China's strategy in Afghanistan.

W20

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes, the function of the toxic Wahhabi on an Anglo-imperial scale was, on the one hand, to annoy Russia and China and, on the other hand, an instrument to destroy societies with an Islamic culture

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And as a reward, it produced Islamophobia

So it was win-win-win
 

DarkStar

Junior Member
Registered Member
At it’s core fundamentalist Islam is a much bigger threat to China than to the US. There are no really significant Muslim population in the americas. american entanglement with fundamentalist islam ultimately grew out of the importance of middle east oil, its impact on oil commodity price, the impact of that price directly to american economy and indirectly to the economies of American trading partners, and the American alliance system to offset Soviet interest during the Cold War, and direct military intervention tosecure american interest in Saudi Arabia, the gulf region and in the Levante since the Cold War.

With the declining importance of middle eastern oil, and the departure of US forces from Afghanistan, the number of places where America is really entangled with fundamentalist Islam has declined to really just american support for Israel. Gradually fundamentalist Islam will become primarily a problem for Russia, Europe and China, with american remaining a enemy in memory to Islam, bUt increasingly less in direct conflict of core interest.

Undoubtedly with departure from Afghanistan and with it effectively the last direct American occupation of Dal Al-Islam, there is a window of opportunity for America to more proactively enlist fundamental Islam in its competition with China. If one thinks islamophobia makes that unlikely, one needs to think back on the modern America proverb “only Nixon can go to China”. America also formed a de facto alliance with global militant Islamic fundamentalism once before, to hobble Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

So preventing a de facto alliance between global aim of militant Islamic fundamentalism and american antagonism with China needs to be one of china’s premier long term national policy goals.
How do you come about that conclusion? From drinking white anglo Kool-aid?

Saudi Arabia is liberalising, as the UAE and Qatar are liberalising/have liberalised; if they can do it, so too can the Taliban as the Iranians have done, and seriously, China is nowhere in the Islamic World's shit list, and even if it was, Han China would be well below let's see, Crusader Christian white nations, jewish israelis, Hindutva persecutors of Kashmiris, etc etc, the list goes on and on. Even Orthodox Russians would be targets well before China Huaxia civilisation is ever a target for Jihad.

The only jihadists against china are simply cutouts for CIA ops eg Islamic State, ETIM. None of which are organic.

EDIT:
In fact, the Afghan Taliban have turned their back on the Saudis who are the usual proponents of Wahabbism; chances are, A-stan may liberalise sooner than Saudi especially with China right next door:

@topic

Pakistan is closing off all the Jai Hind/CIA terrorist cells:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
At it’s core fundamentalist Islam is a much bigger threat to China than to the US. There are no really significant Muslim population in the americas. american entanglement with fundamentalist islam ultimately grew out of the importance of middle east oil, its impact on oil commodity price, the impact of that price directly to american economy and indirectly to the economies of American trading partners, and the American alliance system to offset Soviet interest during the Cold War, and direct military intervention tosecure american interest in Saudi Arabia, the gulf region and in the Levante since the Cold War.

With the declining importance of middle eastern oil, and the departure of US forces from Afghanistan, the number of places where America is really entangled with fundamentalist Islam has declined to really just american support for Israel. Gradually fundamentalist Islam will become primarily a problem for Russia, Europe and China, with american remaining a enemy in memory to Islam, bUt increasingly less in direct conflict of core interest.

Undoubtedly with departure from Afghanistan and with it effectively the last direct American occupation of Dal Al-Islam, there is a window of opportunity for America to more proactively enlist fundamental Islam in its competition with China. If one thinks islamophobia makes that unlikely, one needs to think back on the modern America proverb “only Nixon can go to China”. America also formed a de facto alliance with global militant Islamic fundamentalism once before, to hobble Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

So preventing a de facto alliance between global aim of militant Islamic fundamentalism and american antagonism with China needs to be one of china’s premier long term national policy goals.

It is not a problem for China because China not only has support from Muslim governments, China has support from Muslims.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. This is remarkable for a country that doesn't give out any aid to these countries, but only business investments. Meanwhile some country splashes out billions in Middle East aid and has little to show for it except among the kings and dictators.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Maybe China, after some years, can start talking with Afghanistan about (rightly) demanding war reparations from the US for the destruction it caused to Afghanistan.

This is a big rivalry so China doesn't need to care about any pushback when faced by a deadly threat by the US. Instead it would be a good thing opening another front against US while keeping the high moral ground and rallying the Muslim world to its cause for supporting and defending Afghan people's interests
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Recently, it occurred to me that there is a scenario where the USA could have *won* Afghanistan, if the US had taken more elements from what the British did during the Malayan Insurgency.

