Yea but what does a kitten died mean?
Originally Posted by carl
AFG may be closer, but it's not useful.
The relation between Indonesian and Thailand on the one hand and AFG on the other is basically nil.
China has a few kilometres border with AFG, but that means pretty much nothing. It's the empty end of China.
India is behind Pakistan. Effect from AFG on India - nil.
Yea but what does a kitten died mean?
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Mike,
Having observed various posts here and in other threads, I found that they were oriented towards the western point of view.
Nothing wrong there, except all the battlefields have shifted to the East, populated by people, most of whom have no clue of western ways or sensibilities. They obviously would not respond as desired to the western thought. The result would be what it is now! Doldrums! And at what a cost!
I thought it would be worthwhile to append a few links that are from the Orient so that you all get an overall picture and understand the Oriental psychology.
Since the SWJ is populated with highly placed professional and some, who I presume, play a role in policy making, I thought it would be right that one projects to them the Oriental viewpoint so that it would be mutually beneficial and campaigns come to a conclusive and correct end.
There is no doubt that in article from the Orient there will be sentences aimed to inflame the western reader. I think it is done with a purpose. Everyone is aware that Pax Americana has replaced Pax Britannica and no matter how many US Flags are burnt and demonstrations held, all are aware that but for the US, there would be chaos in the third world order.
The thought of having quasi democracy controlled by the Army, wimps ruling democracies, autocratic Sultans and dictators under every stone, is scary. Democracies in the West have stabilised and so all look West.
All are aware that the US wants to reel in, from its overseas campaigns, for obvious reasons.
That is why the authors inflame the American reader to act with anger and say 'OK, we will show you who is patriotic and not patriotic'. Inflame them so that they remain and bring some order, even if chaotic, at least not anarchic as it would be if it were in the hands of the wild.
Notwithstanding, what the author's line is to 'convince' the reader to his point of view, since in the East (apart from Pakistan) there is a serious worry of Russia and China projecting their hegemonic aspirations. It is better to have rough Pollyannas of the West than the Jackboots of Russia and China.
Let me give you another example of the Oriental approach - the killing of OBL.
While secretly all are delighted that he has been killed, yet if you visit websites of the East, you will find that while all find it fine that the bloke is dead and gone, yet political correctness makes many comment on violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan. I am sure it will inflame many Americans, but then that is how the pennies fall in these parts.
While there is no doubt that the patriotic reference is off colour, yet, what is important to note is the apprehension that the article indicates if the US pulls out.
I, for one, am not convinced that the US intervened in Afghanistan to 'teach OBL and AQ a lesson'. I am sure the Americans know better than many, that you can kill an individual, but you cannot kill a thought/idea. Neither, it is true that the US went into Iraq to bring 'Freedom and Democracy' nor was it for oil alone. It was a strategic compulsion to squeeze Russia from the South as the US did by squeezing from the West and then later have those Colour and Floral Revolutions. Likewise, I feel that the US entered the 'cockpit' of the world to exert its influence and reinforce its influence on the southern belly of Russia, peek into China and control indirectly the Uyghurs to extend the US influence and to look East towards Pakistan and India.
If one recollects, what powers the economy is Oil and 60% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz and the Indian Ocean. I daresay the US is keen to abdicate its supremacy in the world. Therefore, it is essential to keep a thumb over the sealanes in the Indian Ocean. And who is the US' challenger? China!! And China is oil hungry. Therefore, where is the stranglehold if the push comes to shove? Obviously, the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca. The Chinese are no fools and so they are building oil pipeline and highways from Gwadar through Baluchistan via the Karakorum to Xinjiang and thence to Mainland China. China is also doing the same in Myanmar connecting the Myanmar ports to Mainland China and in this instant case, apart from the oil pipeline, the highway, also a rail link!! Thereby even if the Straits of Malacca is blocked oil will still go through to China.
What is the most critical issue in this Gameplan to contain China and like it or not the US is trying its best to contain China, but more of that as we go along. The most critical chokepoint is Straits of Hormuz and who control the flanks? Bahrain, Oman and Iran. That is why while the US is inflamed with Gaddafi and it human rights violation, it is not so with the Sultan of Bahrain, who is no less a despot running a riot on the majority Shias! Note Shias. And, guess what? Iran is Shia and sort of a mentor for all Shias! Dangerous, if nothing else. The current regime in Iran is virulently anti US. Like it or not, the US is keen that this regime goes and so it is doing everything to ensure that it goes. And one day it will go.
