by Pepe Escobar for the Asia Times
While the US-backed ‘Hunger Games’ in South Korea plow on, a ‘new strategy’ for Afghanistan is really all about business. But China is already there
There are more parallels between an unfinished 1950s war in Northeast Asia and an ongoing 16-year-old war in the crossroads between Central and South Asia than meet the eye. Let’s start with North Korea.
Once again the US/South Korea Hunger Games plow on. It didn’t have to be this way.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained how:“Russia together with China developed a plan which proposes ‘double freezing’: Kim Jong-un should freeze nuclear tests and stop launching any types of ballistic missiles, while US and South Korea should freeze large-scale drills which are used as a pretext for the North’s tests.”
Call it sound diplomacy. There’s no conclusive evidence the Russia-China strategic partnership floated this plan directly to the administration of US President Donald Trump. Even if they did, the proposal was shot down. The proverbial “military experts” lobbied hard against it, insisting on a lopsided advantage to Pyongyang. Worse, National Security Adviser H R McMaster consistently lobbies for preventative war – as if this isany sort of serious conflict “resolution”.
Meanwhile, that “plan for an enveloping fire” around Guam remains on Kim Jong-un’s table. It is essential to remember the plan was North Korea’s response to Trump’s “fire and fury” volley. Kim has stated that for diplomacy to work again, “it is necessary for the US to make a proper option first”. As in canceling the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian war games – featuring up to 30,000 US soldiers and more than 50,000 South Korean troops.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in dutifully repeats the Pentagon mantra that these Hunger Games, lasting until August 31, are “defensive”. Computer simulations gaming a – very unlikely – unilateral Pyongyang attack may qualify as defense. But Kim and the Korean Central News Agency interpret the war games in essencefor what they are: rehearsal for a “decapitation”, a pre-emptive attack yielding regime change.
No wonder the KCNA insists on a possible “catastrophe”. And Beijing, crucially, concurs. The Global Times reasonably argued that “if South Korea really wants no war on the Korean Peninsula, it should try to stop this military exercise”.
Can’t pack up our troubles
It would be a relief to defuse the drama by evoking that great World War I marching song; “Pack up your troubles in yourold kit bag/ And smile, smile, smile.”
But this is extremely serious. A China-North Korea mutual defense treaty has beenin effect since 1961. Under this framework, Beijing’s response to Trump’s “fire and fury” was a thing of beauty. If Pyongyang attacks, China is neutral. But if the US launches a McMaster-style pre-emptive attack, China intervenes – militarily – on behalf of Pyongyang.
As a clincher, Beijing even made it clear that its preference is for the current status quo to remain. Checkmate.
Hunger Games apart, the rhetorical war in the Korean Peninsula did decrease a substantial notch after China made its position clear. According to a Beltway intel source, that shows “the US and Chinese militaries, as the US and the Russians in Syria, are coordinating to avoid a war”.
Evidence may have been provided by a very important meeting last week between the chairmen of the US and Chinese Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford and General Fang Fenghui. They signed a dealthat the Pentagon spun as able to “reduce the risk of miscalculation” in Northeast Asia.
Among the prodigious fireworks inherent to his departure as White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon nailed it:“There’s no military solution, forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”
And extra evidence in the “they got us” department is that B-1B heavy bomber “decapitation” practice runs – out of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam – have been quietly “suspended”. This crucial, largely unreported fact in the air supersedes rhetoric from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Pentagon head James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who previous to Bannon’s exit were stressing “strong military consequences if North Korea chooses wrongly”.
Once again, it’s all about BRI
Now let’s move to Afghanistan. “Mad Dog” Mattis once famously said it was fun to shoot Taliban fighters. “Known unknowns” Don Rumsfeld was more realistic; he moved out of Afghanistan (toward Iraq) because there were not enough good targets to bomb.
Anyone who spent time working/reporting on the Afghan Hindu Kush and the southwestern deserts knows why the proverbial “there’s no military solution” applies. There are myriad reasons, starting with the profound, radicalized Afghan ethnic divide (roughly, 40% are mostly rural, tribal Pashtun, many recruited by the Taliban; almost 30% are Tajik, a great deal of them urban, literate and in government; more than20% are Hazara Shiites; and 10% are Uzbek).
