desert just leapfrogs over them. It's not an energy issue, it's a farming issue, and they're pretty much fucked, because the piss-poor farming discipline they've shown has created a desert which is now generating its own weather patterns. Beijing itself will be under sand in 17 years.
The farming issue is bad everywhere, from what I can see. We're derstizing a good chunk of the Earf everywhere. And from what I hear, it's the lobbyists that are keeping everyone from really anteing up and doing it the "right way," though what that is exactly, I have no clue.
The green energy is in regards to their manufacturing--they're slowly trying to move over to less coal-based and more solar and wind technologies and making profits from selling those as well to other companies outside of China.
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:59:30 PM
"Green Technology"?
They've planted 150 million trees, and the desert just leapfrogs over them. It's not an energy issue, it's a farming issue, and they're pretty much fucked, because the piss-poor farming discipline they've shown has created a desert which is now generating its own weather patterns. Beijing itself will be under sand in 17 years.
The farming issue is bad everywhere, from what I can see. We're derstizing a good chunk of the Earf everywhere. And from what I hear, it's the lobbyists that are keeping everyone from really anteing up and doing it the "right way," though what that is exactly, I have no clue.
The green energy is in regards to their manufacturing--they're slowly trying to move over to less coal-based and more solar and wind technologies and making profits from selling those as well to other companies outside of China.
Solar is crap. Making the panels creates loads of nice, toxic goo. Also, it takes almost as much energy to make them as you'll gain from them during their lifespan.
And you may notice that neither Nebraska nor Manitoba is turning into desert. The "right way" has been understood for decades, and the places that can afford to do it (low enough population base, enough surplus land) are doing fine. In China, they HAVE to use short-sighted techniques just to break even, which makes every year harder, which means they have to use even WORSE techniques...in a fast spiral that resembles water going down a toilet.
Africa has the same problem, and India isn't far behind.
In India the Ganges is going to dry up soon enough, too. Which will likely halve their food production in the north, at a minimum.
Quote from: Cain on December 04, 2009, 07:20:05 PM
In India the Ganges is going to dry up soon enough, too. Which will likely halve their food production in the north, at a minimum.
Hello, more desert.
"Green technology" is a fart in a windstorm. The root cause of all of these problems is the same: TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE, HAVING TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE. But at the "Earth Summits" they've been holding since 1980, they aren't even allowed to SAY "birth control", for
religious reasons.
FUCK IT. LET THE HUMANS DROWN IN THEIR OWN SHIT.
Well, I think China may get to the newer, better farming methods ahead of anyone else other than the West, but maybe I'm putting all my eggs in one basket, I don't know.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
here's hoping the Chinese do a better job than we did.
Heh. If there's one nation on Earth that has made a bigger nightmare of capitalism than we have, it's China.
So, we're in complete agreement.
RCH,
has a different definition of "better" than most people
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 07:34:12 PM
Well, I think China may get to the newer, better farming methods ahead of anyone else other than the West, but maybe I'm putting all my eggs in one basket, I don't know.
They can lock all the barn doors they want, those horses are long gone.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 07:34:12 PM
Well, I think China may get to the newer, better farming methods ahead of anyone else other than the West, but maybe I'm putting all my eggs in one basket, I don't know.
They can lock all the barn doors they want, those horses are long gone.
I don't think it's a matter of locking the barndoor, though they'd probably enjoy the benefits of such a practice. I'm just talking in the newly-emerging world economy, China will beat out Africa (for sure) and India.
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 09:06:47 PM
I don't think it's a matter of locking the barndoor, though they'd probably enjoy the benefits of such a practice. I'm just talking in the newly-emerging world economy, China will beat out Africa (for sure) and India.
I was under the impression that China was purchasing Africa whole cloth these days...
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 09:06:47 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 07:34:12 PM
Well, I think China may get to the newer, better farming methods ahead of anyone else other than the West, but maybe I'm putting all my eggs in one basket, I don't know.
They can lock all the barn doors they want, those horses are long gone.
