China's strategy in Afghanistan.

Richard Santos said:

getting back at the terrorists was absolutely not the main objective. Being seen getting back at the terrorist was of course politically necessary. But the psychological impact of the terrorist attack in NYC and DC was ultimately leverage to provid an extraordinary and unmissable opportunity for the neoconservatives to try and realize what had up to that time been a pie in the sky dream due to the continued momentum of internationalist outlook and multinational mutural security institution built during the cold war. That dream was to leverage the overwhelming military power that the US developed during the cold war to forcibly overthrow regimes considered to be obstacles to permanent american hegemony in Euroasia in the post cold war world. 9/11 was used to run roughshod over those tradition multinational mutural security institutions and pretend unilateralist american hegemony was the most internationalist thing of all.

Attainment of the dream to excert anerican military dominion across the middle east was actually if briefly within reach, if administration did not also fuck up so badly by being so greedy as to impose constraints on the effort designed to maximize the domestic political advantage for the republican party.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

getting back at the terrorists was absolutely not the main objective. Being seen getting back at the terrorist was of course politically necessary. But the psychological impact of the terrorist attack in NYC and DC was ultimately leverage to provid an extraordinary and unmissable opportunity for the neoconservatives to try and realize what had up to that time been a pie in the sky dream due to the continued momentum of internationalist outlook and multinational mutural security institution built during the cold war. That dream was to leverage the overwhelming military power that the US developed during the cold war to forcibly overthrow regimes considered to be obstacles to permanent american hegemony in Euroasia in the post cold war world. 9/11 was used to run roughshod over those tradition multinational mutural security institutions and pretend unilateralist american hegemony was the most internationalist thing of all.

Attainment of the dream to excert anerican military dominion across the middle east was actually if briefly within reach, if administration did not also fuck up so badly by being so greedy as to impose constraints on the effort designed to maximize the domestic political advantage for the republican party.

Click to expand...

supersnoop said:

Most of what you said was happening with or without an Afghan invasion. Talking about Iraq, the extent which they were willing to sell the war, making up an imminent nuclear weapon threat, they were going in one way or another. Bin Laden/Taliban/Afghanistan just made it easier.

If anything, 9/11 rode roughshod over domestic rights. The collapse of the Soviet Union already sold the world on American hegemony disguised as protection of freedom, human rights and democracy. Again, no Afghan war or 9/11 necessary.

Basically I don't disagree with 90% of what you said, just to me Afghanistan was a side door that unlocked rather then the front door that had to be kicked in.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

prior to 9/11 the bush administration certainly did not appear to be headed towards imperial conquest of the mideast. it seemed more like a caretaker government after the unconvincing republican electoral victory in the contested 2000 election cycle. 9/11 brought the neoconservatives to the fore to overthrow about 5 decades of American foreign policy approach.

I think it is not a stretch to say trump is a outgrowth of american reaction to 9/11, snd in the end Bin Laden succeeded better than ever knew to striking a mortal blow to the US that he knew.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

I think it is not a stretch to say trump is a outgrowth of american reaction to 9/11, snd in the end Bin Laden succeeded better than ever knew to striking a mortal blow to the US that he knew.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

Trump is but a continuation of the trend, latent in American political culture throughout its history, but first brought to the fore in the post WWII era right after 9/11, to ignore multi-lateral collective problem solving international institutions and to blatantly lie to override considered educated opinions in pursuit of policy objectives.

The us vs them rhetoric that Bush used in the speech to Congress, the clash of civilization narrative more commonly used by the conservative circles at the time are really just more erudite sounding and politically correct versions of much more degenerate “shit hole” crass dog whistle that trump would use 15 years later. but they serve the same function. They are both aimed primarily at pre-1960 white men’s insecurity about multi-culturalism gradually robbing them of their privileged position, whether that position stems from their position in their own country, or their country’s position in the world.

Click to expand...

Overbom said:

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.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

Taliban will no doubt resume extensive support terrorism in the region, inside Afghanistan, in Pakistan, also in former Soviet stans. They may sponsor targeted assassinations of outspoken afghan expatriates. They will also build relationships with other terrorist groups in the region, including inside western China. But I think they will likely not be seen to be undeniably directly responsible for attacks on the US, Europe, or China. This is consistent with the fact they have not been directly responsible gor attacks in the US, Europe, and China before 2001.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

Something like Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria or Egypt. A government that has modern civil laws and institutions organized for the purposes of economic development, while still allowing Islam as part of everyday traditions.

This is as oppose to something like Saudi Arabia or old Taliban where there is a literal god-king, using shariah as the sole source of laws and the purpose of government is religion.

This is important because it is best for China if the government responds to economic incentives. A government that does not respond to economic incentives means China has a harder time influencing them.

Click to expand...