That takes me to Baluchistan. If Baluchistan is on the boil it will squeeze Iran from both sides - Iraq and from Baluchistan. And Iran's East is Baluchis! Therefore, enough reasons to foment an Independent Balochistan movement. That will also sort out Pakistan and if one goes through history one will understand the equation of the Balochis with Afghanistan. That is why Balochi rebel leaders find sanctuary in Afghanistan!!
If Baluchistan is 'free', and Afghanistan brought under some control, the Caspian oil shall flow to Gwadar and thence onto the two nations that are hungry for oil - India and China. And since it will be under US control, the finger on the jugular will always be there!! Rule Americana!! I don't think I am to remind that Karzai was selected, yes selected to lead Afghanistan and still being allowed inspite of corruption, is because he is an UNOCAL man, even though I believe UNOCAL is now defunct.
India is being wooed, not only for its market or as an instrument to keep China in check, but also to keep the Bay of Bengal under US surveillance so that, when required the ports of Myanmar which connect to China are nullified. That is why the Indian US Naval exercises take place mainly in the Bay of Bengal with some other navies thrown in, to throw off the scent!
Well I can go on.
Lastly, as I said somewhere in this forum if one reads Dick Cheney's 'Defence Policy Guidelines' when he was the Secretary of Defence and also his National Energy Policy (I don't remember the exact title), one will realise that what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and is happening is but a flow out of these two excellent strategic papers!
Even Rumsfeld (I know you all don't like him) has said in 2001 that he wanted an American boot or bomb to be anywhere in the world within two hours of identifying a threat to the US!
I don't expect anyone to take this without raising their eyebrows, but this is just another thought as to why US will not totally pack its bag from Afghanistan or even Iraq.
Last edited by Ray; 05-05-2011 at 07:41 AM.
Fuch,
Why did Obama's tour have a long trip of India, Indonesia and Japan extensively?
And why is Vietnam cosying up to the US and vice versa?
I am sure he was not visiting as a tourist, because he missed the Taj Mahal, Bali and the Fuji Yama.
And why were the Chinese dailies infuriated with the Obama visit and wailing shrilly that the US was trying to contain China?
If Turkey was that important in the western strategic matrix, why is it being denied EU status when other nondescript counties of the erstwhile eastern block and breadbasket cases being welcomed with open arms?
Last edited by Ray; 05-05-2011 at 07:43 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.If the US interest in CAR and Afghanistan were not strategically important it would have not spooked China as is evident from the above.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
This will also be of interest to know the US Russia equation: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
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.
Nothing shaky really.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.
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:
There are enough links to indicate the interest and control of CAR oil by US companies. Google is you wish.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t find any confusion though.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.
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:
The connection of Afghanistan and CAR oil: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 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 )
Because Gwadar is closer.Why would the Indians do that when the Arabian Gulf is so near at hand? The Caspian isn't the only source of oil.
A penny saved is a penny earned!
Wherever the Caspian oil flows, transit fees will be levied.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.
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:
The country that owns, controls and supplies and feeds this demand is on a win win course.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
Thus, Gwadar.
Xinjiang is prone to insurgency. Indian Ocean is relatively safe.
If Afghanistan was the backwaters, then why did the US squander money, time, resources to evict the Soviets?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.
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........
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.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
But then, you maybe right.
Business could be driving strategy!
Last edited by Ray; 05-08-2011 at 06:28 AM.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Risks look likely to be substantial for a long, long time. It's a messy neighborhood and that's not changing any time soon.
I don't see how anything under discussion here - or anywhere - would "box in" Iran or subdue Pakistan. This seems a bit of fantasy.
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.
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.
Taliban & Co. want it and the Pak Army/ISI want them to have it. A lot of other people don't want them to have it. Therein lies the conflict. It may get very, very big.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Read in context is precisely means read in context.
Since we are going nowhere, here is a link:
If you wish to project otherwise, one cannot help in anyway to dispel your belief. After all, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception
The world that people know is the one they take in through their senses. This is the world they react to—the one their conscious thoughts, feelings, and actions are predicated on. People act on the presumption that the world they are consciously aware of is a comprehensive and accurate representation of the environment that exactly copies the outside world as it truly is.
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/n...006%20jpsp.pdf
One could state that it is universally applicable.