I don't think it's a matter of locking the barndoor, though they'd probably enjoy the benefits of such a practice. I'm just talking in the newly-emerging world economy, China will beat out Africa (for sure) and India.
sure, but it won't stop their country from turning into a polluted sandheap. They'll enjoy those newer better practices for about a decade, after which there will be 1.5 billion hungry Chinese with nuclear weapons looking to annex central Canada.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 04, 2009, 09:09:42 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 09:06:47 PM
I don't think it's a matter of locking the barndoor, though they'd probably enjoy the benefits of such a practice. I'm just talking in the newly-emerging world economy, China will beat out Africa (for sure) and India.
I was under the impression that China was purchasing Africa whole cloth these days...
Where they can. But that doesn't mean they won't use it up like a fiefdom rather than building it up into a power in its own right. Africa's so fucked up, they're happy to have the "help" of 3rd parties from China coming in and buying up stores and selling imports that are hard to get at 4000% mark up. (I'm exaggerating a wee bit, of course, it's probably more like a 300% mark up).
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 09:06:47 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 04, 2009, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 04, 2009, 07:34:12 PM
Well, I think China may get to the newer, better farming methods ahead of anyone else other than the West, but maybe I'm putting all my eggs in one basket, I don't know.
They can lock all the barn doors they want, those horses are long gone.
I don't think it's a matter of locking the barndoor, though they'd probably enjoy the benefits of such a practice. I'm just talking in the newly-emerging world economy, China will beat out Africa (for sure) and India.
sure, but it won't stop their country from turning into a polluted sandheap. They'll enjoy those newer better practices for about a decade, after which there will be 1.5 billion hungry Chinese with nuclear weapons looking to annex central Canada.
Oh, just so much collateral damage to nation of millions like China, ECH.
We're in complete agreement there.
It just worries me that I'm still stuck in or near someplace that will catch their interest.
At least their interest in the islands is strategic and makes it unlikely that they will ever want to hamper or reverse the economic, social, and structural development down there. Hell, they threw several gajillion dollars at Dominica and said "here, we'll build this refinery here, you let us use it so we don't have to fuck around with Russia and Venezuela, and you can have the tens of millions that are left over to build good roads and schools. enjoy."
not a bad deal, if you're a tiny island nation of less than a half-million people and any avenue for development is going to come at the cost of subverting yourself to a powerful would-be hegemon.
In other words, while they're busy leveling DC and Denver and occupying the North American breadbasket, I'll still be able to make a handsome living cooking them conch fritters and rock lobster and making contacts that will allow me to carry on the fine family tradition of smuggling, if I can get off the continent in a timely fashion.
One thing that would improve under Chinese hegemony...those dudes are nothing if not business-minded and reasonable. Not many mandarin (or cantonese) fundamentalists kicking around.
The problem is in any sort of situation where China might be able to orchestrate a rise to hegemony, there is the fear that Chinese nationalists may use the crisis to depose the CCP.
And those guys are scary. The sort of people who valourize the Nazis and are willing to give public beatdowns to fairly high ranking CCP members in the street are not the sort of people I think anyone can expect to do business with. The CCP are the ultimate pragmatists, which of course means they are a little corrupt. Nationalists, on the other hand, tend to be true believers, and often hijack reform movements designed to clean up corruption.
Right now, they're a nusiance. The Chinese government stoked them up, as a tool against Japan and the USA ("we cannot be held accountable for the actions and opinions of private citizens", hah) and in the last couple of years, they seem to have slipped the leash a little, in one case mounting an independent invasion of a Japanese island.
Give them 20-30 years and an international crisis, and they might be more popular.
I'll admit, I'm unfamiliar with them. You got any links to reading material? I'd love to know more about it.
I might have to Google around. One of my professors brought it to my attention in 08, he's a specialist in Great Power conflict and is from Hong Kong, so he generally has a good grip on Chinese political dynamics and trends. I'm pretty sure the NYT had a mini-series on Chinese nationalism a while ago, and either ABC or NBC did an episode where they interviewed the Chinese Nazi fans.
