Results 1 to 20 of 162

Thread: Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Cannoneer No. 4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    140

    Default Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

    by John Hinderaker @ Power Line

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/028748.php

    Who in the American domestic target audience still believes that Afghanistan and Afghans are worth it?

    Who is supposed to be strategically communicating to the American voter what we're trying to do there, how well we're doing it, and why?

    In 2005 Newsweak invented a story about Koran desecration at Gitmo. Seventeen Afghans died rioting. It is painfully obvious that we learned nothing from that. Why did we learn nothing?

    Many questions. The only answer I have is that is indeed time to drastically reduce our headcount while at the same time dramatically increasing the Taliban's bodycount.

    And for God's sake do not evacuate the Kabul Embassy via helicopters on the roof.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4 View Post
    by John Hinderaker @ Power Line

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/028748.php

    Who in the American domestic target audience still believes that Afghanistan and Afghans are worth it?
    My understanding was that the worth of the Afghans was tangential to the worth of eliminating a threat that inflicted massive damage on American soil. Also had the notion that America--within the universe of measures she's willing to use in war--had few if any better options than to gently pacify the base population of jihadists in order to deny them the territory, bases, supply and points of entry and departure needed to strike internationally. Specifically, I was under the impression that ultimately required putting up with the natives as they attempt to stand up a reasonably seaworthy government and army.

    What's changed?
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

  3. #3
    Council Member Cannoneer No. 4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    What's changed?
    The regime in America.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Here is my reasoning for being in Astan ...

    30 Aug 2009 - AQ means ...

    "The Base" - and as such, is supporting to efforts by other groups on a global basis to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on its analysis of each group and its plans. It also was (and probably still is, to a lesser extent) capable of its own direct action operations.

    By analogy, AQ can be viewed as waging unconventional warfare in the classic sense of our FMs. A SFOB hinges on its personnel and functions, not on its location (or locations, which can be multiple - though obviously network-linked). So also AQ. That is COL Robert Jones' concept, which makes sense to me.

    As to the 2001 invasion of Astan, two reasons were (1) retribution and reprobation; and (2) specific deterrence[*]. Both reasons would have been satisfied by a complete destruction of the AQ leadership in Astan as we then knew it. That goal was not realized (Tora Bora et al).

    The direct action effort against the AQ leadership still persists (separate US command); but has been submerged by the much larger efforts of UN-NATO ("nation-building" and peace enforcement in favor of the Karzai government) and the US FID-SA effort with major combat support (as noted by Bill Moore).

    Since AQ (as a "base" of personnel and functions) is a moving target, the linkage between the effort against it, and the much larger Astan efforts, is not very clear to me. I expect I shall be enlightened.

    The Taliban, very intentionally on their part, simply got in the way of our direct action efforts against AQ.

    -----------------
    [*] Specific deterrence deters the individual wrongdoer (you execute the serial killer). That may have no general deterrence effect on serial killers to be.
    30 Aug 2009 - Two kinds of deterrence

    We've done a decent job on specific deterrence of AQ on three fronts: (1) intelligence + direct action (military); (2) intelligence + detention (law enforcement); and (3) disruption of network nodes, especially financing support (intelligence + counterintelligence).

    As to general deterrence, not a real clue because I see no real plan to do that. By analogy, we need something akin to the European socialists who were anti-communist, but scarcely supportive of USG announced policies. I suppose support of certain Muslim governments (which ones ?) would be the answer. I also expect the tradeoff would be a much lesser role for the US in the Muslim world. That seems to be where Kilcullen is heading at the end of his book (Accidental Guerrilla).

    As Ken noted, we are just getting into this - e.g., changes in Cold War strategy over decades.

    Anyway, this is really a question for the younger generations.

    So, what are your solutions to gain specific and general deterrence re: AQ ?
    25 Jul 2010 - Well, one can question ....

    whether a "COIN" strategy ever existed in Astan; and whatever the "Plan", the political side of the ledger was feeble at best ("lipstick on a pig" and the the rest of the cliches).

    That didn't bother me cuz my rationale for being in Astan in the first place (and I never saw a reason to change the rationale) was to mount direct action operations against the AQ leadership cadres in Astan and Pstan (more a matter of "rental" operations), based on principles of retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence.

    Other folks at much higher pay grades than mine, had different ideas.

    Anyway, agreed: alia jacta est - and we are now in the period of Afghanization and exit strategy(ies).
    The foregoing rationale (to me) constituted an overriding "but", even though Astan is in the middle of my personal "Never Again, but..." region - which looks like this:

    World Map US Limits.jpg

    However, that "but" only goes so far - especially when state building (or nation building) - which doesn't start to meet my "but" test, gets in the way of the direct objective for which we (US) started in 2001 Astan.

    Frankly, if we would have a better chance of killing our tall brother and his shorter comrade, by letting Astan revert to its pre-2001 condition (and by using better targeting methods than used in the Clinton era), I'd say let that happen.

    Both OEF and OIF had a certain initial cleanliness and clarity (the run up to Tora Bora and the run up to Baghdad) - and I count those among the most beautiful military efforts I've seen in my cognitive lifetime.

