Just curious about all these contradictory frameworks. If Afghanistan is actually a fractured (valleys), regional, or multi-ethnic non-melting pot, what exactly drives and supports the all or nothing framework of "Taliban vs. Non-Taliban."

Why not, for example, just arm the hell out of the other minorities, then get out of the way.

Dahuyan's point about classic colonialism is strong, but why would China want the trouble or bother of managing "Afghanistan." They just want unfettered access and influence over the resources that matter to them (which are not really national, are they?).

In Africa, they are not out to control deserts or cities (no governance interest whatsoever)---just the resources.

The people, within what ever "terms of trade" allow, and protection of China's interests from harm, are free to do what ever they want culturally, socially, religiously, and politically.

We somehow have an interest in dominating an area governmentally and societally which is very bizarre, and has no obvious "resource" purposes, other than drone and landing rights.

Hard to find any other examples of this.