Yeah you do NOT want to get caught on the bad side of someone who can throw you into a Chinese jail. And that shit goes down to your parents and siblings as well as your children. Fuck that noise. At least in American prisons, we don't go after the families and rape them for everything and make sure they only have nothing and sic the neighbors on them to boot. Tapping their phones and reading their mail (now, our government may do that on the sly, but in China, it's out in the fucking open and accepted as du jour public discipline).
I don't welcome any fucking Chinese hegemony at all. Regardless of how profitable my own career of ESL instruction and testing has been with that area of the world. Nope, not at all. And you want to talk "hivemind"? Yeah, no individual thought is deemed welcome, necessary or allowable and is punishable by death. Their whole macroculture is built on being one machine and one culture (despite the fact it's still indigenously diverse and the powers that be can't stamp that out no matter how hard they've tried since The Cultural Revolution in the 60's).
As for the subject in the OP (bad segue), the talking bobbleheads are wagging their chins about The Afghanistan DilemmaTM, and I have to say they're finally coming around to my way of thinking. That if the people in that country continue to accept the dirty and the muck, that's what they'll reap, continually, no matter how many troops are sent and how many billions are spent. It takes an INTERNAL sense of injustice AGAINST THEIR OWN to want to change. And the Afghans are so fucking insular, they have this knee-jerk reaction against going there.
The expats are so clearly full of shit when you go there with them in the West, too. Something I've been on about for YEARS. Glad to hear that the excuses everyone's made for decades about this are finally falling by the wayside and given a now-cursory "goes without saying" nod. Fucking oust your own thorns in the flesh, Afghans, and then you can finally get educated and go somewhere in life other than a grave.
Quote from: Jenne on December 06, 2009, 08:07:30 PM
Yeah you do NOT want to get caught on the bad side of someone who can throw you into a Chinese jail. And that shit goes down to your parents and siblings as well as your children. Fuck that noise. At least in American prisons, we don't go after the families and rape them for everything and make sure they only have nothing and sic the neighbors on them to boot. Tapping their phones and reading their mail (now, our government may do that on the sly, but in China, it's out in the fucking open and accepted as du jour public discipline).
And you want to talk "hivemind"? Yeah, no individual thought is deemed welcome, necessary or allowable and is punishable by death. Their whole macroculture is built on being one machine and one culture (despite the fact it's still indigenously diverse and the powers that be can't stamp that out no matter how hard they've tried since The Cultural Revolution in the 60's).
1) While I don't totally doubt your assessment, I don't think that Chinese internal policies are necessarily applicable to what their foreign and/or potential colonial policies would be (assuming, of course, that we're talking about the current government and not one dominated by the true-believer nationalists).
2) Wut? There's an entire middle and business class of a couple hundred million Chinese who would probably take issue with that. hard to build such a diverse and globally powerful economy with a culture that rejects entrepreneurialism and the free-will and individual thought that necessarily accompanies it.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 06, 2009, 10:25:52 PM
2) Wut? There's an entire middle and business class of a couple hundred million Chinese who would probably take issue with that. hard to build such a diverse and globally powerful economy with a culture that rejects entrepreneurialism and the free-will and individual thought that necessarily accompanies it.
Not really. Not when you have, say, the Red Army as a business partner, with the chosen companies that get to produce.
OK. Try actually learning about the business and cultural climate in China as opposed to relying on rhetoric.
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/china10.htm
QuoteAlthough Chinese armies have been involved in agricultural production throughout Chinese history, the scope of current PLA commercial activities in the overall economic modernization of China is unparalleled. The PLA runs farms, factories, mines, hotels, brothels, paging and telephone companies and airlines, as well as major trading companies.
It is nearly impossible to quantify the total extent of the PLA commercial empire. Western analysts estimate the number of PLA-operated companies at between 20,000 and 30,000.
I only sell 30 mt of ACl to China every month, and I only buy about 20 tons of steel (which I have since learned to never buy from China under any circumstances, ever). I only videoconference with out Chinese plant every two weeks. So, no, I know nothing about China but "rhetoric".
I'm not denying that the PLA are very active in business, but 20 to 30 thousand is a pretty small fraction of the total amount of chinese companies.