    So, my question to those who have been or are there (such as 120mm, who must have much of the time in for Astan citizenship ) is this:

    Is what we are doing now substantially advancing the direct objective I've outlined above ?

    If not, then we should revise the "Plan"; and if that requires a tactical withdrawal, so be it. If it requires other affirmative actions in Astan or Pstan, so be those.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 04-04-2011 at 04:42 AM.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    53

    Default

    I realize I am not as informed as many but I'm growing ever so tired of these redundant comments: It's time to get out of Afghanistan.

    Whether ill- or well-intentioned, these comments read in my mind as: Let's give in to the sand in our panties and just quit.

    Can we Americans just decide to finish and win, for once?

    I'm done with reading the naysayers, the depressed, the doom & gloom projectors and the apathy-ridden slugs that seem to think that no one currently in that theater or anyone preparing to go should be focused, positive, or feeling any sense of purpose.

    I believe one of the above comments hit precisely on the desired end state: to have a govt in place that can do the fighting and run the country without being or becoming a safe haven for those that will do us harm. Until that or a similar end state is achieved, perhaps the negative nancys can just find a local Starbucks to complain about.

  6. #6
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Can we Americans just decide to finish and win, for once?
    The drama to Afghanistan tends to be the fact that we've already "won" with regard to many of our initial goals, but yet the definition of a "win", and what it means to us as a populace, depends on where you sit. One side doesn't believe we've finished the job, because the Taliban oppose us and the guy we propped up to be Number 1. If they come to power, then Al Qaeda is going to rush back in. The other side believes that Al Qaeda will never have the same foothold it did before November 2001, in Afghanistan, and that we need to stop wringing our hands over the possibility that the Taliban may come to the fore and run a crippled state.

    Erecting a wobbly government that cannot support itself without significant aid injections, and at the cost of a significant amount of our national treasure in lives and money, may make it a Pyhrric victory that we cannot afford.

    Again, it all depends on where you sit. "Wins" are not black and white anymore.

  7. #7
    Council Member Cannoneer No. 4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bumperplate View Post
    the desired end state: to have a govt in place that can do the fighting and run the country without being or becoming a safe haven for those that will do us harm.
    Five months shy of a decade and we still aren't there. If you include opium growers, heroin smugglers and their protectors among those that will do us harm, we're a very long way from achieving success as you've defined it.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    "Never again...but"
    Sir, quick question. On your map what does the red horizontal line demarcate? (or were you just underlining the text.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hey Tukhi,

    The red line is just an arbitrary horizontal line showing the width of the "Never Again" Region at that latitude. The "Never Again" Region encompasses the continental land masses of Eurasia and Africa.

    An expanded version of B.L. Montgomery's Rule 1:

    Do not march on Moscow
    and Rule 2:

    Do not go fighting with your land armies in China


    Or, viewed from a ship, US force projection should not go beyond the far littorals of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, absent an extremely compelling reason - which is the "but..." in the equation.

    An old concept (e.g., Mahan and others of the "Guardian" school of thought). See A.T. Mahan, Naval Strategy: Compared and Contrasted with the Principles and Practice of Military Operations on Land (1911) (pdf free from Google Books).

    Regards

    Mike

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near the Spiral, New Zealand.
    Posts
    134

    Default

    The simple answer is yes...what we are doing now is totally disconnected from what we went in there to (and did) do in 2001.

    Regardless of the porice paid in blood and treasure to date, Afghanistan will never be any more a functional nation in the sense that we understand the concept than will Libya if the socalled rebels there get to takeover...

    Watching the riots in London last week over cuts to public services and David Cameron stating how necessary there are as the UK is broke, my wife asked a simple question: if you're broke, why keeping getting into wars? A good question when the next news items was on the 'NATO' intervention/meddling in Libya...

    The West is bankrupting itself fighting things that pose little or no threat to it and for people who really could care less...it's well past time to withdraw, regroup and RETHINK before we go haring off on any more morally-driven crusades...

    While I don't agree with the case for the initial invasion of Iraq, more power to the US for staying the course and seeing that war through to a logical conclusion. But Afghanistan is not Iraq and the central government approach that worked in Iraq has no more chance of succeeding in Afghanistan than attempting to inflict a new religion on that nation...

    The real question is not whether to start pulling out but what will we do for all those people in Afghanistan to whom we have promised better (in a western understanding) lives...

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SJPONeill View Post
    The simple answer is yes...what we are doing now is totally disconnected from what we went in there to (and did) do in 2001.
    I recall that the Allies drove al Qaeda into Taliban into the south and west and into Pakistan by spring of 2002. I don't recall in any of the tens years afterwards:

    1. destroying the enemy,
    2. forcing the enemy to capitulate, or
    3. securing Afghanistan (or Pakistan, for that matter)--and consequently the base, supply and assembly area the enemy used to stage the 9/11 attacks--from future contest.