---

After the invasion, eventually the US set out to win *the hearts and minds* of the Afghan people in the villages.

But Pashtun identity (rural and religious) always saw them as foreign invaders.
That civilian population provided the base for the extremist Taliban to survive and then outlast the occupiers.

During the Malayan Insurgency, the British removed over 10,000 *suspected* insurgents without trial.
Plus the British set up mass internment camps to hold the insurgent-leaning civilian population for years for the following reasons:

1. To deny the insurgents support from a civilian population
2. To move the civilian population away from radical extremism

Of course, if the USA had tried to move millions of Pashtuns into camps, it would technically be in breach of the Geneva Accords.
But given the British (and others) already did this previously, and the US status as the sole global superpower, the USA could ignored human rights.

So one wonders.

Suppose the money funnelled to the Afghan warlords had been spent on camps providing healthcare and non-radical Islamic education, in order to promote a more tolerant and moderate Pashtun population. It would have been an immense social engineering exercise.

But would Afghanistan be better off today?
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
two questions must be answered before one could determine whether such an approach would’ve worked in Afghanistan.

1. Who would be the domestic constituenciesin the United States for this approach that would have the clout to spend the money necessary to do this in the first place?

2. without the narrative of “we have to be there because our enemy is still there and dangerous” and ”success if right around the corner”, for how long can the United States keep up what would appear to the large section of mean spirited short sighted america first political opportunists , who bash immigrants and the poor for a living, to be another unconscionable liberal largess at the expense of higher tax rates for the american wealthy?
 
Last edited:

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I think it is important to remember that since the end of the Cold War, United States did not really have a foreign policy, much less a foreign strategy. What it had were a combination of two things:
1. The waning inertia of the international outlook, alliances, and multinational institutions Forge during the Cold War.
2. And the rising tendency to regard foreign policy has nothing more than an extension of the bitter domestic political struggle within the United States between the children of FDR‘s new deal, and LBJ‘s great society on the one hand, and in ad hoc but increasingly ruthless coalition of reactionary forces united only by opposition to those on the other.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
At it’s core fundamentalist Islam is a much bigger threat to China than to the US. There are no really significant Muslim population in the americas. american entanglement with fundamentalist islam ultimately grew out of the importance of middle east oil, its impact on oil commodity price, the impact of that price directly to american economy and indirectly to the economies of American trading partners, and the American alliance system to offset Soviet interest during the Cold War, and direct military intervention tosecure american interest in Saudi Arabia, the gulf region and in the Levante since the Cold War.

With the declining importance of middle eastern oil, and the departure of US forces from Afghanistan, the number of places where America is really entangled with fundamentalist Islam has declined to really just american support for Israel. Gradually fundamentalist Islam will become primarily a problem for Russia, Europe and China, with american remaining a enemy in memory to Islam, bUt increasingly less in direct conflict of core interest.

Undoubtedly with departure from Afghanistan and with it effectively the last direct American occupation of Dal Al-Islam, there is a window of opportunity for America to more proactively enlist fundamental Islam in its competition with China. If one thinks islamophobia makes that unlikely, one needs to think back on the modern America proverb “only Nixon can go to China”. America also formed a de facto alliance with global militant Islamic fundamentalism once before, to hobble Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

So preventing a de facto alliance between global aim of militant Islamic fundamentalism and american antagonism with China needs to be one of china’s premier long term national policy goals.
I don't buy his as long as America support Israel there will be no reconciliation between America and muslim world . And muslim fundamentalist are seething with anger because Israel occupy their holy city of Jerusalem and displaced million of palestinian. So long israel occupy palestinian land and find no solution of displaced palestinian , there will be no peace between Israel and Muslim world. And by extension US and muslim world since US is in the pocket of israel and support her

China has 20 million muslim but most of it are Hui who is loyal Chinese citizen thru history. And another thing they are indistinguishable from Han other than religion. There is no cultural barrier between them. There are few hot head in Xinjiang but that is recent phenomena brought about by China's opening allowing a lot of young Uyghur to study in middle east and infected with Wahabism. Uyghur islam sect is Hanafi which is different from Sunni or Shia muslim
Uyghur has been ally and loyal citizen thru history with only 2 attempt rebellion in modern time. One was crushed but the other was resolve thru negotiation. Now that China bring development to Xinjiang and secularized life in Xinjiang couple with iron rule. I don't think there well be any more riot in Xinjiang
1629821508839.png
 
Last edited:
Top