China's strategy in Afghanistan.

Bloomberg having a field day with this squabbling among Chinese about the Taliban. Great.

State media and diplomatic attempts to paper over the group's past and present it as the "people's choice" have met sharp criticism at home from those familiar with the militant organisation's history of violence and repression of women.
...
Now, in the wake of the chaotic exit of US troops, China is embracing the group's return to rule, a strategic U-turn that has left many at home feeling whiplashed.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying appeared to moderate the official messaging at a news briefing on Thursday (Aug 19), pointing to foreign commentary characterising the Taliban as "more clear-headed and rational" than during its first period in power 20 years ago.
...
The People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, posted a brief video history of the Taleban on Monday without mentioning its links to terrorism.

The 60-second clip said the group was formed during Afghanistan's civil war by "students in refugee camps" and expanded with the "support from the poor", adding that it "has been in a war with the US for 20 years since the Sept 11 event".

The post, which was later deleted, became the fifth-ranked trending top on Weibo, after prompting a huge backlash from users questioning why a party newspaper tried to whitewash the group.
Some cited its violent past, including beheading people in the streets, destroying the famed Bamiyan Buddhas and banning women from work and study.

Foreign Ministry comments professing China's respect for "the will and choice of the Afghan people", suggesting the Taleban had popular support in the country, similarly raised questions.

A post on the WeChat blog Philosophia asking "Is Taleban the choice of the Afghanistan people?" was read more than 100,000 times, and widely shared on social media platforms, before it was censored on Thursday.

Click to expand...

This is probably not a good time to be questioning the Chinese government's attempts to engage.

Hello, this is the IEA, I hope this email finds you well...

Good op/ed by George Koo remember when Blinken met with Wang Yi in Alaska they arrogantly said we are talking from the position of strength well now this. Yet at the same time this general threaten China. What a bipolar attitude. American diplomacy is now in tattered and their allies should ask themselves are they next that will be abandoned?
Yet the latest US secretary of the air force, Frank Kendall, wants to refocus American weapons using advanced technology to “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

” China. Can’t even beat the Taliban but still wants to scare China. What is he smoking?

The appalling images of desperate Afghans losing their grip and falling to their death as planes take off from Kabul Airport evokes the memories of the panic evacuation from the rooftop of the American embassy in Saigon some 46 years earlier.

This is yet another stain on America’s reputation. To lessen the trauma of the humiliating rush for the emergency exit as seen by world opinion, it will be crucial for President Joe Biden’s administration to arrange for the orderly departure of the Americans remaining in Afghanistan and not leave them stranded.

And, just as important, there are tens of thousands of Afghans who have provided loyal services to the Americans forces and have been promised visas to emigrate to the US, and are now waiting for safe passage out of Afghanistan.

Not all wishing to depart are gathered in Kabul or at the international airport. Many are simply caught unprepared by the sudden collapse of the US-backed government. Obviously, only with the consent and willing cooperation of the Taliban, now in control of the country, can the remaining Afghans and Americans be assembled and safely conveyed to departing planes.

It has been reported that US Secretary of State Tony Blinken contacted his counterparts in Russia and China as the debacle at the Kabul airport was unfolding. What Blinken said to Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, and Wang Yi, foreign minister for China, has not been made public.

But if Blinken was hoping to salvage the reputation of the Biden administration, he probably would have had to swallow some of the American hubris and ask for assistance in intervening with the Taliban on America’s behalf.

Yet the latest US secretary of the air force, Frank Kendall, wants to refocus American weapons using advanced technology to “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

” China. Can’t even beat the Taliban but still wants to scare China. What is he smoking?

Hendrik_2000 said:

Yet the latest US secretary of the air force, Frank Kendall, wants to refocus American weapons using advanced technology to “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

” China. Can’t even beat the Taliban but still wants to scare China. What is he smoking?