    The Coalition leakily denies the enemy a breakout from his diminished territory, though the effort requires--minimum--a level of strength at least equivalent to that at the dawn of 2009. Still, seems to me the war ain't won and the threat eradicated until at least one of those three conditions are met.
    Last edited by Presley Cannady; 04-04-2011 at 12:06 AM.
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near the Spiral, New Zealand.
    Posts
    134

    Default

    ...and if we were still in WW2 or maybe even the Cold War, that might be what we would be aiming to do.

    Afghanistan stopped being the base for planning operations against the West by the beginning of 2003 - except, of course, those elements of the West that came to them and which are still in Afghanistan: one might argue that any actions against them might be justified defence against an invader (depending on your POV).

    Those who still seek and plan and conspire against the west have long since moved on from Afghanistan and what we face there now is a problem centuries old that we have blindly blundered into. We know that we are not going to cross the border and clear out sanctuaries on the Pakistani side of the 'border'; what we are doing in Afghanistan is doing nothing to ensure steady hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal: if anything the opposite...it's not helping us build bridges with Iran and only with India because it agitates the Pakistanis...

    Yes, there is an insurgency in Afghanistan but it is largely one of our own making and one which will continue so long as we continue to prop up an ineffective and unpopular 'government' that according to its leader doesn't want the west there...all those who thinks the Karzai government will last two weeks past a western withdrawal, please raise your hands...

    The simple fact is the best option for regional stability is a government in Afghanistan that we don't like but which allows us to meet our strategic objectives...and with that in mind, the same question remains: will we do the righty by those who expectations we have raised when we go?

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SJPONeill View Post
    ...and if we were still in WW2 or maybe even the Cold War, that might be what we would be aiming to do.
    Just so I'm clear, precisely what has changed since the end of the Cold War? Pertinent to our discussion, of course.

    Afghanistan stopped being the base for planning operations against the West by the beginning of 2003...
    And the Combined Fleet ceased to be an offensive threat following Truk.

    - except, of course, those elements of the West that came to them and which are still in Afghanistan: one might argue that any actions against them might be justified defence against an invader (depending on your POV).
    We can leave the ins and outs of various parties' worldviews and intentions to posterity for the moment. At the end of the day, beginning in 2002 the Coalition has been in an imposed stalemate with Taliban and al Qaeda, facing off in the frontier along the border of nuclear Pakistan. And that's pretty much the western firebreak in the larger strategic problem.

    Those who still seek and plan and conspire against the west have long since moved on from Afghanistan and what we face there now is a problem centuries old that we have blindly blundered into.
    Moved on? I was under the impression that they've taken advantage of the somewhat riskier but still manageable environments across Afghanistan's borders to flow both in and out of theater. I question whether the Coalition can claim victory simply because the international fragment of the threat is willing to leave the bulk of the fight in theater to the natives. Especially since that's the samed damned objective the Coalition is pursuing.

    We know that we are not going to cross the border and clear out sanctuaries on the Pakistani side of the 'border'
    So if we found the Rhine uncrossable for some reason, the Allies should've evacuated France?

    what we are doing in Afghanistan is doing nothing to ensure steady hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, if anything the opposite...it's not helping us build bridges with Iran and only with India because it agitates the Pakistanis...
    It also has nothing specifically to do with what we're doing in the Horn, or in Yemen, or in Southeast Asia, or a whole host of other fronts. Where is it written that wars must be won in single operations? OEF is keeping Afghanistan out of the hands of the Taliban and returning that state to the same people who struck the United States on 9/11. And unless we're in a topsy turvey world where not losing is no longer a prerequisite for winning, then returning the status quo ante would undoubtedly amount to a defeat.

    Yes, there is an insurgency in Afghanistan but it is largely one of our own making and one which will continue so long as we continue to prop up an ineffective and unpopular 'government' that according to its leader doesn't want the west there...all those who thinks the Karzai government will last two weeks past a western withdrawal, please raise your hands...
    It's borderline nonsense to argue that the Coalition "props" up Karzai in any meaningful way. Neither the US nor NATO designed Afghanistan's institutions. Neither chose the leadership, and despite various misgivings neither has done anything to interfere with Afghan self-determination. We know this because we have the examples of South Korea, the Republic of China, Mubarak's Egypt, Bahrain, and not a few African regimes. Some were spectacular successes, others not so much, but none involved tip toeing around internal affairs the way the Allies presently do in Kabul.

    Certainly the Coalition provides the host government protection against a mass of anti-Kabul INS breaking out across the AfPak border, reconstruction aid and training. And should Afghans see fit to change their government and continue to work with the West, then the same largess will be available to Karzai's successor.

    The simple fact is the best option for regional stability is a government in Afghanistan that we don't like but which allows us to meet our strategic objectives...
    We don't like the current government all that much. What we need is a government that will root out and kill our enemy for us. What we can't afford is a government that will enable or even just stand by and let the enemy operate from her territory.
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    You should try logic. The importance of A does not lend importance to B without further reasons.

    Besides, he did some non-vacation trips to Europe as well.


    Tell me; what kind of influence can be exercised from Afghanistan on what's happening in Southeast or East Asia that cannot be exercised if Afghanistan becomes a Chinese or Russian province.

    Even IF you could name one influence, you would still need to answer the next question about cost/benefit before the 'AFG is important in geostrategy' line begins to make sense.


    And Turkey is being denied EU membership effectively because it's the European Union, not the United Nations. The EU is busy and challenged enough without further mindless expansion.
    Trying logic, not the Fuchs way though!

    It is ever so obvious that it does not require recall that the importance of A does not lend itself to B – that is if one observes them as individual entities and not in either the regional or global context.

    Is Geopolitics and geostrategy based on a country in a standalone mode? Or is it based on its CNP?

    It would be worth your while to read my post to Mike that, in a very simplistic way, indicates the geostrategic inputs that are in play in this region and the interse impact on each other and the US. I am sure you have not had the time to browse through it.

    If it matters not if Afghanistan becomes a Chinese or Russian province, then may I ask as to what the US was doing by arming the mujahideens through Pakistan to evict the Soviets?

    If it does matter not now whether Afghanistan becomes a Soviet province or not, it should not have mattered then! As I see, it matters now more than before since the Frankenstein they created by default called the AQ, is hell bent to destroy the US!!!!

    Since you are keen on cost effectiveness of issues, may I request you to tote up the cost that the US has invested in Afghanistan, in men, materiel, finances and other resources in Afghanistan ever since the days when the US was hell bent to evict the USSR?

    Therefore, will all due regards to you, I must confess that I have lost you on the logic that you apply.

    If EU is busy and challenged enough without further mindless expansion. and so is keeping Turkey out in the cold, does it not indicate that Turkey is not that important a country than say, Poland, Latvia, Slovakia or Lithuania? They don’t control the Bosporus or any waterway!

    As far as what the Obama trip to Asia achieved, you may like to Google.
    Last edited by Ray; 05-05-2011 at 05:56 PM.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Cockpit of the world? Hardly. I can't see how a US presence in Afghanistan would squeeze China or Russia in any way, or serve as a strategic asset in any way.
    I am sure you are aware of the US attempts to woo the CAR countries ever since they broke away from Russia. Apart from the Caspian oil, also the other reasons thereof.

    Here is a glimpse of the US interests in CAR:

    In the summer of 2005, Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies published an article in the US Magazine "Foreign Affairs", in which he clearly put forward the vision of the "Great Central Asia" strategy.

    Starr proposed in a "Great Central Asia cooperative partnership for development" which will have the US taking the lead, the five Central Asian states and Afghanistan entering as the main members, and India and Pakistan participating in. The main idea of the proposal is to take the US control of the situation in Afghanistan as an opportunity, promote optional and flexible cooperation in security, democracy, economy, transport and energy, and, make up a new region by combining Central Asia with South Asia. The United States is to shoulder the role of a midwife to promote the rebirth of the entire region."

    The US government quickly accepted this concept.
    Break Russia's dominance in Central Asia

    Russia and China are graphically adjacent to each other in Central Asia area. Both countries have their own state interests in the region. The five Central Asian states have common needs for economic development, anti-terrorism and regional security with China and Russia. Under the framework of the SCO, the mutual cooperation between these countries has been enhanced. Correspondingly, the influence of China and Russia in Central Asia is rising.

    Obviously, the US is not happy with this situation. The reason why it has brought up the so-called "choosing from the South" policy in Central Asia is that it is determined to use energy, transportation and infrastructure construction as bait to separate Central Asia from the post-Soviet Union dominance. By this means, it can change the external strategic focus of Central Asia from the current Russia-and-China-oriented partnership to cooperative relations with South Asian countries. It can break the long-term Russian dominance in the Central Asian area, it can split and disintegrate the cohesion of the SCO and gradually establish US dominance in the new plate of Central and South Asia.
    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...03_289512.html
    If the US interest in CAR and Afghanistan were not strategically important it would have not spooked China as is evident from the above.

    By December, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Krol told the Senate that “The region is at the fulcrum of key U.S. security, economic and political interests. It demands attention and respect and our most diligent efforts. The Obama Administration is committed to that very approach”. Those were not just words. Other Administration documents recognize the fragility of the region’s security situation. Therefore, the U.S. is now pursuing vigorous multi-dimensional initiatives going beyond the war in Afghanistan, which will allow it to maintain a presence in Central Asia after troops begin leaving Afghanistan in 2011. Krol announced the formation of a regular high-level dialogue with Central Asian states to help them resist both Russian and Chinese incursions on their independence, work with the U.S. towards that end, and foster regional cooperation. Obviously, this also means renewed U.S. interest in large-scale investments.

    More strikingly, high-level visits to the region have resumed.

    http://eurodialogue.org/Is-A-US-Stra...ia-Emerging%3F
    This will also be of interest to know the US Russia equation:

    The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy
    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medve...rican_strategy

    The only caution is look at the broad picture and not read selectively or merely be country specific.

    Why would anyone pump oil from the Caspian south to Gwadar and then back north to China... especially when there are already pipelines direct from the Caspian to China via Kazakhstan? It makes no sense at all. And while of course the Chinese are trying to diversify their sources and routes of supply as much as possible (and the Caspian oil producers are trying to develop export routes that don't pass through Russia), these pipelines do nothing to secure the Chinese against an "push comes to shove" effort to cut off Chinese oil supplies. If the US ever decided to try and blockade Chinese oil - essentially in the event of open war - the pipelines would be the easiest of targets, and cutting them off would be far easier than enforcing a naval blockade.

    Lots of shaky conclusions based on sketchy evidence and reasoning here.
    Nothing shaky really.

    There is evidence in abundance, but it is expected that others are in the know. Or else, with each thought appending evidence clutters the post as also appears condescending as it assumes that the reader is not conversant with the happening in the world. That is why I tread the issue softly lest it gave reason for umbrage.

    At the same time, I seek one’s indulgence one studies the issues with resolve and without being perfunctory.

    A valid observation – why pump oil to Gwadar and then through the sealanes north to China?

    Suffice it to say that this will explain:

    The fact that the countries of the region lack the capital and the technology to proceed independently to the development of these oilfields offers American companies, such as Chevron, considerable investment opportunities.

    In this context, we can better understand the geopolitical and economic aims of the US in Central Asia. At the geopolitical level, the United States wants to help the countries of Central Asia to develop their oil and natural gas industries. According to the estimates of the American Government, this development will bring about economic growth and will help these countries move away from the Russian sphere of influence.

    At the economic level, the development of the oil industry of these countries means investment opportunities for the American construction and oil companies. Politically, the United States will be in a position to control these new important energy resources and diversify its own sources supply.

    American private companies have been supported by the US Government in at least two countries of Central Asia, namely, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Other American political objectives include the containment of Iran and the reinforcement of Turkey's role in the region. The US has not only blocked any pipeline route passing through Iran, but has also cancelled Iran. Ås participation in the international consortium which has undertaken oil production in Azerbaijan

    http://www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/winter98/geopolitics.html
    There are enough links to indicate the interest and control of CAR oil by US companies. Google is you wish.

    If the US controls the oil, then it controls the world economy. Obviously, they will not use the Chinese pipeline, which will not be under their control. Malfunction and hence loss of revenue will result. Instead the US will use their own to Gwadar and then have the Chinese, at their expense, ferry it to China. That is the first issue.

    India is also expected to be an oil hungry nation. Gwadar is ideal than having the oil sent through China and then through Nepal to India.

    Two birds with one stone!

    Pipelines can be interdicted, but if the oil supply of oil is controlled ab initio because the US controls the transshipment, then which is the better option?

    In peacetime, the quantum of oil extraction and supply also controls the state of the world market and consequently the world economy. The OPEC has played this game rather well. One of the reasons for Iraq was to control the oil of Iraq (the second largest oilfield in the world) so as to break the OPEC cartel.

    I presume none can go to war if the oil supply dwindles (controlled).

    Where is the question of a naval blockade to its ‘own’ port, Gwadar?

    In case of war, will China be capable of blockading Gwadar if it is under US control?
    Last edited by Ray; 05-05-2011 at 06:13 PM.

  16. #16
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Ray; you simply don't link the relevance of Asia and/or Persian Gulf oil to Afghanistan.

    That's why your assertion of Afghanistan's super importance fails to be logical.


    I honestly don't care here about thousands of irrelevant things that are not linked to Afghanistan. Link them to Afghanistan and they may influence the appraisal of Afghanistan's relevance.

    Until then you just appear to be someone who cannot think clearly but prefers to cheer the fashion of the day.


    Your vague hinting at "context" is NO link.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    You are welcome to your opinions.

    I am no missionary roaming the bush for the heathens to convert!

    However, do Google for the Senate Proceeding on CAR oil. It has the connection.

    It came on the website when the Iraq War was about to start IIRC.
    Last edited by Ray; 05-05-2011 at 08:36 PM.

  18. #18
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    There are enough links to indicate the interest and control of CAR oil by US companies. Google is you wish.

    If the US controls the oil, then it controls the world economy. Obviously, they will not use the Chinese pipeline, which will not be under their control. Malfunction and hence loss of revenue will result. Instead the US will use their own to Gwadar and then have the Chinese, at their expense, ferry it to China. That is the first issue.
    What on earth are you talking abou? "Their own"? Their own what?

    There's a huge confusion here. US Companies, like European and Chinese companies, invest in projects all over the world, including the Caspian. They are typically supported by their governments: support for home-country commercial enterprise is one of the oldest of diplomatic functions. In areas posing political and security risk the Companies mitigate risk by joining consortia with other companies. Major Caspian projects typically involve many companies from many countries, often US, European, Russian, and Chinese.

    Just because a US company is involved doesn't mean the US controls the oil or that the oil goes to the US. Far from it. All it means is that a US company gets some of the money. National oil companies in the countries with the oil typically retain controlling interests and decide where the oil will be sold. The notion that investment in a project by a US company somehow equates to US control of the oil is completely absurd.

    US companies involved in, say, projects in Kazakhstan would rather see the oil flow direct to China than south through the mess of AfPak. The Chinese pay cash and there's far less security risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    India is also expected to be an oil hungry nation. Gwadar is ideal than having the oil sent through China and then through Nepal to India.
    Why would the Indians do that when the Arabian Gulf is so near at hand? The Caspian isn't the only source of oil.