Also, I wonder if there is a distinction made between individual members of the PLA and their business involvements and businesses that are either overtly or covertly run by the PLA as an organization. I mean, if every US Armed Forces veteran with an ownership or senior management position in a business is taken into account, what would our numbers look like comparatively?
also the phrases "nearly impossible to quantify" and "western analysts estimate" are red flags, IMO.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 07, 2009, 03:25:42 AM
I'm not denying that the PLA are very active in business, but 20 to 30 thousand is a pretty small fraction of the total amount of chinese companies.
Also, I wonder if there is a distinction made between individual members of the PLA and their business involvements and businesses that are either overtly or covertly run by the PLA as an organization. I mean, if every US Armed Forces veteran with an ownership or senior management position in a business is taken into account, what would our numbers look like comparatively?
also the phrases "nearly impossible to quantify" and "western analysts estimate" are red flags, IMO.
1. 20-30 thousand, but those include a lot of the heavy hitters. About half the electronics firms we sell to are PLA or part-PLA owned. Also, just about anything involved in defense is automatically PLA. Medical companies in particular are riddled with PLA-driven problems... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/08/tech/main204060.shtml
And who owns Long March Pharma? Give you one guess who a major stockholder is.
2. Also, those phrases are kind of all that can be said, given that the PLA don't publish their books.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're not necessarily right, or at least that what facts are available leave themselves wide open to interpretation.
the "instead of relying on rhetoric" comment was poorly thought-out and shitty, and nothing more than misplaced ire at something else that was going on at the time. For that, I apologize since I know that you're generally not one to spout off without having thought about the subject at hand.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 07, 2009, 04:19:54 AM
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're not necessarily right, or at least that what facts are available leave themselves wide open to interpretation.
the "instead of relying on rhetoric" comment was poorly thought-out and shitty, and nothing more than misplaced ire at something else that was going on at the time. For that, I apologize since I know that you're generally not one to spout off without having thought about the subject at hand.
S'okay. I do occasionally get caught playing the old ass-kazoo, but in this case I am going to stand with my own experiences with China, and with such links as I have dug up.
I'd always be interested in looking at other sources because I do realize that I am condemning 1.5 Bn people as a society based on maybe 100 people.
However, the ecological disaster there, particularly in deforestation/desertification is pretty much a given. The Chinese are in deep shit.
on that we are in complete agreement.
we're probably also in agreement that the Chinese being in deep shit means that everybody with arable land is also in deep shit.
ECH, you're calling on Rog and I to debunk something that's pretty well fucking known, sorry. China is not a free republic, it's a tightly controlled fuckface of an economy. Western business partners are given only as much leeway as what's necessary to take from them what China wants. Are we pretending here that their business practices are equitable and so therefore their populace is allowed to live free and do as they please?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Yeah, no.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
Never.
Did you see wtf happened when Google of all things tried to implement some free press? I'm not saying it's as bad as North Korea over there, but it's certainly not much different than, say, Iran, for example.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 07, 2009, 04:22:50 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 07, 2009, 04:19:54 AM
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're not necessarily right, or at least that what facts are available leave themselves wide open to interpretation.
the "instead of relying on rhetoric" comment was poorly thought-out and shitty, and nothing more than misplaced ire at something else that was going on at the time. For that, I apologize since I know that you're generally not one to spout off without having thought about the subject at hand.
S'okay. I do occasionally get caught playing the old ass-kazoo, but in this case I am going to stand with my own experiences with China, and with such links as I have dug up.
I'd always be interested in looking at other sources because I do realize that I am condemning 1.5 Bn people as a society based on maybe 100 people.
However, the ecological disaster there, particularly in deforestation/desertification is pretty much a given. The Chinese are in deep shit.
Totally. I guess I was bringing up their "green" practices as more of a "shame on the US" example than anything, just didn't (have no idea why) say that outright. My bad. I do agree with the above.
Except I'd like to add the qualifier THE WORLD is in deep shit.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 07, 2009, 04:45:21 AM
on that we are in complete agreement.
we're probably also in agreement that the Chinese being in deep shit means that everybody with arable land is also in deep shit.
Not really.
