China's strategy in Afghanistan.

Yup thank for the article this paragraph tell exactly why American failed in Afghanistan Instead of spending money on infrastructure, school, hospital, safe child birth, clean water, they spend the bulk of 2 trillion on weapon, corruption, etc
Yes Jeff Sachs is the only sane person now. I am big fans of his

Here’s why. Of that $946 billion, fully $816 billion, or 86%, went to military outlays for U.S. troops. And the Afghan people saw little of the remaining $130 billion, with $83 billion going to the Afghan Security Forces. Another $10 billion or so was spent on drug interdiction operations, while $15 billion was for U.S. agencies operating in Afghanistan.

That left a meager $21 billion in “economic support” funding. Yet even much of this spending left little if any development on the ground, because the programs actually “support counterterrorism; bolster national economies; and assist in the development of effective, accessible, and independent legal systems.”

In short, less than 2% of the U.S. spending on Afghanistan, and probably far less than 2%, reached the Afghan people in the form of basic infrastructure or poverty-reducing services. The U.S. could have invested in clean water and sanitation, school buildings, clinics, digital connectivity, agricultural equipment and extension, nutrition programs, and many other programs to lift the country from economic deprivation.

Instead, it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with a life expectancy of 63 years, a maternal mortality rate of 638 per 100,000 births, and a child stunting rate of 38%.

The U.S. should never have intervened militarily in Afghanistan—not in 1979, nor in 2001, and not for the 20 years since. But once there, the U.S. could and should have fostered a more stable and prosperous Afghanistan by investing in maternal health, schools, safe water, nutrition, and the like.

Such humane investments—especially financed together with other countries through institutions such as the Asian Development Bank—would have helped to end the bloodshed in Afghanistan, and in other impoverished regions, forestalling future wars.

Holding poor people in contempt​

Yet American leaders go out of their way to emphasize to the American public that we won’t waste money on such trivialities. The sad truth is that the American political class and mass media hold the people of poorer nations in contempt, even as they intervene relentlessly and recklessly in those countries. Of course, much of America’s elite holds America’s own poor in similar contempt.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Here’s why. Of that $946 billion, fully $816 billion, or 86%, went to military outlays for U.S. troops. And the Afghan people saw little of the remaining $130 billion, with $83 billion going to the Afghan Security Forces. Another $10 billion or so was spent on drug interdiction operations, while $15 billion was for U.S. agencies operating in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

They spent $10 billion on drug operations alone? Drug cultivation grew every year of the occupation - what exactly were they spending the money on?

Being able to defeat the Taliban is one thing, but there's literally no excuse for not stopping the drug production. The US taxpayer has been completely screwed.

The spending in Afghanistan was of essentially no value added. Now what little the people of Afghanistan have has also been stolen, both by the financial vampires at DoT and the Taliban.

Abominable said:

They spent $10 billion on drug operations alone? Drug cultivation grew every year of the occupation - what exactly were they spending the money on?

Being able to defeat the Taliban is one thing, but there's literally no excuse for not stopping the drug production. The US taxpayer has been completely screwed.

Click to expand...

US spending in Afghanistan was basically one giant payday for western mercenary outfits so the Pentagon could reduce the casualties figures it released while outsourcing the dying to private PMCs who’s losses are not included in official figures who don’t generate anything like as much domestic pubic interest.

The majority of that $10bn on drug interdiction would have been spent on PMC security for the DEA, and ironically probably also provided the Taliban with a steady supply of willing applicants since opium cultivation has been a standard source of income for afghans for generations. For them, it’s little different to growing grapes for wine or other high value crops, so western military burning their fields with zero compensation if literally destroying their livelihoods, so of course they are going to risk up and resist.

Had they spent more of that $10bn compensating farmers and giving them viable alternative crops that provided similar if not more income than opium, the Taliban might have had a far harder time of it.

Here is an expanded interview with Prof Jeffrey Sachs
As many countries keep a close watch on the fast changing situation in Afghanistan, the United Nations (UN) held an emergency Security Council meeting. The UN secretary-general called for efforts to prevent the country from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said China has encouraged the Taliban to pursue a moderate religious policy and hopes that the new Afghan government can make a clean break with terror-linked forces.

U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday stood by his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, saying foreign forces could not defend a nation whose leaders "gave up and fled." Meanwhile, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi exchanged views with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the phone on the Afghan situation. Wang reiterated China's stance that facts have once again proven that mechanically copying a foreign model cannot be fit for a country with a completely different history, culture and national conditions.

Blinken did thank China for participating in the Doha talks with the Taliban. Both sides agreed to go on with close consultations. How did the situation in Afghanistan rapidly devolve into what it is today? What is the full impact of U.S. policy and actions in Afghanistan in the past two decades? On that, Tian Wei talked to an American scholar, Jeffrey Sachs, professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University.

During the entire post pre-trump Cold War era the US had little real need to consider repercussion, both mid and long term, of its own action. So it’s foreign policy establishment is has long fallen out of the habit of doing its homework. Blinken’s entire career had been forged during that era. In effect blinken is a foreign policy specialist who cut his teeth in the era of wanting and not in thinking and real planning. In any other era, he would be called a career foreign policy hack.

Richard Santos said:

During the entire post pre-trump Cold War era the US had little real need to consider repercussion, both mid and long term, of its own action. Blinken’s entire career had been forged during that era. In effect blinken is a foreign policy specialist whose is experienced in wanting and not in thinking.

Click to expand...

Blinken is another product of the US-media hype. "Most experienced diplomats", "Most talented diplomatic team in history", "Most ..." etc

As usual, as soon as you remove the western media propaganda, whats left of Blinken is another tier F diplomat who thinks that he can pressure the US' rival (China) by doing nonsense visits around the world and talking about "human rights" and "international order".

When countries request something tangible in order to cooperate with US, then Blinken, as by magic, disappears from the meetings, never to be seen again.

Blinken and his friends think that this is what diplomacy is all about. No worries though, Wang Yi is travelling around the world giving candies left and right while Blinken keeps talking.

Example No.1 of his incompetence is that he went along with Biden's crazy and chaotic withdrawal plan from Afghanistan without considering that his country would face diplomatic repercussions

Example No.2 was the farcical Anchorage meeting

Example No.3 his worthless meetings around the world

Example No.4 Betraying the (then) pro-Western Iranian administration and thus causing it to elect the anti-West, pro-East hardliners in power.

Etc.

Like his name which mean blinking in english He blink too many time China news agency mock blinken and his ilk
When you feel life is going nowhere, just think: with 4 U.S. presidents 20 years 2 trillion dollars 2,300 soldiers' lives... the regime of Afghanistan changes from Taliban to... Taliban

For what's next in Afghanistan: I believe the best chance is a powerful and centralized secular or moderate Islamic government. The Kingdom of Afghanistan and the Republic of Afghanistan eras were fairly modern and good for Afghans. They don't need a monarchy back, but the strong, central leader is crucial for modernization.

FairAndUnbiased said:

For what's next in Afghanistan: I believe the best chance is a powerful and centralized secular or moderate Islamic government. The Kingdom of Afghanistan and the Republic of Afghanistan eras were fairly modern and good for Afghans. They don't need a monarchy back, but the strong, central leader is crucial for modernization.

Click to expand...

Definetely. They will need a strong leader with centralised powers. The leader will need to be ruthless and soft depending on the situation as Afghanistan is always at the brink of a civil war.

As long as Afghanistan can generate some funds then the leadership will be able to placate local forces (+ interests) and have the time to build a more controlled bureaucracy and more powerful armed forced in order to deter any potential uprisings.

This might mean that at the beginning, China might need to step in and provide financial and material aid to Afghanistan in order to stabilise the government.

Of course this would happen as long as Taliban form a truly inclusive government which can draw support from various local forces and interests in Afghanistan. If Taliban just decide to form their own government without including other forces then that would ultimately fail and as such China need not to be involved with the Taliban because it would create animosity between it and the Afghan people

Basically this is the exact strategy that Wang Yi follows. First purge any terrorist organisations, form inclusive government and the Taliban should moderate their beliefs (girl education, women work rights).