China's strategy in Afghanistan.
- Thread starter ohan_qwe
- Start date
You have been bathing in the Ganges too long my head wobbling friend.
The US losing its last military base and physical in Central Asia worsens its position in Central Asia.
Afghanistan wasn't cheap, but it was a drop in the ocean compared to America's overall military expenditure. In the last few years American military presence was minimal. That's all gone now.
They only way the can get it back is to start a new invasion which will probably cost more than it did the first time.
Next you will claim that America losing Taiwan, South Korea would also help America's position.
But according to these honorable British Generals that leaving Afghanistan will now be taken advantage and be used by less than savory countries like Russia, Pakistan, and good heavens China. Whereas the British and her royal highness patron the U.S. Mission objectives were entirely of noble purpose, aims, and intentions. These Muppets arrogance in my opinion knows no limit and which is why countries like Britain (NATO members) and it's current master the U.S. will always succumb to keep making these mistakes and disasters after disasters. Western supremacy must be curtailed and outright quashed.
the repercussion will be short lived where it matters.
There has been little doubt since vietnam that America does not have the right force composition, strategic priority, or domestic political temperament for any sort of serious military commitment other than one in which large set piece battles between broadly equivalent, capital intensive military forces would be decisive. Since the first Gulf war America had sought to protray, or delude itself into believing, that it has found a way to bypass those weaknesses and play effectively in arenas where set piece battles don’t decide the final outcome. Afghanistan and Iraq shattered that delusion. but honestly not many people outside the US scincerely believed it anyway.
The longer term repercussion will primarily be amongst marginal powers with iffy hold on power that might hope that America can help them roll back the unconventional, insurgency threat so they can secure their own hold on power.
For states which have reasonably stable government largely in control of its own resources, that thinks its own fundamental foreign policy problems are ultimately susceptible to solution by either being on the winning side of a conventional war, or can be solved by someone deterring such a war by conventional military means, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan would make america a more focused and thus more reliable player.
There has been little doubt since vietnam that America does not have the right force composition, strategic priority, or domestic political temperament for any sort of serious military commitment other than one in which large set piece battles between broadly equivalent, capital intensive military forces would be decisive. Since the first Gulf war America had sought to protray, or delude itself into believing, that it has found a way to bypass those weaknesses and play effectively in arenas where set piece battles don’t decide the final outcome. Afghanistan and Iraq shattered that delusion. but honestly not many people outside the US scincerely believed it anyway.
The longer term repercussion will primarily be amongst marginal powers with iffy hold on power that might hope that America can help them roll back the unconventional, insurgency threat so they can secure their own hold on power.
For states which have reasonably stable government largely in control of its own resources, that thinks its own fundamental foreign policy problems are ultimately susceptible to solution by either being on the winning side of a conventional war, or can be solved by someone deterring such a war by conventional military means, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan would make america a more focused and thus more reliable player.
Last edited:
hmmm, no one serious ever said the taliban was not rational or sober last time. but rationality and soberiety are attributes of manner of solving problems to achieve goals.
The question is have their most important goals changed, and have the problems they think they face in achieving these goals changed, so the same rationality and soberiety would result in actions more palatable to others this time around?
As a side note, Soviet nation building in Afghanistan was notably more successful than American state building. The state Soviet union built in 9 years actually outlasted soviet union itself and took the taliban 3 years to topple. the state America took 20 years to build took the taliban 3 weeks to topple.
On a years spend to puppet regime longevity basis, soviet nation building was 100 times more successful than American nation building.
American popular history likes to protray soviet failure in afghanistan as soviet union’s vietnam,
The irony is when America had its chance at the same thing, it did far worse than the USSR. so this implies not only has america not learned the lesson of vietnam, but is actually as a nation overall, even worse and more incompetent at this kind of thing now than it was during vietnam. remember south vietnam lasted 2 years after american withdrawal.
On a years spend to puppet regime longevity basis, soviet nation building was 100 times more successful than American nation building.
American popular history likes to protray soviet failure in afghanistan as soviet union’s vietnam,
The irony is when America had its chance at the same thing, it did far worse than the USSR. so this implies not only has america not learned the lesson of vietnam, but is actually as a nation overall, even worse and more incompetent at this kind of thing now than it was during vietnam. remember south vietnam lasted 2 years after american withdrawal.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I don't know the west better listen to Prof Jeffrey Sachs. quote"When you have a hammer everything look like a nail" The us use military as foreign policy tool and that is basically the crux of the problem Not every problem can be solved with military power alone. But alas nobody listen after failure after failure. If you have power use that power with discretion but some one never heed this proverb
From Vietnam to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Syria... the US sent its troops overseas time and again, yet almost every time it failed to change the other country for the better but left it in despair and turmoil. What is driving the US behind all of these? Answers from Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of the Columbia University.
From Vietnam to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Syria... the US sent its troops overseas time and again, yet almost every time it failed to change the other country for the better but left it in despair and turmoil. What is driving the US behind all of these? Answers from Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of the Columbia University.
The problem is America is a rich country, the casualties it incurs with its misadventure is fundamentally negligible for a country of 350 million people. it’s real strategic position after Vietnam really does not depend on success in any of these adventures, and a sufficient part of its populous is intellectually irresponsible. So one might say these wars are more like a somewhat irresponsible person spending a bit too much on frivolous entertainment at a moderate cost to family finances, but it is not causing real pain or real financial sacrifice.
where it hurts, from american perspective, is not it is threatening to make america indigent, but it is detracting from america’s ability to invest wisely to keep up with the joneses.
where it hurts, from american perspective, is not it is threatening to make america indigent, but it is detracting from america’s ability to invest wisely to keep up with the joneses.
Last edited:
Do you write scripts for tech support scammers?
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
That is not what history tell us from Pax Romano to Pax Britannica once a country wasted their treasury on frivolous war it always end up with the dissolution of decline of that country!
Rome still exist 200 years after sacking by the German tribe. But eventually it is gone!