But expect the Chinese to pick a fight with every neighbor they have within the next 15 years. Mostly, they'll be after Siberia and the Vietnam region.
hell, they've been after Siberia for 15+ years. They're just biding their time. I believe they refer to it in internal memos as the "northern resource zone".
also,
Quote from: Jenne on December 07, 2009, 02:11:29 PM
ECH, you're calling on Rog and I to debunk something that's pretty well fucking known, sorry. China is not a free republic, it's a tightly controlled fuckface of an economy. Western business partners are given only as much leeway as what's necessary to take from them what China wants. Are we pretending here that their business practices are equitable and so therefore their populace is allowed to live free and do as they please?
pretty sure that I never said that and that you may have missed my point.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 07, 2009, 07:16:27 PM
hell, they've been after Siberia for 15+ years. They're just biding their time. I believe they refer to it in internal memos as the "northern resource zone".
Yep. Drives the Russians batshit.
Russia and China have put aside their differences for now, to try and drive US influence out of the region, in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Group. Russia also has (generally) better ties with the Central Asian powers.
I'm pretty sure Russia are aware of this. Their government may be mostly comprised of incompetents and drunks, but not idiots. Russia has shown a willingness historically to inflict great damage on itself and use its strategic resources as political weapons. I wonder if the Chinese wont simply settle for buying the goods (and oil, lets not forget) as it turns out to be cheaper than invading and occupying. Companies are far more effective at seizing these things, and usually turn out to be more mutually beneficial.
Of course, it wont satisfy all their needs, but I'm sure China's neighbours will do a very convincing act to get the world to support their population, much as the USA did in the economic sphere with Bretton Woods.
I also have severe doubts about the Chinese military's experience. At least Russia has fought some pretty nasty guerrilla wars, border disputes and peacekeeping missions in recent history. The Chinese can field troops, and lots of them, and have fairly decent technical expertise, but, well, the same could be said of the USA in Iraq. They haven't really be thrown in the deep end, and at least three superpowers have killed themselves off early by underestimating the Russian capacity for pain.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 07:29:52 PM
Russia and China have put aside their differences for now, to try and drive US influence out of the region, in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Group. Russia also has (generally) better ties with the Central Asian powers.
Russia also has a history of making naive treaties, and then having to toss a few dozen million troops away to set things right.
True. But this is Russia. A few million troops can always be found.
I'd like to know how Russian-Japanese relations are going. I know if I was in Moscow, I'd be making quiet noises towards getting Japan a bigger, better navy. The Chinese are psychotically defensive of their eastern seaboard, so partnering up with Japan would be a smart move.
Hey, its why the US is trying to keep on good terms with them.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 07:41:13 PM
True. But this is Russia. A few million troops can always be found.
China isn't any brighter than anyone else. They'll make a grab for Siberia, just like we made a grab for Afghanistan.
But a lot depends on how secure things are internally, too. If Xinjiang is up in arms, the monks are being a nusciance in Tibet, the nationalists are out on the streets and the Japanese are stalking from just off territorial waters then China might not have the will to act externally.
China's history is a whole lot of collapsing and civil war. A repeat cannot be ruled out, despite their best attempts at populating dissident zones with Han Chinese.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 07:53:28 PM
But a lot depends on how secure things are internally, too. If Xinjiang is up in arms, the monks are being a nusciance in Tibet, the nationalists are out on the streets and the Japanese are stalking from just off territorial waters then China might not have the will to act externally.
China's history is a whole lot of collapsing and civil war. A repeat cannot be ruled out, despite their best attempts at populating dissident zones with Han Chinese.
Actually, that sort of thing is what might lead them to adventurism, as a distraction and an excuse to clamp down, ala Argentina in the Falklands War.
It can do I agree, but not always. State collapse before they can do anything about it is equally likely - half of China is still villages cut off from central government anyway. It all depends on the particular context of the crisis.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 08:16:55 PM
It can do I agree, but not always. State collapse before they can do anything about it is equally likely - half of China is still villages cut off from central government anyway. It all depends on the particular context of the crisis.
Actually, you're probably right. Once the food situation becomes critical, no amount of clamping down will suffice.
They might try a foray into Russia, hope a blitzkrieg could force (greater) concessions, but a protracted campaign would be impossible. And General January and February are especially brutal in Siberia.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 08:29:43 PM
They might try a foray into Russia, hope a blitzkrieg could force (greater) concessions, but a protracted campaign would be impossible. And General January and February are especially brutal in Siberia.
To survive, they need Siberia and probably Vietnam (or any other place with arable land). They won't need the populations of those regions, though.
Back on topic
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6a00d83451c04d69e2012876109f70970c-800wi.jpg)
:asplode:
Quote from: Jenne on December 07, 2009, 02:11:29 PM
ECH, you're calling on Rog and I to debunk something that's pretty well fucking known, sorry. China is not a free republic, it's a tightly controlled fuckface of an economy. Western business partners are given only as much leeway as what's necessary to take from them what China wants. Are we pretending here that their business practices are equitable and so therefore their populace is allowed to live free and do as they please?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Yeah, no.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
Never.
Did you see wtf happened when Google of all things tried to implement some free press? I'm not saying it's as bad as North Korea over there, but it's certainly not much different than, say, Iran, for example.
I'd say the Iranians are more free in their day to day life. They may have no input in politics really, but they do have freeer access to the internet than the Chinese.
From
Zones of Conflict:
QuoteOur analyses so far suggest that the post-September 11 policy of the US has not been guided by the imperative of the extermination of Al-Qaeda which, if at all, could have been achieved by intelligence and other surveillance and economic means, without the use of brutal military force on poor and deprived populations. Nor has it been guided by the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he may use WMD against Israel and other US interests in the Middle East. Rather,the aim of the campaign in Afghanistan, or of any possible future campaign of the US–UK in the greater Middle East, has been/will be based on pre-existing schemes aimed at the gradual encircling of Russia and China, the control over oil and gas pipeline projects, the opening up of the Middle Eastern market to Western competition as well as the strategic surveillance of India and Pakistan, whose conflict over Kashmir has periodically assumed unpredictable turns. A Eurasian network of oil and gas pipelines with China and Russia at their epicentre would thwart any US plan for establishing hegemony over this crucial region. In addition, the US would prefer a disengagement of the EU dependency on Russia's supply of gas, as there are always fears of a special geo-political understanding between Russia and France/Germany.The US–Russia arms reduction deal of May 2002 and the joint NATO–Russia
Council are nothing more and nothing less than forms of engagement, whose continuing survival would depend on progress achieved on issues related to trade, oil, gas and Eurasian security matters.
'A few days before September 11', Bulent Gokay observed, 'the US Energy Information Administration documented Afghanistan's strategic "geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea". During the campaign in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan discussed 'the development of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to the port of Gwadar, now being built with Chinese assistance on the Baluchistan coast'. Given NATO's unstoppable eastward expansion, a US presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia – which follows that in the Gulf, Yemen and Saudi Arabia – provides strategic depth to the management and control of the region's energy resources for the US and its closest allies. In this context, as we shall see in more detail below, Turkey constitutes an invaluable strategic pawn in the energy pipeline projects of the US global interests, projects that aim, if possible, at bypassing Russia. Moreover, the US, by using air and naval bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, can employ an integrated projection of power in Central Asia and the Middle East that cannot possibly be matched even by all the other Western powers put together.
This sort of interpretation of post-September 11 US foreign policy is evidenced by the pronounced links between the NATO's eastward enlargement drive and the US strategic projection of power towards the entire Western Eurasian zone, which is taking place with or without the direct involvement of other NATO powers. The US aims at unifying the Balkans with the greater Middle East for planning and geo-strategic purposes, a hegemonic scheme that could not be put into full operation during the Cold War due to the USSR's strong politico-military posture in Eurasia and the resistance of Arab nationalism.
Overall, the US geo-strategic imperatives in Europe and Asia, as they had been elaborated during the first half of the 1990s, have not changed since September 11. If anything, September 11 seems to have accelerated the pace, the unilateral rigour and the theoretical comprehensiveness of policies by which the US is pursuing its goal of the political mastery of Eurasia and its oil and gas producing regions. As Michael Cox has suggested, the 'new' American hegemony of which so many writers now speak in earnest is in fact not 'new' at all. Rather, 'it is the result of a combination of largely ignored trends which predated September 11'. As we shall examine in more detail below, throughout the 1990s, the US was fully aware of the dangers of terrorism and of 'rogue' states possessing 'weapons of mass destruction'. Furthermore, although post-Cold War terrorism may have new clothes, it was present during the Cold War either in the form of 'red terrorism' (e.g. the Red Brigades in Italy) or in the form of ethnic terrorism (e.g. the Irish case). In the light of this, I would argue that the US's struggle for mastery in Eurasia and the eastward expansion of NATO should be seen as aggressive geo-strategic extensions of America's top Cold War priorities, those being the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet threat and the destruction of the USSR.
But once the destruction of the USSR had been achieved, the Cold War schemes and institutions had to be reformed, extended and revamped so as to incorporate the geo-political priorities and needs arising from the new geo-strategic setting. The destruction of the USSR did not entail the destruction of Russia and the market economic reforms in China strengthened, rather than weakened the Communist-led Chinese state. Moreover, the EU, under the guidance of Germany and France has arisen as an economic global giant chal- lenging the trade supremacy of the US. Japan, plays its part in the global economic competition by consolidating a significant presence in the fields of technology and finance.
Seen from this perspective, the 'end' of the Cold War is an epiphenomenon, which may well, after all, misrepresent realities. The 'end' of the Cold War did not mean the end of the old geo-political, economic and strategic rivalries between the US, Japan, China, Russia, France and Germany. 'NATO's purpose', Lord Ismay had famously said back in 1949, 'was to keep the Americans in, the Russians down and the Germans out.' In a way, it remains so today, albeit in a renewed form with new meanings and novel strategic dimensions expressed through powerful regional economic blocs, such as those of the EU, China, Russia, North America and Japan. It is a matter of fact that the main antagonistic ingredients of the Cold War, including economic and military institutions, are still around, the sole differences being that Russia is weaker, European Germany and Asian China are stronger, and the US is the aggressive unstoppable global victor. More to the point, in many ways, the twenty-first century situation resembles the pre-1919 realist geo-political settings and Great Power rivalries, at the centre of which lay the defence of a multitude of competing national interests. But there is a crucial structural and political difference: no parallel can be drawn between Britain's imperial supremacy in the nineteenth century and the US might today. The US has indisputably become a unique global superpower that finds no match in any modern imperial precedent. And yet, as Nye put it, 'it can not go it alone'.
The most distinguished geo-strategic game in this respect is that between the leading EU states and the US. The US is in favour of the EU's eastward and southward enlargements, led by Germany and France respectively, but the process has to remain subordinate to the US's global strategic and economic interests. The best way to ensure this is by preventing the EU from achieving political integration – the so-called 'ever closer Union' project of the EU - US strategy is coupled with assistance of the UK, which favours EU enlargement along neo-liberal economic lines, something which was and is to the detriment of Europe's political cohesion.
I would, of course, argue the USA only has overwhelming conventional military power, which is increasingly useless and harming its economic power. Otherwise, it is a good assessment.
30,000 targets being withdrawn from Afghanistan.
70,000 will remain, to babysit the ANA, who currently have.... no (0) operational units.
No cohesive national government. No control over it's own borders. No reliable army. Very few non-corrupt police. Taliban violence spreading to regions where Pashtuns were previously unwelcome.
The only way to "win" the war in Afghanistan is to invade Pakistan, inter most of the ISI and Army officer corps and raze every compound in the NWFP to the ground and shoot the occupants. It is beyond the capabilities of NATO to topple Gaddafi, let alone Pakistan, so that will never happen.
In which case, leaving any troops in Afghanistan at all is foolish and pointless.
All too true. They're saying the Mayor of Kabul will continue to lose ground, both locally and geopolitically, and the place will devolve into a bigger hole of chaos than it was previously. Can't say I'm shocked or surprised...Afghanistan may just need to come to its knees...I mean, more than it has previously...and broken into pieces as people were saying before and then just after 9/11 happened. Its lack of cohesive ANYTHING other than clusterfucks points back to the notiona that perhaps it had no business becoming one country in the first place.
Be that as it may, it chagrins me that I have not been able to visit there, and if the situation becomes more untenable, I perhaps never well.
I am really slow on these topics, so please bare with my question.
I still do not understand why or what the 'war' is about in Afghanistan. Why did we go there? I guess that doesn't really matter now though. So then-why can we not leave there? (and I really do not buy into the shit about -oh we cannot leave a country alone that is in such shambles. Bullocks. Countries are in shambles all the time everywhere. wtf? (Or am I missing something else here totally?)
The problem with leaving Afghanistan in a shambles is that it gives rise to the conditions the Taliban can exploit. The last time the Taliban ruled (most of) the country, they invited jihadists in, who then turned around and brought the region to the brink of war. It wasn't widely reported, because no-one cared about Central Asia back then, but Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Iran were prepared to go to war with the Taliban in 1999 or so.
The Taliban hosted the IMU, who carried out vicious attacks in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. They hosted a group who target Shia Muslims and Christians in Pakistan. They hosted a number of groups who were interested in attacking India across the LOC in Kashmir. Uighur exiles from China. Drug traffickers who transported their goods through Turkmenistan into Iran. And, of course, Al-Qaeda.
Since 9/11, the Taliban have become even closer to Al-Qaeda. A whole generation of Taliban commanders have been taught their trade by Al-Qaeda fighters. They accept the need for global jihad and the toppling of apostate "Muslim" rulers. With Zawahiri's focus on the "near enemy", should the Taliban sweep to power again in Afghanistan, and they probably will if the current government cannot provide jobs, security and justice, Afghanistan again will become a vector for international terrorism.
Of course, the elephant in the room is Pakistan. The NWFP provides a safe sanctuary and steady supply of fighters for the Taliban cause. And the Pakistani establishment support radical Islam and run interference for the Taliban and their backers in the country, the sections of the military, of intelligence and certain Saudi-bankrolled parties. That's why Pakistan needs to be dealt with.
Awwww come on, you know why we're still there, have been there before 9/11 and will always have a "presence" there until the planet burns.......
Oil.
Quote from: Khara on June 23, 2011, 07:34:04 PM
Awwww come on, you know why we're still there, have been there before 9/11 and will always have a "presence" there until the planet burns.......
Oil.
Uh, no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states#Eurasia_and_Central_Asia).
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2011, 07:41:01 PM
Quote from: Khara on June 23, 2011, 07:34:04 PM
Awwww come on, you know why we're still there, have been there before 9/11 and will always have a "presence" there until the planet burns.......
Oil.
Uh, no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states#Eurasia_and_Central_Asia).
Strategic location, not because it's actually there.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline)
Or maybe not....
http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/oil.php (http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/oil.php)
...just because it was both fascinating and scary....
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm (http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm)
So maybe more than we realize? I'm still reading the dabte on the pipeline and the opinions from both sides that it has a major part in the US being there. So I don't know exact reasoning, but I think oil plays a big part of it.
That project fell through in the late 90s when the Unocal-led consortium fell apart.
And it's more politically viable to use the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, despite the geographical difficulties (because no-one is stupid enough to invest in putting a pipeline through the highly volatile Afghanistan and into a rebelling part of Pakistan).
And Central Asian reserves have been massively overestimated since the early 90s, anyway. Turkmenistan "might" have oil reserves under 80% of the country. But equally they might be like Uzbekistan, with barely enough oil to supply their own local needs.
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2011, 08:02:01 PM
That project fell through in the late 90s when the Unocal-led consortium fell apart.
And it's more politically viable to use the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, despite the geographical difficulties (because no-one is stupid enough to invest in putting a pipeline through the highly volatile Afghanistan and into a rebelling part of Pakistan).
Ah, see now what I was reading made it seem it was still in "negotiations".
All that stuff about China killing its citizens is bullshit.
The guy behind the register at the Chinese buffet told me so.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 23, 2011, 08:51:02 PM
All that stuff about China killing its citizens is bullshit.
The guy behind the register at the Chinese buffet told me so.
Thank you, I feel much less the idiot now.