Tag Archives: US policy

China is not Yesterday’s Enemies, by Peter Van Buren

To put China into the template of Cold War 1 ignores huge differences between that country and the old Soviet Union. Such ignorance could prove very costly. From Peter Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:

The Biden Administration and the U.S. military are sticking to old playbooks instead of understanding a new situation.

Joe Biden’s China policy is unnecessarily adversarial. It is impractical and dangerous. It plays out as if it is being run by WWII reenactors.

China was artificially reimagined as an enemy-in-a-box as the wars of terror sputtered out and America needed a new villain. Biden envisions China as an autocratic foil for democracy to wage a global struggle against. “On my watch,” Joe said, “China will not achieve its goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world.” Biden went on to claim the world was at an inflection point to determine “whether or not democracy can function in the 21st century.” In Biden’s neo-Churchillian view, the U.S. and, what the hell, the whole free world he believes he is president of, are in a death match with China.

But there is unbelievable hypocrisy in America’s claimed role. Biden seems oblivious as the U.S. mowed down Muslims by drone even while self-righteously tsk tsk-ing China for abusing its Uighur minority. After our two-decade hissy fit of invasions and nation building brought kleptocracies to lead countries, we dare bark that China is not democratic. We seem not to notice our imperial lack of clothing when we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with tyrants and dictators strewn around Africa and the Middle East. We see no issues demanding democracy in Hong Kong while not having had much to say about it when the place was a British colony stolen by war from Chinese sovereignty.

Apart from sheer hypocrisy, there are other reasons to wonder how China ended up America’s sworn enemy for Cold War 2.0. The relationship otherwise does not look much like that of our old nemesis, the Soviet Union. The Russkies had a nasty habit of rolling tanks across borders, as of course did the U.S. Sometimes it was even in the same country—how’d that Afghanistan thing work out?

Continue reading→

Afghanistan: Whatever the Future Brings, One Thing Is for Sure, Britain and the U.S. Should Stay Out, by Cynthia Chung

It’s absolutely inconceivable in Washington, but maybe the Chinese and Russia Belt and Road Initiative approach will work better in Afghanistan than the US approach did. The US would be wise to stay out of the way and see how the BRI works out. From Cynthia Chung at strategic-culture.org:

If we truly want peace in the Middle East and throughout the world, it is time we decide that we are no longer going to be used as pawns in the Empire’s Great Game.

Afghanistan has become the United States’ longest military engagement in history, lasting 20 years.

Similar to the Vietnam War (which lasted 19.5 years), there has never been a positive military objective for “winning” in Afghanistan such that American troops could finally leave.

As Col. Prouty has stated in his book, not one of the six U.S. administrations who oversaw the Vietnam War ever stated a positive American military objective for that war. The generals sent to Saigon were told not to let the “communists” take over, period. As Prouty makes the point repeatedly in his book, this does not constitute as a military objective. (For more on this refer to my paper.)

46 years later, it would appear the United States has not learned from this hard bled lesson. Today, the U.S. is repeating the same foolish “strategy” in Afghanistan against the Taliban.

On August 15th the capital of Afghanistan fell to the Taliban forcing President Ashraf Ghani to flee the country, ending the rule of the Afghan government.

The Taliban take-over has been spurred by the Biden Administration’s handling of American troops exit from Afghanistan, which was pre-planned over a year ago.

Continue reading→

A Rare Glimpse Into the Inner Workings of the American Empire in the Middle East, by Edward Hunt

Straight from the mouths of Deep Staters, here’s what US Middle Eastern policy is all about. From Edward Hunt at antiwar.com:

The U.S. foreign policy elite still wants the Middle East for its oil and its strategic location

In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, four former US diplomats provided remarkably candid commentary on recent US involvement in the Middle East, revealing a number of the most closely guarded secrets of US diplomacy.

The four former diplomats emphasized the importance of the region’s oil, spoke critically about the weaknesses of US strategy, made a number of crude comments about US partners, displayed little concern about ongoing violence, and called for more “discipline” throughout the region.

One of the former diplomats, James Jeffrey, criticized the Obama administration for withdrawing US forces from Iraq in 2011 rather than going through with a secret deal to maintain a secret network of military bases in the country. Even today, Jeffrey said, officials in Washington must not “melt down” and retrench when US forces get killed. Officials must accept that there could always be “new Benghazis and new Nigers,” he said, referring to incidents in which US agents have been killed.

The four former diplomats also lambasted US partners in the region. They criticized many of their closest allies for poor governance, a lack of democracy, and an inability to coordinate on shared strategic objectives.

Jeffrey made some of the strongest criticisms, charging Kurdish leaders in Iraqi Kurdistan with making their region into “another basket case” in the Middle East. He also complained that US officials had to deal “with a lot of bitching” from the Turkish government over US support for the Kurdish fighters confronting the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) in Syria.

In addition to Jeffrey, who once held high-level positions in the George W. Bush administration, the group of former diplomats included Ryan Crocker, Eric Edelman, and Stuart Jones. Crocker has been the US ambassador to six different countries in the Middle East. Edelman and Jones, who have both been diplomats in the Middle East, have held senior positions in numerous administrations.

Over the past few decades, all four men have played significant roles in crafting and implementing US policies in the region. They were “giants” who had “walked the earth,” according to Edelman.

To continue reading: A Rare Glimpse Into the Inner Workings of the American Empire in the Middle East