Click to expand...

just because someone is unwilling to devote more than a small part of his overall resources to address what he sees as a peripheral problem doesn’t mean he can’t bring an adequate or even overwhelming amount of resource to address what he might see as an existential problem.

if anything, cutting losses in afghanistan gives the US larger latitude to array resources against more serious challenges to its global position.

facilitating the maximum concentration of resource at the decisive point and not let too many parts of it be tied down on other relatively inconsequential efforts is the central art of both strategy and tactics.

Richard Santos said:

just because someone is unwilling to devote more than a small part of his overall resources to address what he sees as a peripheral problem doesn’t mean he can’t bring an adequate or even overwhelming amount of resource to address what he might see as an existential problem.

if anything, cutting losses in afghanistan gives the US larger latitude to array resources against more serious challenges to its global position.

facilitating the maximum concentration of resource at the decisive point and not let too many parts of it be tied down on other relatively inconsequential efforts is the central art of both strategy and tactics.

Click to expand...

They have a long and perilous logistic and supply line and depend on their allies as staging ground. After this debacle you think it will instill confidence in their allies. And willing to become cannon fodder if they ever cross China. Remember they have lived next to angry China forever!

Tse said:

Bloomberg having a field day with this squabbling among Chinese about the Taliban. Great.

Click to expand...

So what?

Hendrik_2000 said:

They have a long and perilous logistic and supply line and depend on their allies as staging ground. After this debacle you think it will instill confidence in their allies. And willing to become cannon fodder if they ever cross China. Remember they have lived next to angry China forever!

Click to expand...

Again, that something like the eventual abandonment of Afghanistan was inevitable had been obvious to most observers since 2002, 2005 or 2006 at the latest. You exaggerate the impact of the superficial appearance of what has long been seen as an fundamental inevitability.

Every Chinese should be proud what China has achieved in Tibet transforming basically a middle age, theocracy, slave society into a modern, progressive and increasingly wealthy society, bringing hope, dream, education, healthcare to majority of the people. Contrast that to what the west did in Afghanistan after 20 years of war, chaos and despair. That is the difference between Chinese wisdom and western hubris
See this modern Tibet with spectacular scenery, modern cities and town, first class transportation, ancient and well preserve culture, happy people

FairAndUnbiased said:

Read this, it is quite neutral, but the top comment is quite interesting:

extremist groups cannot be relied upon to change once in power, as that is part of their political genetics. China needs a reliable political proxy in Afghanistan, economic proxies are not enough. Never forget the purge of pro-Chinese politicians in North Korea or the backstabbing of China by Vietnam.

Click to expand...

Historical events are good guidance for today and future, BUT should not be mechanistically taken as guidance without their historical perspective.

NK purged BOTH Yan'an faction (pro-China) and Moscow faction (pro-USSR). Kim bascially purged anybody who may be able to challenge his rule. That means his purge has NOTHING specifically to do with China.

About Vietnam's backstabbing, Vietnam had a better (richer and stronger) donor than China, the USSR. What does Taliban have?

Richard Santos said:

just because someone is unwilling to devote more than a small part of his overall resources to address what he sees as a peripheral problem doesn’t mean he can’t bring an adequate or even overwhelming amount of resource to address what he might see as an existential problem.

if anything, cutting losses in afghanistan gives the US larger latitude to array resources against more serious challenges to its global position.

facilitating the maximum concentration of resource at the decisive point and not let too many parts of it be tied down on other relatively inconsequential efforts is the central art of both strategy and tactics.

Click to expand...

Afghanistan is a small country but its position in US's hegemony is critical. A 20 year war that together with Iraq bankrupts US. The same kind of war killed USSR. If this war is a mere peripheral problem or inconsequential, then there is nothing existential.

If you define "existential" at the US territorial boundary, then China is just a peripheral problem. If you define "existential" as the US global hegemony, then Afghanistan is equally important as China, it is a milestone to contain China and Russia.