The bulk of Washington’s “aid” to Kabul throughout these past 16 years has been on the bombing, not the economy, front. Government corruption is cataclysmic. Warlords rule. The Taliban thrive because they offer local protection. Much to Pashtun ire, most of the army is Tajik. Tajik politicians are mostly close to India while most Pashtun favor Pakistan (after all, they have cousins on the other side of the Durand line; enter the dream of a future, reunited Pashtunistan).
On the GWOT (Global War on Terror) front, al-Qaeda would not even exist if the late Dr Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski had not come up with the idea of a sprawling, well-weaponized private army of demented jihadis-cum-tribal Afghans fighting the communist government in Kabul during the 1980s. Add to this the myth that the Pentagon needs to be on the ground in Afghanistan to prevent jihadis from attacking America. Al-Qaeda is extinct in Afghanistan. And Daesh does not need territory to concoct/project its DIY jihad.
When the myth of the US in Afghanistan as a categorical imperative is exposed, that may unveil what this is all about: business.
And we’re not even talking about who really profits from large-scale opium/heroin trade.
Two months ago the Afghan ambassador to Washington, Hamdullah Mohib, was breathlessly spinning how “President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan’s economic potential”, as in “our estimated $1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare-earth elements, aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium”. This led to the proverbial unnamed “US officials” telling Reuters last month that what Trump wants is for the US to demand some of that mineral wealth in exchange for “assisting” Kabul.
A US Geological Survey study a decade ago did identify potential Afghan mineral wealth –gold, silver, platinum, iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and copper – worth as much as US$1 trillion, with much spin dedicated to Afghanistan as “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”.
And the competition – once again, China – is already there, facing myriad infrastructure and red-tape problems, but concentrated onincorporating Afghanistan, long-term, into the New Silk Roads, aka Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), along with its security cooperation arm, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
It’s no secret the Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution hatched by Afghans and supervised by the SCO (of which Afghanistan is an observer and future full member). So from the point of view of neocon/neoliberalcon elements of the War Party in Washington, Afghanistan only makes sense as a forward base to harass/stall/thwart BRI.
What Russia and China want for Afghanistan – yet another node in the process of Eurasia integration – is not much different from what Russia, China and South Korea want for North Korea: increased connectivity as in a future Trans-Korean Railwaylinked to the Trans-Siberian.
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of “investing” in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
Well said.
But … you knew there would be a but …
You left out the profits by the MIC keeping wars going. In their view, the more wars the better. Blocking the BRI is a pipe-dream … Afghanistan may be a mess but even the most corrupt of the Afghani’s can see the profits of integration into Asia, especially as a cross-roads. The empire only knows chaos and the BRI promises stability and strong allies more intent of making money that blowing shit up. The US military is very effective against unarmed civilians – but not so effective against someone who has the guts to shoot back.
No blocking the BRI is not a pipe dream and derailing it is a real possibility. Certainly the Chinese aren’t sitting back assuming this because that would be unwise.
Pepe is spot on.
Forward base is the only reason for US hegemonic policy.
Disrupting BRI.
Destabilizing Central Asia.
Continuing the opium source.
Taking natural resources.
Good secondary reasons.
But the core of Afghanistan War is hegemony. Without the bases, the Hegemon disappears from Eurasia. It is forced to assault China, Russia and Iran from outside.
Not that it can’t create havoc and hell from outside. Look at Korea.
But, from within South Asia, it can truly spread death, destruction and chaos.
It will retard progress. It will frustrate development.
The intention is to lock 4.5 Billion humans in poverty forever.
And with such a death chokehold, the end game is extermination of many of those humans over time.
Yemen is an object lesson. The world does not care if truly poor people die.
The US is counting on ignorance and obfuscation to attend to its genocide of “stone age” Afghans.
Just don’t look at photos and evidence from pre-1976 of what Afghanistan society once was.
The best time for Afghanistan was during the Soviet “occupation”
Unlike the US the Soviets didn’t just bring in their military and totally ignore the actual native population.
The Soviet Union came in with doctors, teachers, engineers and a programme.
They helped the Afghan government introduce social programmes including schooling, and create the framework for a civil society.
Russian engineers built infrastructure and the whole of Afghanistan was involved.
But the very thought of a peaceful and semi prosperous country uncontrolled by US corporations caused a frenzy of hatred so great in Washington and London that they hired the most desperate primitive bunch of stone age cavemen and mercenaries, gave them money and guns, told them the Soviets were godless and let them loose.
Andre Vltchek in writing about Afghanistan says the Soviets are remembered with great affection.
OK it was hegemony and that is wrong, but had it succeeded I have no doubt Afghanistan would be in a happier state than it is today.
Decades have passed and memory fades. Essentially, the USSR was suckered into Afganinstan as payback for VietNam.
I read a book written by a Yale/CIA officer and spoke to him by phone} that gave the US perspective. He painted a perspective of a prosperous Afghan culture before the Sov invasion. (Wish I could remember book or source).
The book starts with the Sov invasion – Spetz assassination of the Afghani pres and follows with Sov depravity, barbarity etc….
I didnt give it much thought until many years later when I came across events prior. The book was an incomplete history, and failed to explain the situation. The author should, and did, know better.
Would be nice to have someone recount a non wiki version of the USSR vs Afghani conflict.
It’s a period in time – the Soviet time in Afghanistan – the west doesn’t want to talk about.
Vltchek writing from present day Afghanistan says –
“Before and during the Soviet era, there were Soviet doctors here, and also Soviet teachers. Now show me one doctor or teacher from the USA or UK based in the Afghan countryside! Russians were everywhere, and I still even remember some names: Lyudmila Nikolayevna… Show me one Western doctor or nurse based here now. Before, Russian doctors and nurses were working all over the country, and their salaries were so low… They spent half on their own living expenses, and the other half they distributed amongst our poor… Now look what the Americans and Europeans are doing: they all came here to make money!”
” . . .“The Russian people came predominately to serve, to help Afghanistan. The relationship between Russians and Afghans was always great. There was real friendship and people were interacting, even having parties together, visiting each other.”
After the Soviets left and the government was toppled the retribution and reversal of fortune for the Afghan people was very severe –
” . . . .After the Taliban era, we were all poor. There was hunger; we had nothing. Then the West came and began throwing money all around the place. Karzai and the elites kept grabbing all that they could, while repeating like parrots: “The US is good!” Diplomats serving Karzai’s government, the elites, they were building their houses in the US and UK, while people educated in the Soviet Union couldn’t get any decent jobs. We were all blacklisted. All education had to be dictated by the West. If you were educated in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany or Bulgaria, they’d just tell you straight to your face: Out with you, Communist! At least now we are allowed to at least get some jobs… We are still pure, clean, never corrupt!”
“Do people still remember?” I wonder.
“Of course they do! Go to the streets, or to a village market. Just tell them: “How are you my dear?” in Russian. They’d immediately invite you to their homes, feed you, embrace you…”
So two great world powers have both made an incursion into Afghanistan. Who’d the Afghanis prefer?
“If there would be a referendum right now, on a simple question: ‘do you want Afghanistan to be with Russia or with the United States, the great majority would vote for Russia, never for the US or Europe. And you know why? I’m Afghan: when my country is good, then I’m happy. If my country is doing bad, then I suffer! Most people here, unless they are brainwashed or corrupted by the Westerners, know perfectly well what Russia did for this country. And they know how the West injured our land.”
from: http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2017/08/05/afghanistan-is-right-here-lies-myths-and-legends-by-andre-vltchek/#more-8080
And whatever offers the best hope of a decent life for the everyday Afghani must under no circumstances be allowed,
LOL. Occupiers who thought they were better, superior than others is nothing new, and Russian in particular had plenty experience at it.
Japanese still say they went to Korea to modernize them, and some still proudly twitting about it even today. So what Korean lost a few million man and their mothers, sisters, and daughters rape, their children conscripted, and brain washed to be suicide pilot for their war during the occupation, But Japan had good intention for Korea.
There was a discussion on Weibo a few days ago about outer Mongolia. The 50 years with Soviet Union, Mongolian lost their writing language, and training to hate China… I am sure Mongolians still looking at Russia with fond memories…
So your saying that Russians are evil and the same as genocidal imperial Japan as well they are no different than Americans when it came to Afghanistan? And the Islamist trash that the US and those idiots, the Pakistani Junta/ISI, imposed on Afghan society were the good guys?
I agree that it’s revisionist to think the Soviets are remembered with affection in Afghanistan (I don’t believe it), but fact does remain that as a side effect, The soviets brought in development, science and secular freedoms while the swine in the Reagan Regime as well their Islamist vassals, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan brought in medieval Islamist Luddite excrement as a consequence of their geopolitical objectives in Afghanistan.
Read their history and you tell me if they were evil or genocidal…
I also sure If Japan had occupied Russia, the people of Japan occupied Russia would have a lot better life now. Russia should have welcomed Japanese invasion instead of fighting back…
The Soviets/Russians lifted millions of Arabs, Asians and Slavs out of poverty impossed by centuries of feudalism. And how have many of those people and their offspring thank them: by siding with the lying, conniving westerners who had built their evil empire on slave labour, wars, stealing and pillaging. They sided up with the Great Wizzard of Oz, blinded by Wizzard’s smoke and mirror act.
What we will end up with is an economic and human wasteland enveloped in acute and perpetual poverty, wars and destroyed environment. Forget about progress and say hello to Primus Nocta and similar brought to you by the new wave of feudalism. I’m afraid it is going to get worse before it gets better.
@Marko
It might surprise you to find out that most of the pillaged victims in Asia (pillaged by the murderous parasitical and thieving British Empire and the French equivalent) were and are very grateful for the Russians having provided a shield and support for them against, what they perceived to be an attempt by the Western Alliance at reconquest and re-exploitation of their lands. Specifically, I refer you to (at least) India and Vietnam who have, to this day, continued to view Russia positively.
In addition, secular and nationalist Arabs also held similar feelings (Syria, Iraq, Egypt). The exception to this rule would be nations dominated by extreme Islamist tendencies or a vicious feudal elite (or both) such as Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia and Suharto’s Indonesia(fascist feudal not Islamist). The Pakistanis didn’t hesitate for even an instant after “independence” to be the lapdogs of the British and later the US SENTO alliance and Suharto relied on US support to butcher hundreds of thousands.
This is why most people in secular nationalist Arab circles(Syria, Iraq, Egyptian establishment), in the general Indian population, & Vietnam considered Gorbachev a traitor or a naive fool for having trusted the West and believing that they would not continue to undermine and destroy his state after detente. Of course, most of these asiatic peoples had no idea how cruel corrupt and oppressive the Soviet system was for the Russians themselves (nor did they know about the victims of the Bolsheviks or huge numbers killed under Stalin), so they didn’t understand the compulsion in Russia for change.
Also let’s not forget how grateful the Chinese CCP was towards the Soviets who helped support, rebuild and arm their impoverished country after the devastation of WW-2. They too didn’t hesitate to jump in bed with the demonic duo Kissinger and Nixon. I certainly hope that Russia/Putin has a contingency for the near certainty of a second Chinese betrayal of Russia in the not too distant future.
Nowadays, you can’t conflate the realpolitik of nations wanting good relations with USA or the EU, with ingratitude: After all even Putin desires this and has bent over backward to try and make this happen by reaching out to the West time and time again (for reasons of practical realpolitik and not because he’s an Anglophile or Europhile). This same rationale applies to former soviet allies in Asia and Latin America.
I completely agree with you.
According to RC’s logic Soviet was saint and the others were ungrateful for refusing to subjugated their country to Soviet demand…
Russian are skilled at talking about Chinese or others betrayal, could it be feeling of guilt or fear after steal so much from it neighbors, kill so many in the neighborhood?
Of cause, British saved Indian from themselves, Japanese saved asia Pacific from British. Look, a lot of Indian still love British, and Asians (including Vietnamese) still love Japan,
Yes, Soviet was great(according to them self, and some others), as long as you submit your country to their demand, let it take you land they saw fit, do what ever they think you should do.
There are plenty stories of Soviet leaders come to China making demands, and Chinese leadership tell it to get lost.
No , Chinese do not think tzar’s Russia or Soviet better than British.
British returned all the land, and Russian still hold Millons square km. Some of them taken by Soviet. Russian also killed and exiled the rest Chinese lived on those land.
Russia has always been a poor country who survives on wars and pillage.
There is no need to tell people who live next to Russia how glorious it was, we had real life experience to draw our own conclusion.
Average Westerner will simply not know how to wrap his/her head around what you mention regarding Soviet approach. Even in when Americans were in seeming full control somewhere, Iraq, no such things was done. They continue to point at the Marshal Plan as the shining beacon or how benevolent the Americans are but that sells only to the uninformed.
“Just don’t look at photos and evidence from pre-1976 of what Afghanistan society once was”
Best insights into what Afghanistan once was:
https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/how-do-afghans-tick-in-memoriam-bernt-glatzer/
From the above interview:
” I had the feeling to be welcome and fell in love with Herat first, than a well-preserved medieval oriental city. At the beginning of the modern age, it was considered the Florence of the East. It was the centre of trade, scholarliness and arts. This past was very much alive: People were meditating over a book at the tomb of the poet Jami who had lived in Herat in the 15th century. Traders in the bazaar read Ferdawsi’s ‘Book of Kings’ that was written a thousand years ago. I decided to do research on Afghan nomads.”
See also “Mughal Empire,” which originated in the territory now known as Afghanistan:
“The Mughal emperors had roots in the Turco-Mongol Timurid dynasty of Central Asia, claiming direct descent from both Genghis Khan (founder of the Mongol Empire, through his son Chagatai Khan) and Timur (Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire). During the reign of Humayun, the successor of Babur, the empire was briefly interrupted by the Sur Empire. The “classic period” of the Mughal Empire started in 1556 with the ascension of Akbar the Great to the throne. Under the rule of Akbar and his son Jahangir, the region enjoyed economic progress as well as religious harmony, and the monarchs were interested in local religious and cultural traditions. Akbar was a successful warrior who also forged alliances with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms. Some Rajput kingdoms continued to pose a significant threat to the Mughal dominance of northwestern India, but most of them were subdued by Akbar. All Mughal emperors were Muslims; Akbar, however, propounded a syncretic religion in the latter part of his life called Dīn-i Ilāhī, as recorded in historical books like Ain-i-Akbari and Dabistān-i Mazāhib.[25]”
“The Mughal Empire also began a period of proto-industrialization,[19] which saw Mughal India becoming the world’s largest economic power, with 24.4% of world GDP,[20] and the world leader in manufacturing,[21] producing 25% of global industrial output up until the 18th century.[22] “
@Katherine
That excerpt on the Mughal empire is revisionist junk too.
The industrial output of the vijaynagar empire of south India was even greater than the Mughal empire’s (Moghul empire was mainly agrarian and not industrial), the Mughal never controlled more than 30-40% of India. The entire GDP of India was 24% of global GDP and that was the case even before the Moghul invasion of northwestern India. This implies that the mogul empire GDP was only 9-11% of Global GDP (40% of India’s total output). Prior to the moguls the aggregate GDP output of India was even higher varying between 28-33% – this according to an exhaustive study performed by economist Angus Mclenand for the OECD (& predecessors).
Like the mongols in China being understudies to the Han expertise, technology and management, the nomadic Mughals were civilizational understudies to the Indians they had conquered, which is why most of their administration was run by Indian viziers, technocrats, Generals and administrators.
When learning about the histories of other cultures it’s always a good idea to read several sources to prevent being mislead by romantic revisionism.
Unless my vision is off a bit. I’d say these two maps look like a lot more than 30-40% of India:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-56HgExLfXWY/Vojjb4ba_oI/AAAAAAAAB0g/oWBuiRiCITE/s400/download.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/df/71/ce/df71ce89d03676b6903d5a7c81568252–first-battle-of-panipat-persian-people.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
Your vision is off. The Moghuls only controlled north western and north central India Bob, much of what you think you know about India has been distorted by British attempts to glorify their collaborators, the Muslim minority, and their history in India (it was standard practice to promote and use a minority group to control the majority by colonial powers). The areas shown in those maps include areas that were not under direct Moghul control or even direct revenue collection. Go broaden your knowledge by looking up Borphuken, the Vijayanagar Empire, Shivaji, the Maratha Confederacy, Ranjeet Singh, the Afghan rebellion and wars against the Mughals. Try to read sources in Hindi, Gujrati, Urdu, Tamil and Bengali to get a more accurate picture. Colonial published sources are about as accurate as BBC reports of today. Then perhaps you will get a less distorted and more complex understanding of Indian history rather than the cliches flogged in Western academia and sources. I am certain that you are unaware that after Aurengzeb bankrupted the Mughal empire and caused the attrition/destruction of Mughal military forces due his continued unsustainable military campaigns, that after his death, it was the Mughals that ended up paying tribute to the Marathas I return for not being formally sacked and ruled directly. According a study, done by a British General for internal security purposes of maintaining the Raj, the Mughals were losing upwards to 100,000 men per year for 20 years during the disastrous jihads of Aurengzeb; that eventually decimated the core of the Mughal military strength and cohesion.
I have seen reports on those other states. And like all great empires in a single area (in this case India). The territories of those expanded and contracted, depending on their power. Which is why there are maps for various time periods of empires. In the past almost never did one “central” government direct the rule of all the territories of an empire. That is a fairly modern occurrence. That was true before the Mughals,and after them. To use other examples,the Kingdom of France,existed even though the King’s direct authority sometimes was only over a small area.With the regional Dukes owing him “liege obedience” but ruling their local regions themselves. The so called Kievian Rus was considered one state.Though the local Princes ruled their regions themselves. The Kings of Spain only had direct authority after the Borbon’s came to power. Before then,even though the Spanish Empire was said to exist. The Kings ruled the regions as separate Kingdoms.And the most well known of all was the Holy Roman Empire. All parts owing “official” allegiance as a part of one empire. But most of those regions locally ruled in fact. The Mughul rule of India (almost all India) was one constant battle to hold on to the regions. Sometimes they could,sometimes they couldn’t. But its incorrect to dismiss their power. A mistake that the other neighboring countries never made during the days of Mughul strength. Only as their power got weaker did they split apart more and more.
Very well explained. Not knowing this causes a lot of confusion which frequently is used to do exactly that.
I do agree with RC’s observation that taking notice of “who is writing” should be taken into account when trying to make conclusions about what was happening. Not a simple task when your dealing with different languages and next to impossibility to access the material being far from the source. I know this problem to be true when looking at what “German” historians over the centuries wrote with regard to the Slavic and Baltic lands.
Let me add that I don’t see why you think all the British collaborators were the Muslims. There were a lot of Hindu rulers that worked with British. The British were opportunistic. They’d work with any Indian that would support them and accept their rule. Sometimes it was one group,sometimes it was the other.
There was a photo of Japanese general playing chess with a Chinese boy in Nanking in WWII. Japanese right winger still twit it once a while and as prove how loving and kind they were.
Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires.
RIP
Looking forward to not being ‘disrupted’ by the empire for simply pointing out the a small subset of the myriad inconvenient facts.
Great article as always from Mr Pepe, filling in some gaps.
I read that US Geological Survey when it first appeared on the net. (I’ve never found it again) I was trying to figure out what the US were really hoping to do ‘in the graveyard of empires’ and their chances of success. Friends of mine were deployed to Afghanistan 6 months before the US et al officially moved in.
It was like reading about El Dorado, untold mineral wealth of every variety, locked up in inhospitable mountains.
The only problem: those primitive tribesmen and their rusty AKs consider those mountains home and are quite fond of keeping them as they are. They don’t want their mountains levelled into strip mines and who can blame them?
That the US is still in there trying is supreme idiocy, most vets and sane non-vets know it.
I wouldn’t put money on vassal states joining the US effort so readily this time.
Once bitten and all that.
Economic Hitmen are very skilled at producing reports that say lots of money can be made if only the scheme the EH have been paid to promote is adopted. John Perkins excellent book told the tale of ‘electrification’ schemes and the reports said that everyone would become oh so prosperous if only the scheme was adopted.
This report sounds similar. But now the ‘scheme’ is war, death, destruction, torture and other wonderful things.
A very useful supplement to this informative piece is Thierry Meyssan’s “The US military project for the world “– Voltairenet, Aug, 22 .
Very interesting post, actually somewhat hopeful in terms of possible sanity (more or less) being brought to the situation in Korea.
Here is an interesting take on the fabulous wealth of Afghanistan:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/07/27/dear-president-trump-afghanistans-minerals-arent-very-valuable-theyre-really-not/#58c04a42615f
That whole “Treasure House of Minerals” story always sounded hinky to me, from the first articles back in 2010. It was spun like an Indiana Jones story, with a cache of crumbling maps left behind by the fleeing Soviets, etc. I don’t know if the Bush 43 administration was able to corrupt the USGS by burrowing hacks into it, but it’s interesting if the report has disappeared off the web as one minion says.
Also, what rg gaylor said. The end purpose of war is war, and the money it causes to be shovelled to the MIC.
What I saw was an in-depth doc of what looked to me (a rank amateur at geology) a legitimate scientific survey, not particularly Indiana Jones.
Most of it was discussion on how to access the minerals and rare earths, difficulties faced etc with strip mining of mountain tops the most preferred and viable option.
Could have been faked I suppose, though I don’t think it was.
I don’t have the technical expertise to definitively judge.
I read a book late in 2000,or early 2001 on the terrorism starting to get big at that time (remember the 1st Twin Towers attack was 1993 ,I believe). I don’t remember its name ,it was long ago. And I’ve read many since then.But it talked about the different groups throughout the MENA. And the US’s (CIA) mixed involvement with them. Sometimes supporting them,sometimes attacking them. One of the parts of the book talked about the Taliban. And how they gained power with a lot of aid from the Pakistani ISI. And the deals the US was trying to make with them, and through the ISI. It mentioned that Afghanistan was thought to be fabulously rich in minerals. And US companies were pushing for a US agreement with the Taliban so they could exploit those minerals. It also say that the US kept trying to “broker” a deal for a pipeline to cross Afghanistan. That the Oil companies were constantly pushing for that with the US State Dept.And that they kept getting close to it. Then something or other would mess up the talks.And that the US had even had a Taliban leader come to the US during one of those talks.But that right after that a news report came out naming that person for abuses against women in Afghanistan. And the US broke off that set of talks,before the news came out of them dealing with him.It wasn’t long after I read that book that 9/11 occurred. So,I think it is most likely true about the huge mineral wealth of Afghanistan.If there was talk of it back before the US had invaded Afghanistan. It probably isn’t a made-up story.
I could definitely see that doc being spun and used in the ‘Economic Hitman’ model, which has worked so well (in the short-term) for the US in South America in the past and recently in Greece.
According to Scott and the Kulak’s article elsewhere on the site, the US new long-term plan is just more of the same for many new targets In Europe and elsewhere.
My limited understanding of the ISI is that they are extremely powerful and just as tricky as the CIA who are rumoured to have set up and trained them in the first place. That’s one of the problems with having vassals–they often don’t relish staying vassals and so learn from and often surpass the master.
The Pakistani army has a finger in, if not outright ownership of, most businesses in the country, so I would say that it is a matter of interests not loyalties to them and to ISI.
The US actions reminds me of the IDF when they takeover Palestinian houses as command centers during their invasions of Gaza or elsewhere. When they leave, they trash everything and crap all over the place out of pure spite.
Someone even managed to defecate into the photocopier
“What Russia and China want for Afghanistan – yet another node in the process of Eurasia integration – is not much different from what Russia, China and South Korea want for North Korea: increased connectivity as in a future Trans-Korean Railwaylinked to the Trans-Siberian.”
I can’t help but see parallels between this Asian situ and that of the antebellum United States. It seems like maritime empires can’t really develop any of their colonies. They can only exploit them.
Lincoln saw that Britain would exploit the Confederacy and simultaneously derail industrialization of both the North and the South. China and Russia see the same thing vis-a-vis Central Asia.
Trump/Congress/the generals cannot really help develop Afghanistan, only rape it for minerals and use it for illegal heroin and opium. That is most likely another use of those “forward bases,” like in Vietnam (under-the-radar flights; pilots are really important for extra-state operators such as the CIA, the Mob, rogue elements in the military, etc. etc. ).
How can the USA rid itself of these maniacs?
McMaster, Mattis, etc.
No one has elected them, yet they drive the country over a cliff.
Katherine
It sad to see Pepe Escobar’s writings slipping more & more into incoherency. He contradicts home self by casting doubt on a question had already answered in this article; ie:
So from the point of view of neocon/neoliberalcon elements of the War Party in Washington, Afghanistan only makes sense as a forward base to harass/stall/thwart BRI.
Yes that makes perfect sense. They need an excuse to stay in Central Asia and a low level conflict with a group of thick-headed jihadi idiots provides the perfect pretext. Well done Pepe! Then why does Pepr throw confusion into the picture by contradicting himself by stating that US planners don’t know what they’re doing? As shown here:
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of “investing” in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You can’t have it both ways Pepe, either the strategists in Washington are doing this on purpose to maintain a presence in a pressure point on Russia, Iran and China (ie the strategic region of Afghanistan), or there they don’t know what they’re doing and they have no Machiavellian geopolitical self interest. It’s one or the other but not both.
It does makes sense that they want to keep China out of Afghanistan and also control territory that can scupper the BRI. It does not make sense that they don’t have any hidden objectives and they just don’t know what they’re doing.
How about the 3rd option: The US has created an Islamist hydra that they can’t control, (just as Putin and the Indians had warned about) and now they need to exterminate that hydra because it’s bound to come for them (just as Putin warned in his UN speech). This along with containing China and holding strategic presence in Central Asia are a likely possibility to the newly announced Trump policy on AF-PAK and the Indian.
I gotta say that this article was not Pepes best.
I think that what is being said here is about the stupidity of short-term thinking. The US comes up with an idea but doesn’t think it through and consider all the possible drawbacks and challenges in the long-term.
They see only the hoped-for outcome, not the myriad awkward possibilities reality is likely to present.
Its a form of magical thinking, the US uses it a lot. Its technically a plan but it is a stupid plan made by people who don’t know what they are doing.
Teenagers and young people typically think this way.
@One minion
I think you made an excellent point. The US system does not allow for a sustained and consistent policy due to political tug of war within their internal and external power structure.
In some respects this aligns with Katherine’s excellent observations about sea based empires tending to pillage and exploit rather that build and integrate. Good food for thought.
Don’t forget the little ‘dog-n-pony’ sideshow going on between the zionist apartheid regime in Occupied Palestine and the neo-Persians — the latter have a couple of kidneys exposed towards the lands eastward.
Please, what is BRI, People?
BRI = Belt and road initiative (in the heartland of Eurasia to connect East and West)
It all about one thing, Chaos in the Gap. No nation building and no Democracy is on the agenda.
Thierry Meyssan explains it best,
http://www.voltairenet.org/article197477.html
“It depends on what your national security police are.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkunZ5K15w
Pepe, muito obrigado , abrazos de um amigo do Brasil :) Tambem sou Chines :)
Pepe, thank you very much, hugs from a friend from Brazil
The second part of Pepe’s on-the-nail-as-usual article concerned Korea..
K.J. Noh, a peace activist and scholar on the geopolitics of the Asian continent was interviewed and asked –
” North Korea is standing up to the US’s 4800 “locked and loaded” nuclear weapons with an estimated 30 to 60 of its own. Do you think it would still be standing without them?
K.J.Noh: It’s hard to imagine so.”
“. . . .The recent spring war games have been twice the size of the Normandy invasion, involving carrier battle group and submarine maneuvers, amphibious landings of mechanized brigades, naval blockade, live fire drills, special forces infiltration, as well as B-1B, B-2, & B-52 nuclear bombing runs.
North Korea’s leadership is also well aware of the fact that Clinton’s 1997 Presidential Decision Directive 60 authorizes pre-emptive nuclear war”.
“There was once a possibility of de-nuclearizing North Korea, back in the 90’s. The North Koreans had agreed to monitoring and dismantling of their nuclear reactor, in exchange for normalization of diplomatic relations, removal of sanctions, fuel oil, and a light breeder reactor.
The North Koreans fulfilled the bargain for 4 years, but the treaty was dead on arrival in Washington two weeks after signing, and none of the conditions were upheld by the US side.
After 8 years of Waiting for Godot, the North Koreans found themselves branded as part of the “Axis of Evil”. The North Koreans read the writing on the wall, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and restarted their program in 2003.
In 2005, the Chinese negotiated a deal (through the six party talks from 2003-2005) between the US and North Korea, whereby the North Koreans would again dismantle their program, and the US would normalize relations.
The very day after the signing, the US branded North Korea as a currency counterfeiter and increased sanctions.
North Korea withdrew from the deal, and in 2006, tested a nuclear device.
The pattern of distrust is repetitious, going all the way back to the armistice of 1953, which the US announced its intention to abrogate the day after signing.”
What about NK’s relationship with China and the US attempt to split them apart?
“K.J.N: China is enmeshed with North Korea through culture, history, geography, proximity, propinquity, consanguinity. It’s also bound to North (and South) Korea through tradition and treaty.
There is the 1961 Sino-Korean Mutual Defense Treaty between China and North Korea that is still binding, and has never been disavowed:
China will come to North Korea’s aid if attacked. Recent top level statements have reaffirmed and re-emphasized this . . . ”
” Moreover, China will not do what the US expects it to do: force North Korea to disarm by strong arming it economically or politically. China has neither the power nor the inclination to be a subcontractor to US foreign policy; ”
But how do you force a heavily armed rogue state like the US to negotiate in good faith because even if you could, they simply abrogate treaties once they’ve signed them anyway !
What the US has done to Korea in living memory is not talked about in in the western discourse, but . . . . ” for the North Koreans, it is eternally present. They live in the eternal present of that experience, which they cannot, will not, metabolize or release into memory, until a lasting peace and security is created on the peninsula”
http://www.zoominkorea.org/locked-and-loaded-war-with-north-korea-cannot-be-contained-but-must-be-prevented/
My question would be – Knowing full well as it must that China and North Korea have an active Mutual Defense Treaty just what do the Americans really think they are doing?