Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

[jmm99]

The suggested article did not move me in the least - except for its use of the "Great Game" terminology. It is not our (US) "Great Game", as far as I am concerned.

The article BTW makes the assertion that:

It boggles our mind that reasonably patriotic Americans can even consider leaving Afghanistan for the next 10-15 years.

So, according to that assertion, I am not a "reasonably patriotic American". To that assertion and similar assertions (note the attack on the message), I say what I have said during and since Vietnam - FOAD.

Just to make it clear, Ray, my message to the "assertion" is definitely not directed at you. You just provided the link and may well have not even realized the impact (on such as me and my ilk) of the pathetic "reasonably patriotic American" piece of cant by the website's author. Them's fighting words in my little neck of the woods.

Here's a point from the article:

Unlike Iraq in 2006, this World wants America to stay in Afghanistan. This is of course the real World - India, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, the Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan.

So, let the "Real World" (sans USA) duly occupy Astan and they all can exploit it. And, if they can't put together an "international mandate" (isn't the Middle East of post-WWI, just such a wonderful example - that's being sarcastic, folks), let them fight, etc., etc.

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

Caspian oil shall flow to Gwadar and thence onto the two nations that are hungry for oil - India and China.

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.