    Caspian oil will flow to Europe through Russia, it will flow to China, and it will flow west through Turkey. Geography, and the geopolitical mess to the south, demand it. Nobody wants to invest in taking that oil south, political and security risk is just too high and there isn't enough to be gained by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Pipelines can be interdicted, but if the oil supply of oil is controlled ab initio because the US controls the transshipment, then which is the better option?
    How would the US control the transshipment?

    Like Fuchs, I see no logic here. I don't see that US involvement in Afghanistan supports US interests in Central Asia... if anything, it undermines them. I don't see how Afghanistan has any great strategic significance: if AQ hadn't located there, the US would never have noticed the place; it's a backwater and of no use to anyone. Even the strategic significance of the Central Asian region overall seems to me wildly overrated by people who have a vested interest in overrating it... we see a great deal of that (witness all the "New Silk Road" nonsense), but it really doesn't mean much.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    What on earth are you talking about? "Their own"? Their own what?
    Selective reading without the context has caused this confusion for you. Read the part. 'Their own', if read in context would reveal is US oil companies.

    There's a huge confusion here. US Companies, like European and Chinese companies, invest in projects all over the world, including the Caspian. They are typically supported by their governments: support for home-country commercial enterprise is one of the oldest of diplomatic functions. In areas posing political and security risk the Companies mitigate risk by joining consortia with other companies. Major Caspian projects typically involve many companies from many countries, often US, European, Russian, and Chinese.

    Just because a US company is involved doesn't mean the US controls the oil or that the oil goes to the US. Far from it. All it means is that a US company gets some of the money. National oil companies in the countries with the oil typically retain controlling interests and decide where the oil will be sold. The notion that investment in a project by a US company somehow equates to US control of the oil is completely absurd.

    US companies involved in, say, projects in Kazakhstan would rather see the oil flow direct to China than south through the mess of AfPak. The Chinese pay cash and there's far less security risk.
    I don’t find any confusion though.

    Of course, companies invest all around the world. In risky parts of the world, the companies tend to not go in for international partnership except with the local govts since the options are normally limited to avoid local partnership.

    However, to suggest that US policies are not governed without Business nudging it on the way would be too naïve.

    It is too well known that the movers and shakers of US politics and the US government are the commercial companies, to require recall. They play an important part in their govt's policies.

    Notwithstanding, this link to CAR oil would indicate the relationship:


    The Pursuit of Black Gold: Pipeline Politics on the Caspian Sea
    http://www.cfr.org/energy/pursuit-bl...service/p14861

    That business propels US Govt policies is evident from the fact that the US repeatedly has toppled govt, foisted dictators, helped autocratic Sultans and Sheiks to abuse human rights so as to make the environment ideal for US business.

    The US govt connection and commercial interests:

    Government Spying for Commercial Gain
    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...2a02p_0001.htm

    One link amongst many:

    West's greed for oil fuels Saddam fever
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/11/iraq.oil

    Therefore, you are right that support for home-country commercial enterprise is one of the oldest of diplomatic functions.

    I find it difficult to subscribe to is your contention - Just because a US company is involved doesn't mean the US controls the oil or that the oil goes to the US.

    The presence or absence of a US company is a part of US foreign policy interest. Wherever business opportunities have presented itself, the US govt has moved in at the behest of the vested interests to make the area conducive to US business and through its presence further US interests. CAR is an example. With the fall of the USSR opportunities opened up in CAR, which is said to be having the world’s largest untapped source of hydrocarbons. The manner in which the CAR nations have been wooed with money, military training et al by the US is well known. It served in a major way, the US business and its strategic interests to foray into CAR.

    On the issue of National oil companies in the countries with the oil typically retain controlling interests and decide where the oil will be sold , that is not true in all cases.

    Here is one example:

    Standard Oil Company of California (Socal), which was not affected by the Red Line Agreement, gained a concession and found oil in Bahrain in 1932. Socal then sought a concession in Saudi Arabia that became effective in July 1933. Socal assigned its concession to its wholly owned operating subsidiary, California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC). In 1936 Socal sold a part interest in CASOC to Texaco to gain marketing facilities for the crude discovered in its worldwide holdings. The name of the operating company in Saudi Arabia was changed to Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) in January 1944. Two partners, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (later renamed Exxon) and Socony-Vacuum (now Mobil Oil Company), were added in 1946 to gain investment capital and marketing outlets for the large reserves being discovered in Saudi Arabia. These four companies were the sole owners of Aramco until the early 1970s.
    http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/40.htm
    The connection of Afghanistan and CAR oil:

    The Oil Connection: Afghanistan and Caspian Sea oil pipeline routes
    http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article17841
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html and http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html (For more links, also see http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/afghanistan-oil.htm )


    Why would the Indians do that when the Arabian Gulf is so near at hand? The Caspian isn't the only source of oil.
    Because Gwadar is closer.

    A penny saved is a penny earned!

    Caspian oil will flow to Europe through Russia, it will flow to China, and it will flow west through Turkey. Geography, and the geopolitical mess to the south, demand it. Nobody wants to invest in taking that oil south, political and security risk is just too high and there isn't enough to be gained by it.
    Wherever the Caspian oil flows, transit fees will be levied.

    If there we no problems the why not let Caspian oil flows through Russia? Why should alternate routes be constructed that avoid Russia?

    Risks are high as of now in Afghanistan.

    Thereafter?

    And what about the positive strategic fallout where Iran is boxed in and Pakistan subdued and weaned away to a great degree from China?

    In so far as the oil demand of India and China:

    A study by the International Energy Agency (2007) estimates that between 2005 and 2030, developing countries, which have the highest rates of economic growth and population, contribute 74% of the increase of energy consumption, of which China and India will responsible for approximately 45% of that increase. The forecast of the International Energy Agency confirmed, and China became the largest energy consumer in 2010, surpassing the United States - increased relevance if we consider that in 2005 the U.S. consumption was one third larger than the Chinese. Regarding India's projection indicates that from 2005 to 2030 the demand for primary energy will double, and in this same period, coal consumption is expected to triple.
    http://saopaulo2011.ipsa.org/sites/d...paper-1491.pdf
    The country that owns, controls and supplies and feeds this demand is on a win win course.

    Thus, Gwadar.

    Xinjiang is prone to insurgency. Indian Ocean is relatively safe.


    How would the US control the transshipment?

    Like Fuchs, I see no logic here. I don't see that US involvement in Afghanistan supports US interests in Central Asia... if anything, it undermines them. I don't see how Afghanistan has any great strategic significance: if AQ hadn't located there, the US would never have noticed the place; it's a backwater and of no use to anyone. Even the strategic significance of the Central Asian region overall seems to me wildly overrated by people who have a vested interest in overrating it... we see a great deal of that (witness all the "New Silk Road" nonsense), but it really doesn't mean much.
    If Afghanistan was the backwaters, then why did the US squander money, time, resources to evict the Soviets?

    Obviously, for strategic interests.

    Strategic interests do not die overnight.

    Take the example of Iraq. Freedom and Democracy has come to town. Saddam is dead. Mission Accomplished actually!!

    Yet........

    Contours of a large and lasting American presence in Iraq starting to take shape

    Despite Iraqi leaders' insistence that the United States meet its end-of-2011 deadline for withdrawing all troops, the contours of a large and lasting American presence here are starting to take shape........

    The department would use the bases to house a force of private security contractors and support staff that it expects to triple in size, to between 7,000 and 8,000, U.S. officials said.

    Ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iraq will determine the number of contractors and bases, as well as the number of uniformed military personnel the United States hopes to keep here to continue training Iraqi security forces, the officials said.....

    More at:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011204225.html
    I wonder if the strategic interests are overrated by 'vested interests'. I don't think that the people staffing the US Administration are not qualified to chalk out their national aims.

    But then, you maybe right.

    Business could be driving strategy!
    Last edited by Ray; 05-08-2011 at 06:28 AM.

  20. #20
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Selective reading without the context has caused this confusion for you. Read the part. 'Their own', if read in context would reveal is US oil companies.
    Read in context it would reveal that reference, it wouldn't make that reference make any sense. The pipeline would not have belonged to or been controlled by US companies under any of the proposed scenarios.

    I repeat: investment by US companies or participation of US companies in a consortium does not translate to "US control" of the pipeline or whatever flows through it. Citing the pre-70s Saudi Aramco as an example to the contrary is, I fear, ridiculous. We all know business was once done that way. We all know business isn't done that way any more: there's not a sovereign nation on the planet that would accept such an arrangement in today's world. Anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the way Central Asian energy deals are being structured knows that foreign control is simply not an issue: the US is not going to "control" these resources... nor, frankly, does it need to.

    There's been a great deal of utter nonsense written about the proposed TAPI pipeline, and I fear you've bought the lot. The key item of context that's typically missed in these discussions is scale. It's just not that big or important a project. It's not a game-changer; never was.

    The intention of the pipeline was to bring a portion of Turkmenistan's natural gas output south to India and Pakistan. For the Turkmens this was part of an effort to diversify export routes: they were simultaneously developing a larger pipeline to China (now in operation) and building up their links to the Russian gas grid. It wasn't about a seismic shift in policy, just a natural diversification. There's never been any question of the US supplanting Russian and Chinese regional influence, for reasons that will be instantly clear to anyone with access to a map.

    For India and Pakistan the pipeline would have been one source of energy supply among many. It would not have the capacity to meet all their needs and nobody would be foolish enough to rely on a pipeline crossing such a volatile area. Again, a matter of interest but at no point a critical need or a game-changing project.

    In the project's original incarnation, in the Taliban years, the US interest was in using the project as a cash-generating carrot to try to bait more moderate elements in the Taliban into a more engaged stance, and of course the possibility of tossing a project to an American company that was undergoing some hard times (none of the major companies were interested; the project was too small and too risky). Since regime change there have been vague attempts to revive the project, mainly as a way of trying to provide a revenue source for the Afghan government. Of course nobody's really interested in investing, given the security risks.

    There is not and never was any great strategic imperative here on the part of the US. The pipeline would not have given "control" of anything, just the potential for Afghanistan to earn a little money. In the old days that was a possible lever to manipulate the Taliban; more recently it's a possible way to let the Afghan government earn a bit on its own and suck a little less off the great American teat, which is running a bit dry at the moment. It's nowhere nearly as large or important as it's been cranked up to be by people who are trying to construct a case for some "all about oil" scenario or some vast regional strategic imperative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    With the fall of the USSR opportunities opened up in CAR, which is said to be having the world’s largest untapped source of hydrocarbons. The manner in which the CAR nations have been wooed with money, military training et al by the US is well known. It served in a major way, the US business and its strategic interests to foray into CAR.
    Who says the CAR has the world's largest untapped supply of hydrocarbons?

    It's widely believed in energy circles that Caspian reserves have been massively overstated:

    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/86

    Certainly reserves are significant, but by no means unique or spectacular. There is also no need whatsoever for the US to try to control this oil/gas or get it to the US. It makes far more geographic sense to let it flow to China and to Europe through Russia. Of course that poses risks, but not for the US. Long term there's real potential for Russia-China conflict in the area, but that's all the more reason for the US to keep a light footprint.

    Certainly the US has been cozying up to regional governments since the Afghan intervention, but that's more about keeping the northern supply route to Afghanistan open than about trying to "get the oil" or pursue some vast strategic overhaul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Because Gwadar is closer.

    A penny saved is a penny earned!
    Gwadar may be closer, but that's not the source of the gas. When you add in the total transport cost from Turkmenistan, it would be cheaper and far less risky for the Indians to load LNG tankers in Qatar and sail them to Mumbai. Of course the Indians want to diversify their sources of supply, but TAPI was never more than a remote possibility for them and it will not be a major problem for them if it never materializes (very likely).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    If there we no problems the why not let Caspian oil flows through Russia? Why should alternate routes be constructed that avoid Russia?
    It's not an issue for the US. It's an issue for the source countries because if their only export route relies on the Russian grid the Russians get to unilaterally dictate transhipment fees, and sole dependence on Russia for transport would give the Russians more leverage over those countries than they want to allow. Who would want their primary (sole, really) source of revenue completely in the hands of a single foreign country?

    None of the states involved in Caspian oil are trying to cut the Russians out. They are actively developing their connections to the Russian grid and shipping substantial amounts of product through that grid. Like China, Russia is a regional power and nobody in the region wants to piss them off They just don't want to be completely dependent on Russia, quite sensibly. It's diversification, not replacement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Risks are high as of now in Afghanistan.

    Thereafter?
    Risks look likely to be substantial for a long, long time. It's a messy neighborhood and that's not changing any time soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    And what about the positive strategic fallout where Iran is boxed in and Pakistan subdued and weaned away to a great degree from China?
    I don't see how anything under discussion here - or anywhere - would "box in" Iran or subdue Pakistan. This seems a bit of fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    In so far as the oil demand of India and China:

    The country that owns, controls and supplies and feeds this demand is on a win win course.

    Thus, Gwadar.

    Xinjiang is prone to insurgency. Indian Ocean is relatively safe.
    Afghanistan is far more prone to insurgency than Xinjiang, and Xinjiang is under Chinese control, while Afghanistan is not.

    The TAPI was never intended to supply China and would not supply China in any event, so the comparison is really quite irrelevant. Of course China badly wants to give its navy access to an Indian Ocean port - logical, given China's dependence on Middle East oil - but that's about building the capacity to protect access to the ME supply route, not about getting access to the minor stream of gas coming through TAPI. Central Asian oil and gas do flow to China and will continue to flow to China, but not via Afghanistan... that would not be a sensible route at all, again the evidence is on any map.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    If Afghanistan was the backwaters, then why did the US squander money, time, resources to evict the Soviets?

    Obviously, for strategic interests.
    Absurd. The US backed the Afghans against the Soviets because they wanted to weaken the Soviets, not because they had strategic interests in Afghanistan. The US would have backed anyone who was fighting the Soviets. Surely you noted that once the Soviets were gone the US dropped Afghanistan like a hot potato, and showed no interest in it at all until AQ settled there. The only interest the US had in Afghanistan in that period was as a means to weaken the Soviets: the Soviet presence and its capacity to drain the Soviet regime were the only strategic interests.

    Face it: the US doesn't want Afghanistan. Nobody wants Afghanistan. It's a monumental headache with no strategic or economic value whatsoever. All the rapturous conspiracy theorizing in the world can't make it anything other than that.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 05-09-2011 at 02:26 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan: A Silk Road Strategy
    By gbramlet in forum Blog Watch
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 06:17 AM
  2. Why The US Is In Afghanistan?
    By slapout9 in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 04:04 AM
  3. Afghanistan: The Dysfunctional War
    By DGreen in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 07:44 PM
  4. Security and Stability in Afghanistan
    By SWJED in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 12:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •