Trump Wishes Americans Stayed in Afghanistan To Fight China

[Alter_Ego]

India probably demanded a presence in Afghanistan to disturb Pakistan.

They had huge intelligence apparatus in Afghanistan who fled back to India after Taliban victory. India wouldnt dare land any troops in Afghanistan as they know the soldiers would return back in coffins.

 

[Dalit]

They had huge intelligence apparatus in Afghanistan who fled back to India after Taliban victory. India wouldnt dare land any troops in Afghanistan as they know the soldiers would return back in coffins.

Absolutely. Enormous intel base. Despite such a humongous network of intel and such a large coalition force they fought for two decades like a chicken without any direction. The Afghans and Indians dictated the terms. Pakistan was always pointed out as the culprit. My firm belief is that US/NATO absolutely underestimated Pakistan. They took Pakistan for granted. They didn’t take Pakistan’s concerns seriously and paid the price.

 

[FuturePAF]

The problem is that the US/NATO occupation wasn’t commercial. It was purely security and specifically aimed at setting up a base against Pakistan, China and Iran. The Americans never lied about their intentions. The Bahrain airbase was a supposed to serve as a spying den against many neighbouring nations. Bagram was the unholy place where US/NATO and their Communist Afghan friends used to scheme against Pakistan.

I know this is why I say American troops in Afghanistan won’t be a win for Pakistan. It will just make Pakistan pay for moves the US does from Afghanistan.

Better to get the afghans to work with Pakistan to create a commercial corridor to Central Asia open to most foreign nations (basically not Indians), and stay out of global conflicts. IK is the only leaders the afghans know they can trust from Pakistan, and that we Pakistanis know will stand up for Pakistani interests without giving bases to foreign powers. So in a new IK government, a new realistic understanding can be made with the Afghans, we can link Afghanistan’s development with Pakistan’s development and make Pakistan relevant in the global economy quicker (not wait 10 years till the IPP debt is paid off) then we could just on the basis of our population size and potential to become more productive in our current industries.

When the two countries are working together they can start by bringing in the GCC investors (who are looking to diversify), and in exchange the Afghan rulers will have the funds to have open access to the facilities of GCC countries while their domestic infrastructure (or Pakistani infrastructure) is being built up.

Letting in western investors afterwards can then be on Pakistani and Afghan terms. Never involving any troops or bases.

 

[AJKashmir1]

IK is the only leaders the afghans know they can trust from Pakistan, and that we Pakistanis know will stand up for Pakistani interests without giving bases to foreign powers. So in a new IK government, a new realistic understanding can be made with the Afghans, we can link Afghanistan’s development with Pakistan’s development and make Pakistan relevant in the global economy quicker (not wait 10 years till the IPP debt is paid off) then we could just on the basis of our population size and potential to become more productive in our current industries.

When the two countries are working together they can start by bringing in the GCC investors (who are looking to diversify), and in exchange the Afghan rulers will have the funds to have open access to the facilities of GCC countries while their domestic infrastructure (or Pakistani infrastructure) is being built up.

Letting in western investors afterwards can then be on Pakistani and Afghan terms. Never involving any troops or bases.

None of this will happen man it's pure delusion, and the biggest reason is because the Afghans don't want it.

It's like saying "we will beg the Israelis to give back the Palestinians their country and all will be fine" as if it will ever happen

 

[j_hungary]

Your answer is frank and sincere,a kind of realism and Darwinism,which is better than most western politicians or Chinese who hate their own country.

You know something about Chinese history. I'm not sure if you're of Chinese descent.The 5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms were the most divided period in China, including the Three Kingdoms period, where division and chaos meant war and death, and this chaos could even spill over to neighboring countries. This period is similar to that of World War II, when various forces competed for power and territory.But when China was dominated by one power, the society was stable, the Han Empire and the Tang Empire. If you read more Chinese history. You will find the kings of China governed the country in two ways, "霸道" and "王道". "霸道", like the way the United States dominates the world today, which has been proven by many dynasties to be insustainable. The other "王道" is a way of asking kings to be benevolent, moral, and fair.

The world does need a force to maintain order, whether it is called "police", "security guard", or even "mafia and Yamaguchi-gumi".I don't want to play with words or make moral judgments. The reality is that more and more people around the world are dissatisfied with this "rules-based international order" and a lot of people are trying to break it.

No one thinks that without United States there would be no war and chaos. People just feel that it's time for a change of "security guard". The next thirty years will be more chaotic, and then the world will get a new order.
"天下大势，合久必分，分久必合“

Two things I wanted to say.

First, when China was dominated by one single party, you can see that as strength but you can also see that as weakness. Why? If you look at Chinese history, what followed Han and Tang Dynasty? That Three Kingdom (after Han) and 5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms )(After Tang). There are probably only 2 times in the entire Chinese history before modern China when a consolidated China handed power (albeit violently) another consolidated power. That's from 秦 (Qin Dynasty) which arguably the first time China proper being unified and from 隋 (Sui Dynasty) which only last for 30 years or something like that. And then you are talking about anything post Yuan Dynasty

The most "stable" period is always followed by the most "unstable" period. The reason being so is the monarchy system where 1 man (usually a man, except for "武則天") rule the entire country, first, it is very susceptible to the opinion on the people around the king, second, it's like trying to Band-Aid a country by yourself, you just can't do it if and when everything start falling apart. Unlike European Monarchy, the King governs the kingdom, but then there are things like Privy Council that advice the King.

Which mean, the problem for Europe, especially in WW2, is not stemming from their own governance, but rather the greed/motivation of others. On the other hand, the dynasties in China always followed an explosive with an implosion. That's the different here.

My second point is, nothing last forever, would US still be dominated in 50 years' time? I don't know, but then the issue here is, if it wasn't, that could not be because some country in the global south don't like the US, that can only be either a better country emerge and replace the US with a better portfolio, or another World War that devastated the world and redrawing the world order, that is the way it can only happened. Simply because the rule based order is strong, while you may or may not like the American foreign policy, you still need to deal with America, and if you have any problem with it, you are not just going to see the big stick of America, but rather a coalition of countries who are going to do the American bidding because it wanted to stay on the good side of the world order.

 

[j_hungary]

The Talibs should find a way to mend fences with their neighbors to be seen as a stable force in the region and not one that extra-regional powers can convince the neighbors to get rid of.

Considering Afghanistan’s need to manage their water resources (coming from the rivers from Tajikistan) to go big in mining, they should look for a deal between themselves, Tajikistan, China, and Pakistan. A dam on the Amu darya and Chitral rivers in exchange for a connection to the Pakistani power grid and a rail line between Chitral (KPK; Pakistan proper for all international intents and purposes) and Tajikistan.

Tajikistan is the neighbor that would most want to see the talibs out of power, but if there was an economic incentive to work with them, it could create the foundations for a long term relationship. Otherwise, neighboring countries wouldn’t really care if their regime endured or not.

Don't know how much you know about Afghanistan and Taliban.

But at least from the time I was in Afghanistan. Taliban may be the government, but like the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, basically it's just a face, they may have control of the central government, but Afghanistan is always, ALWAYS controlled by different warlord fraction, especially when you are talking about mine and other natural resource, and that is the reason why Afghanistan was such a failed state, because they are constantly at war, these warlord always at each other throat.

If you had dealt with these so called "regional leader" from the time I was in Afghanistan, you will find the normal everyday crooked, corrupted Afghan politician a breathe of fresh air. And then people say the central government back then was bad........

 

[SteppeWolff]

US force will never stay in their own border

That's true, invasion of Iraq in 2003 or uninvited deployments around oil wells in Syria.

You need a body to tower over everyone so people would think twice before starting a war.

Yes but not a power that illegally invades other nations, destabilize nations or goad em into wars.

 

[617ah]

Two things I wanted to say.

First, when China was dominated by one single party, you can see that as strength but you can also see that as weakness. Why? If you look at Chinese history, what followed Han and Tang Dynasty? That Three Kingdom (after Han) and 5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms )(After Tang). There are probably only 2 times in the entire Chinese history before modern China when a consolidated China handed power (albeit violently) another consolidated power. That's from 秦 (Qin Dynasty) which arguably the first time China proper being unified and from 隋 (Sui Dynasty) which only last for 30 years or something like that. And then you are talking about anything post Yuan Dynasty

The most "stable" period is always followed by the most "unstable" period. The reason being so is the monarchy system where 1 man (usually a man, except for "武則天") rule the entire country, first, it is very susceptible to the opinion on the people around the king, second, it's like trying to Band-Aid a country by yourself, you just can't do it if and when everything start falling apart. Unlike European Monarchy, the King governs the kingdom, but then there are things like Privy Council that advice the King.

Which mean, the problem for Europe, especially in WW2, is not stemming from their own governance, but rather the greed/motivation of others. On the other hand, the dynasties in China always followed an explosive with an implosion. That's the different here.

My second point is, nothing last forever, would US still be dominated in 50 years' time? I don't know, but then the issue here is, if it wasn't, that could not be because some country in the global south don't like the US, that can only be either a better country emerge and replace the US with a better portfolio, or another World War that devastated the world and redrawing the world order, that is the way it can only happened. Simply because the rule based order is strong, while you may or may not like the American foreign policy, you still need to deal with America, and if you have any problem with it, you are not just going to see the big stick of America, but rather a coalition of countries who are going to do the American bidding because it wanted to stay on the good side of the world order.

Regarding the siege of a country by the alliance of states, this has happened many times in Chinese history, called the "Six Kingdoms Attack on Qin", and the result must be very clear to you.
The collapse of the empire did not begin with the challenger defeating the empire and his minions. This kind of story also happened in Chinese history, "Zheng Zhuang Gong shot an arrow at Zhou Tianzi". Once the empire begins to decay, will the Empire's minions help the Empire or preemptively kill the Empire first? It's going to be a lot of fun.

 

[j_hungary]

Regarding the siege of a country by the alliance of states, this has happened many times in Chinese history, called the "Six Kingdoms Attack on Qin", and the result must be very clear to you.

This is what I meant, there is a reason why it was so hard for China to unify as a single entity, it wasn't happening even today (with the ROC split) and for the moment a single entity ruled over China, it will split back up again in an even more specular fashion. As I mentioned before, that's different path than why Europe is constantly at war.

And I will say it's more like 6 warlords than 6 kingdoms.

The collapse of the empire did not begin with the challenger defeating the empire and his minions. This kind of story also happened in Chinese history, "Zheng Zhuang Gong shot an arrow at Zhou Tianzi". Once the empire begins to decay, will the Empire's minions help the Empire or preemptively kill the Empire first? It's going to be a lot of fun.

I don't see how any of that have any bearing on anything, I mean betrayer will always betray, yeah, sometime it ended up helping the emperor but more time than not they are generally the one that stab the emperor in the back when it matter the most.

I mean sure, it's entertaining if we are watching it on Game of Thrones, it wasn't that funny in History......

On the other hand, I think we have derailed this thread enough by talking about Chinese history.

 

[Oscar]

Don't know how much you know about Afghanistan and Taliban.

But at least from the time I was in Afghanistan. Taliban may be the government, but like the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, basically it's just a face, they may have control of the central government, but Afghanistan is always, ALWAYS controlled by different warlord fraction, especially when you are talking about mine and other natural resource, and that is the reason why Afghanistan was such a failed state, because they are constantly at war, these warlord always at each other throat.

If you had dealt with these so called "regional leader" from the time I was in Afghanistan, you will find the normal everyday crooked, corrupted Afghan politician a breathe of fresh air. And then people say the central government back then was bad........

That’s because the culture has not changed in a 1000 years even pre-Islam.
It has been a harsh tribal society with a quasi central loyalist but not leadership structure.

Even now what is lost on most advocating for conflict with the TTA is that Pakistan only has a tight relationship with the Haqqanis traditionally.

Before 9/11 there were several incidents when taliban attacked Pakistan, hijacked a bus for funds and at the end played like you mentioned - independent warlords under the single family or tribe name.

Kabul was this little educated bubble that we wasted billions of dollars on without realizing that their corrupt brand has little impact on the opium growing sheep herding peoples living in the 5th century.

Unless you percolate education - there is no changing who they are nor will any of these attacks stop.

The only advantage the lack of US presence provides Pakistan is deconflicted and decontested airspace to carry out strikes as warranted.

But it’s simply not sustainable in the long run - because you kill 4 members of a family and make enemies of 15 in return who in turn have 9 kids each who will also carry it on

 

[j_hungary]

That’s because the culture has not changed in a 1000 years even pre-Islam.
It has been a harsh tribal society with a quasi central loyalist but not leadership structure.

Even now what is lost on most advocating for conflict with the TTA is that Pakistan only has a tight relationship with the Haqqanis traditionally.

Before 9/11 there were several incidents when taliban attacked Pakistan, hijacked a bus for funds and at the end played like you mentioned - independent warlords under the single family or tribe name.

Kabul was this little educated bubble that we wasted billions of dollars on without realizing that their corrupt brand has little impact on the opium growing sheep herding peoples living in the 5th century.

Unless you percolate education - there is no changing who they are nor will any of these attacks stop.

The only advantage the lack of US presence provides Pakistan is deconflicted and decontested airspace to carry out strikes as warranted.

But it’s simply not sustainable in the long run - because you kill 4 members of a family and make enemies of 15 in return who in turn have 9 kids each who will also carry it on

I believe it was called Pashtunwali

Pashtunwali - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A term anyone deployed to Afghan knows when they deal with any "regional leader" that is also one of the reason why they can invite you into your home and talk about stuff (can't think of anything at the moment) and then shoot you dead immediately on the street......

The Afghan culture, like you said, is pre-Islam, people think Islam would probably give these people some structure but in most of the time they endured, it didn't even make a dent.

People are naive to think anyone, be it China or US or anyone else, can tame this culture and make Afghanistan workable......Yeah, unless you speak 5AD, these people can't talk themselves into it with themselves, nothing is gonna changed lol.

 

[Bagheera0084]

The US/NATO came to win and rearrange the region. They left red faced. Not a single objective met.

Their one objective was met: Osama bin Laden.

 

[nahtanbob]

When are Americans going to pay the Afghan lives lost and destructions incurred in the war ?

There was nothing to destroy in Afghanistan to begin with

 

[sutton9999]

according to the chief staff of Powell.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1825964164659163151

 

[Zsari]

Their one objective was met: Osama bin Laden.

And Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan. You can't tell the pretext from actual cause?