US control does mean the US govt will have influence on the manner the oil supply affects US strategic and national aims. I would be surprised if it didn’t.
I have provided adequate links to show the interconnection between US business and the US Govt, to include how the CIA is also used.
The Aramco deal was just an example. Obviously, it did not appeal to you. There are many others to include Untied Fruits, but then that too is dated.
Let us take an example nearer to time.
Hugo Chavez!
To believe that there has been no effort to topple Hugo Chavez notwithstanding so many links in the open source would not be ingenuous. And to believe that it was not only for strategic reasons but also because of US Business interests would be totally naïve.
Many trash non Anglo Saxon links as ‘motivated’. So, here is an Anglo Saxon link to leave no doubt.
That apart, here is the relationship between business and US national and strategic interestsVenezuela coup linked to Bush team
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time…….
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair……
The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002.../usa.venezuela
Now, apart from the business interest spurring US Administration’s policy, here is an indicator how hungry the US is for oil and more importantly, CONTROLLING oil.The class character of the coup was made obvious by the corrupt Venezuelan oligarchy when its forces installed big business association (Federcamaras) boss Pedro Carmona as interim president. One of Carmona's first moves was to reverse the Chavez government's package of laws which benefited the country's poor majority.
And here is the long terms US Administration’s interest apart from promoting US business and having them manipulate foreign countries to be subservient to US policies and Strategic Aims.The interests of the US in Venezuela are partly economic. Venezuela is the world's fourth largest oil exporter and the number three oil supplier to the US. With the instability in the Middle East, the US needs other guaranteed sources of oil.
Three attempts were made to topple Hugo Chavez!However, US interests in Venezuela go well beyond oil. Throughout Latin America, the US is facing a growing revolt against privatisation and deregulation, which have been implemented at the insistences of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US government. As deep economic and social crises grip the continent, Washington fears further radicalisation in other Latin American countries.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/27251
It is also very obvious that while the US Govt does not have stocks in US Business companies, it promotes wholeheartedly US Business and uses it to further US strategic aims by influencing foreign govts to be subservient through the economic instrument provided by US Business in situ.
Could I ask you to just answer one question to allay any doubts?
Why does the US Govt go out of the way to topple Govts, nurture dictators and authoritarian Sultans , uses Govt instruments like the Armed Forces, CIA?
Is it with the sole purpose to spread Freedom and Democracy and for Altruist and philanthropic reasons?
The answer would adequate rest the case.
I am afraid, the US will and is controlling the oil of the Caspian and US requires to do so to ease the unemployment as also have the economic advantage as a payoff to offset its dire financial state. And alongside business spinoffs, further a robust strategic influence to ‘preempt action against potential threats, and the prevent the emergence of regional rivals’. More of this in the last paragraph of this post.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-09-2011 at 11:03 AM. Reason: Fix quote
contd from above
Indeed, a great deal of utter nonsense written about the proposed TAPI pipeline, and your fear you've bought the lot maybe true. But then I am looking at it from the geostrategic standpoint devoid of emotions and what is available as open source.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.
Let us look at the TAPI from the US standpoint (taking it that the insurgency is over/ controlled to the US’ advantage). What are the advantages to the US?
1. It will boost the US economy unless they repatriate the money to tax havens or to non US banks.
2. It will give employment to many US citizens, white collar and blue collar and reduce US unemployment figure.
3. Note the positive political fallout for the President who does that.
4. Strategically, it will box Iran from two sides i.e. Balochistan and Iraq.
5. The US will be able to keep Eastern Iran on the boil with the help of the Sunni Jhundallah making forays from Balochistan.
6. The US can use oil as an economic ‘weapon’ against India as also China, if exporting to China through Gwadar (lest you contest that US does not use ‘strings’ in their foreign policy, there are adequate links to indicate that US does).
7. By having a ‘lien’, or if you wish, a ‘presence’ in Gwadar, it will nullify Chinese interest in this region; and if not nullify, monitor the Chinese activities there and even use the CIA to further US interests as it has done so successfully in Pakistan.
8. By using Gwadar, the US will have legitimate reason to have a US sizeable naval presence in the Indian Ocean in general and the Arabian Sea in particular.
9. The entry to the Straits of Hormuz, through which 60% of the world oil moves will be effectively controlled.
10. In the event, Iran scuttles ships to block the Straits of Hormuz, the US will be able to effectively remove it from the South from Gwadar and not depend on the Bahrain Base, where it can be challenged by Iran just across the Straits. It may also be noted that Bahrain has a Shia majority which can become pro Iran. (you may contest this, but when it comes to religion and sect, they side their religion and sect notwithstanding the where the rationale should lie. The worldwide prayers for the No 1 terrorist of the world, Osama, are cases in point!)
Now, compare the advantages economic and strategic in pumping CAR oil of US companies through Chinese pipeline.
In addition, if there is no TAPI, then the huge Indian oil and gas market would be lost and India may go in for Iran Pakistan India pipeline and give the required financial lifeline to Iran and to the US’ disadvantage.
Now comes the real McCoy! If indeed the TAPI pipeline was ‘utter nonsense’ as you put it, then maybe this may interest you that some are not taking it to be ‘utter nonsense’.
The dateline may be worth noting!TAPI gas pipeline talks begins
April 26, 2011 18:33 IST
The four nations to the US- backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline project began discussing gas sales and other details of the $ 7.6 billion project, but are unlikely to conclude any agreement at the end of four day talk this week….
http://www.rediff.com/business/repor...s/20110426.htm
As far as the Caspian pipelines the intention of the Caspian pipelines is not in any way US Administration’s philanthropic zeal.
And, yes, I have a map, if not many and in different scales too (since you raise that issue)! The maps and the facts available in the open sources do not indicate that the US is around the Caspian just for the business companies alone!!
I daresay the US Govt is supporting US Oil companies in the Caspian merely to buttress efforts, to help Russian growth by building up their links to the Russian gas grid.
The undermentioned prompt my contention.
Here is a snip on Russian Growth and oil
And on Russia’s economic growth and Russia’s negative influence on the Western world."Oil is very interesting because energy companies in Russia are the cheapest globally, and demand from emerging economies is going to be higher," says Ghadir Abu Leil-Cooper, head of Europe Middle East and Africa equities at Barings, reached in London. Economic stimulus in China is focused on infrastructure spending that is pushing up commodity prices and directly benefiting Russia, Dr. Abu Leil-Cooper says.
http://www.excelfunds.com/media/news..._IntheNews.pdf
I am sorry I have to append such a long extract because I find that it has become necessary to do so, so that things could be seen it a greater perspective than is being seen so far and the obvious is required to be explained.Russia’s economic revival in the last decade has been remarkable. Gross domestic product per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity, increased from less than $7,000 in 1999 to almost $16,000 in 2008—around that of Ireland in 1987 or Portugal in 1989.14 The government repaid all its loans to the IMF and reduced its foreign debt to about 2 percent of GDP, less than the annual state deficit of many G20 countries.15 Even after the recent global crisis, Russia’s currency reserves—just $8 billion in 1999—stood at $476 billion, the third largest in the world, exceeded only by those of China and Japan.1 Incomes of both rich and poor Russians surged, rising by more than 8 percent a year in 2000-08….
In recent years, they have set up a state corporation to develop nanotechnology and an “innovation city” outside Moscow to incubate high technology projects….
In 2008 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned that Europe risked being caught in “an energy stranglehold” by “states such as Russia,” that were “increasingly using their energy resources as policy tools.”……
Conscious of this, the Kremlin has been understandably unenthusiastic about projects to build competing pipelines that would supply Europe with gas from Central Asia….
Russia‟s second key interest is in the prevalence of friendly governments in neighboring states….
Some see in Putin‟s foreign policy a more sinister design: to reimpose Russian hegemony over the former Soviet states, and perhaps even parts of Eastern Europe, by means of economic and military pressures and threats…..
Why the US needs Russia
You may like to read the same from the link.
Does Russia need the US?
For the reasons just discussed, Russia‟s cooperation could make a big difference to the success or failure of American global policies. But is the reverse true? Does Russia need Washington‟s help to achieve its key goals? The short answer is no.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac...pt282010FA.pdf
Therefore, given the growth of Russia and knowing that Russia appears to be holding the trumps, it is obvious that wily nily the US Administration or US Companies will NOT help broaden the Russia CAR grid so as to make US interests more difficult to sustain.
contd from above
Your contention – 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, is rather youthful.
It is engaging to learn that the US was planning to go through such an extensive and time-consuming exercise of building a pipeline, pumping oil, the guarding the pipeline against terrorist forays and losing more American lives than already is being done, merely to organise a ‘cash generating carrot’!!!! I seriously cannot subscribe to such a thought since I hold the US policymakers in greater esteem than what such a thought would suggest.
I feel so more because would not it have been easier to simply stash in a lesser amount in Swiss banks for anyone who has to be lured with a ‘carrot’? It would surely save the bother and American lives.
The article states What is seldom pointed out in such articles, however, is that these Caspian “oil riches” are essentially a myth manufactured by the United States Geological Service (USGS), the US Energy Information Administration (EIA),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
It merely proves my point that US Administration’s strategic aims can be ‘manufactured’ to suit Business companies. Since the US business is accountable to the stock holders, it is convenient for ‘sponsored’ hype (call it myth, if you wish) by the Management so as to expand the business to the best of the Management’s interest and what could be better than having Govt agencies endorsement?
This article was published Sep 30 2003.
And when did the exploitation by Eni/Agip, BG, BP, ExxonMobil, Inpex, Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil, and TotalFinaElf started?
Could this also not be in the realm of ‘sponsored’ news?
If Venezuelan oil and business can excite toppling of Hugo Chavez, then the CAR oil in comparison is huge and the strategic interest larger as explained earlier!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.
Geoplotics and geostrategy is not a ONE POINT agenda. The inputs are best explained by the Chinese concept of CNP (Comprehensive National Power).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.
It would be worth the while to see how much of oil is being hauled for the ISAF through the Northern Route.
This is from my archives. You may Google, if you feel that it is not correct.The NDN (Northern Distribution Network (NDN)) has also become a key component of ISAF’s fuel-supply infrastructure. During 2009, its daily fuel consumption increased from 2 million to 4.1m litres per day, meaning that more fuel had to be imported via Afghanistan’s northern borders. According to the DLA, approximately 40% of the fuel contracted by the US
Defense Energy Support Center is produced in Pakistani refineries and transported via truck into Afghanistan, while the fuel that it acquires from Central Asia (in particular Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan) accounts for approximately 60% of the overall contracted volumes and is shipped via the NDN.
NATO has also begun using the NDN.
I have explained it earlier in this post.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).
If TAPI was a fantasy, then Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India would not be discussing it as late as 2011!!
(link given above)
What is the cost of pumping oil vs carting it in tankers? I wonder if tankers come cheaper than oil pipelines.
The ideal, if you want to know, is the Iran – Pakistan – pipeline. But then……
Again the victim of geopolitics and geostrategy that is not only triggered by US Administration’s strategic interest, but also by US business interests and in this case, the US oil lobbies!
The easiest, economical and safest way to cart CAR oil to ports and thence onwards is through Iran!!
Guess why this is not going to happen?
US Administration’s strategic and business interests.
And we say there is no connection between the US strategic and business interest!!!!!
One has to only look at the US Strategic Policy and what I have appended earlier.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.
Russia feels cut off.
And others are not quite making the desired inroads, except China to some extent.
Fortune favours the brave.Risks look likely to be substantial for a long, long time. It's a messy neighborhood and that's not changing any time soon.
Fantasy to those not in the region.I don't see how anything under discussion here - or anywhere - would "box in" Iran or subdue Pakistan. This seems a bit of fantasy.
But no fantasy to Pakistan.
They have made muted noises against US, but they have made India the US proxy of problems in Balochistan.
Google!
But how long does it take the US to make the cold area ‘warm’? They are no greenhorns in the game either!!Afghanistan is far more prone to insurgency than Xinjiang, and Xinjiang is under Chinese control, while Afghanistan is not.
Take Tibet. India is blamed by the Chinese. But guess from where the new Prime Minster of Tibet was elected and where did he get his instructions to higher education?
I wouldn’t know if TAPI was for China, but then open sources indicate it so and I am tired of appending links.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.
Take it or leave it.
I hope you are aware of Chinese fuel needs and if it is being met.
So, I take it that the US backed and sponsored Mujhahiddens in Afghanistan to weaken USSR. Is that not a strategic intent?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.
And the US having created the Islamic Frankenstein who is battling the US worldwide, and who the US is hell bent in destroying, is not a strategic intent?
And in not leaving Pakistan and Afghanistan to once again become a factory to take the Islamic war to the US not a strategic intent?
Afghanistan is not an economic value? What are the Chinese doing there? Distributing Mao’s Red Book?
With all regards, don’t you think you are defending the indefensible with contentions that the pipeline is an attempt to dangle carrots or that the US has no strategic or economic interest in the CAR and Afghanistan?
Why do I feel that the US policymakers are neither naïve, simpletons or globetrotting Pollyannas?
contd from above
Because it would be worthwhile to read the following regarding the US Strategy formulation and then judging them.
One could trash the 1992 Defence Policy Guidelines, but the events that have occurred is totally copybook to what it enunciated.The 1992 Defense Policy Guidance, crafted by then-Defense Department staffers I. Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz at the behest of Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, is widely regarded as an early formulation of the neoconservatives' post-cold war agenda. When a draft version of the policy guidance, which typically outlines the U.S. defense posture and goals, was leaked to the New York Times, the ensuing public outcry prompted the White House to order a new guidance. Of the many points causing controversy were the document's call for unilateral military action in parts of the world considered important to U.S. interests, preemptive action against potential threats, and the prevention of the emergence of regional rivals.
The guidance argued: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
When the Bush administration released the unclassified version of its National Security Strategy, observers remarked on the many similarities between the draft guidance and the new strategy, particularly their mutual call for a preemptive defense posture. The guidance also bears a striking resemblance to the founding statement of principles of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), released on June 3, 1997. Not too surprisingly, Wolfowitz and Libby--who both serve in the Bush II Pentagon--were signatories to the statement, along with Cheney and several other current Bush officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, and Elliott Abrams.
Like the guidance, the PNAC statement called for U.S. global leadership and preemptive action, arguing, "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/wolf.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nss-020920.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm
Political parties in Government can change in a country, but rarely is there any drastic change in strategy or policies, the on and oft pious platitude and mealy mouthed proclamation notwithstanding.
The Obama Administration does not show any signs of backtracking from these Guidelines, for it were to do so, why are they still wanting to have well staffed Bases in Iraq? I gave a link earlier, which you avoid answer.
And this part is important to note:
If the US is not relinquishing its interest in Iraq, it would be extraordinary to feel that the Obama Administration would drastically go contrary to the strategic line so far adopted in so far as Afghanistan is concerned."There are three additional aspects to this objective:
First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.
Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/wolf.html
Osama maybe dead, but is the AQ and the terrorists a dead issue?
And where is the womb of International Terrorism and who (which country) harbour, nurtures and protects them?
I wonder if the Obama Administration will have the ‘nous’ to abdicate the mission and allow 9/11 to be re-enacted again.
In conclusion, I am only an observer of the strategic realm and my views are based on reading and mulling from open sources.
It matters not in the least for me if the US quits Afghanistan or not.
It is for the US Administration to take the call. I have no idea of how deep an effect the loss of American lives have on the formulation of the US national and strategic aims and I also don’t know if the US is ready to lose all that it built up so assiduously over the Cold War era to become the sole superpower to adversaries waiting in the wings with bated and eager anticipation.
The US activities, the US policy postulations in the open source arena or even the US reaction to the killing of Osama in a true US fashion of brushing aside all international niceties to achieve the US aim (and I have been flooded with telephone calls not only from the Anglo Saxon Americans but also the non Anglo Saxon segment exuding total glee that none can take the US to be fools) , leads me to believe that US is not in the least philanthropic nor a pushover when it comes to ensuring its national and strategic aim and its position that it continues and will continue in its pursuit to be the sole superpower of the world and also the global policeman and that it will brook no obstacles to that aim.
The US is no Sugar Daddy to the world’s Little Orphan Annies! Sugar Daddy Warbucks for sure!
There's so much nonsense and noise of irrelevant stuff in your posts that I'll simply pick only one part in order to save time:
You should seriously check whether you've got what it takes to think about (geo)strategy, and you should begin the check at this quote. It's utter nonsense.
For starters, you are asserting a completely wrong figure.
The crude oil production of all Persian Gulf countries is much less than 30 % of world crude oil production. NOT 60%.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2173rank.html
Furthermore, not all of their oil production is being exported through the Gulf of Hormuz.
Next, the entire idea that a pipeline could lend control of a distant strait is total BS.
And that's how it goes on all the time in your replies. It's as if you were writing "I don't think clearly, but this is what I can dream up and what I picked up off some recent fashion." a hundred times.
Or, to be more gentle: You should seriously think about connecting dots instead of spraying them.
I don't see how any of that demonstrates anything but a penchant for verbosity... perhaps you'd care to break off just a single little piece of it for discussion? There's just too much volume there, and too much of it completely peripheral, to wade through and try to distill out the point,
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks