The Taliban is history and Al Qaeda is a mere shadow of its former self, so the question is why are US (and UK) forces still in effective control of Afghanistan? The latest example of appalling behaviour by US interrogators (who appear to have tortured a taxi cab driver to death at Bagram for being in the wrong place at the wrong time) is starting to turn local opinion against the over-mightly US presence. Not only do the people responsible need to be suitably called to account a good way up the chain of command, clearly there are some serious institutional problems in sections of the US military that need to be stamped on pretty harshly.
Given Afghanistan’s history, the fact locals have reacted so well to the US presence for this long is remarkable (and of course understandable considering we enabled the ‘Northern Alliance’ to destroy the Taliban), but staying for much longer is counter-productive. There is no need to kill every single Taliban/Al Qaeda supporter in Afghanistan (or Pakistan come to that) as the infrastructure that supported the September 11th attacks has been well and truly smashed.
Also, the preposterous attempts to curb narcotics production is both utterly doomed to fail and hugely counter productive in that messing with people’s lucrative livelihoods is just about the surest way to guarantee armed opposition to the allied presence in that part of the world. Sure, in an ideal world we would have no heroin and no armed factions willing to tolerate/support Islamic terrorists but in the real world it is likely to be a choice between one or the other. So please, enough with the preposterous obsession with narcotics! If the US and UK states cannot stop tonnes of the stuff coming into their own countries every year, what chance do you think they have of doing so in far off Afghanistan? The effort will of course fail dismally just as it has failed in Columbia but with the extra added ‘goodness’ of encouraging resistance to the pro-Western regime on Kabul. Sheesh.
By all means leave a couple thousand ‘liaison’/training teams behind to bolster the Karzai regime but unlike the clearly unfinished business in Iraq, it is time to declare victory and get the hell out.
Job done. Let’s go home.
Well said, Perry. Contrary to what some dumb trolls who hit on this blog think, we are not dumb apologists for the Pentagon. Bad mistakes are being made and it is clear that the time has come to get out.
And of course this episode shows that the futile battle to control the drugs trade is in fact making the crackdown on terror bases harder, not easier. Will we ever learn?
Maybe the troops are there to keep pressure on Iran. In any case, if the US has surplus troops, they serve best in such areas then in forts, at home. From Afghanistan, raids and future operations will be easier to deploy.
As for the preferences of the Afghanis themselves… we have yet to see a clear expression for the evacuation of regular troops, haven’t we?
“if the US has surplus troops…”. It doesn’t. Next?
Good post, Perry.
Wishful thinking. They’re setting up permanent bases there, and your great-grandchildren will be sent there to maintain the Imperial Order unless the whole empire collapses in financial ruin before that.
Is the training of a local army complete? They need to keep war-lords in check.
Is there any talk of buiding a more permanent base? That way, we could leave a few thousand troops, but not really influence the government greatly.
The MSM are digging up old reports about incidents which happened in 2002. They are digging them up NOW to counter the scandal of the lies of Newsweek. Seems Perry has been taken in and propted to rant NOW about leaving Afghanistan, which is probably what MSM want.
I mean: we could debate when it would be proper to leave Afghanistan, but the article that propted this debate now is irrelevant.
As to Afghanistan, seems that Karzai is to some degree a puppet ruler – at least in the sense that he has no power base of his own, no divisions as Stalin would have said. He won an election, but that doesn’t count for much in Afghanistan. So the moment the US leaves, with it’s A10 Intruders, some other warlord gains power (or a new civil war starts) and the infrastructure of Al Quaeda is rebuilt.
Keeping those 10,000 odd US and GB troops there is absolutely essential on the one hand, and isn’t that much of a burden on the other. So, yes, keep them there. Permanently. For startegical reasons. Better to have them there than in Germany.
About poppy erradication or other interference in Afghan life – that is definitely dumb. Stay out of it if you want to avoid trouble. If there is something that turns the population and the powerful warlords against the US it isn’t religion, but poppy erradication which means wealth erradication and promotion of poverty.
This abuse event was back in 2002. I don’t think it highly relevant now. Although the timing of the publicizing of it is.
I think Karzi is trying to gain credibility by standing up the US. Personally, I think returning those captured in Afghanistan to Afghanistan would be a good idea. I doubt they have any intelligence value left and many of them could be treated with as the Geneva convention stipulates i.e. summary execution. That would solve a lot of problems for everybody.
I don’t see US forces leaving anytime soon. The war against the Pashtuns in Pakistan continues. Until their power is broken any US withdrawal will prompt an Al-Quada supported invasion of Afghanistan by Pashtuns from Pakistan.
I beg to differ. An American withdrawal would lead to the collapse of Afghanistan and the return of the Taliban. This is the sort of euro think that got us WW2. Notice that after WW2, which was a re-do of WW1, the USA stayed in Europe for over 50 years. THAT is why there was a ‘cold war’ instead of WW3. I expect there to be an American presence in the ‘stan for the rest of this century.
BTW, the USA has more then adequate troop strength. The Cliam by the MSM that it doesn’t is a lie of the ‘Koran down the toilet’ type. The troop levels are kept where they are in Iraq to lessen the strain on logistics support
You are examining the abuses by Americans out of context. Remember any number is of value only in comparison with another number. So it isn’t important if there is abuse of not, what is important is the trend line. Is the abuse by todays military lesser or greater then it has been in the past? The answer is MUCH LESS.
The same logic that you apply to the ‘war on drugs’ (which I agree with) also applies to abuses during war.
You stand a much better chance of stamping out drug abuse then prisoner abuse. Especially considering that the prisoners are not covered by ANY treaty. The Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War intentionally excludes these type fighters from it’s protection. There are no courts that have jurisdiction. If there is a court that does claim jurisdiction, then let them try to take custody of those being held. That will prove their claims groundless.
As a final though, where are the follow-ups on the Belsin nurders? Plenty of press on something silly like panties on the head, or a change of underware (do you suppose it was the lawyer that took those pictures? Or maybe the red crescent people? Why assume it was US military personell? Asssumptions in wartime are always dangerous) but silence on the beheadings of countless captives held by Muslims or the brutal murder of 330 school children.
Doesn’t anybody else see anything wrong here? Very wrong!
Why? We did not go into Afghanistan to topple Afghan ‘warlords’ but rather to support a bunch of ‘warlords’ who made up the Northern Alliance to help them overthrow the Taliban. A weak central government in Kabul is the norm in Afghanistan and that is just fine by me. I have felt we need to get out for some time and the latest stories just reinforces the fact the loger we stay, the more potentials for fuck-ups like this one will occur. We destroyed the Taliban and if anything we should be making it clear to the ‘warlords’ that the USA is not their enemy just so long as they are not the friends of the Islamic nubjobs who want to kill us all.
While I sympathize strongly with the, for lack of a better word, anti-imperialist sentiments Perry expresses, I don’t see any better alternative. 9-11 dictated that the US topple the Taliban regime, and since the perception was that realpolitik was what allowed terrorist-supporting states to flourish, the logic of 9-11 also dictated that we try to create a functioning state after the war. Afghanistan sans the US may develop a government on its own, but the odds are high that that government would be decidedly against US interests, probably even hostile to US citizens and property, and would have to be toppled again in the future. The only choices that I see offered (and please suggest an alternate course) is the current nation-building exercise, or recurring dictator smackdowns every 10 years with a frightful cost in lives and lost freedoms. The US should at least like to try building a functioning Afghanistan before it falls to the more dreadful plan B.
Sorry, good post and nice thoughts but the US has no intention whatsoever of withdrawing from Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. It’s currently building 3-4 permanent bases to oversee security of oil/gas pipelines and it needs the bases if it is going to threaten Iran.
I’m sure the Bushies are quite distressed by the recent abuse reports but apart from that, it’s just noise level to them as they expand.
It is up to the United States whether they wish to maintain troops in Afghanistan. If they do wish to do so, then Atlanticists should accept that British troops remain also, as a demonstration of the alliance.
I am not sure if this is a wise argument for the US, given recent developments in Uzbekistan. A wider strategic presence in this area provides useful intel and allies against potential hostiles for the US. It has also proved useful in deepening ties between India and the US.
Perhaps if India swapped its soldiers, then the Americans could go home. But imagine what the Chinese and Pakistanis would say…
Of course, as a little Englander, I do say, Brits come home, but that is another matter.
We ain’t leaving til’ they’re heavin’.
The 1-eyed bandit is no longer a mullah. He’s been de-turbaned.
I read a post (unfortunately I can’t remember where) speculating that the recent riots in Afghanistan were motivated more by anger over crop eradication efforts than by the story about Koran desecration (which was reported outside the US a year ago).
Hey, if the Brits or anyone else wants to leave, so be it. We’re not likely to lose any sleep over it. When the Afghanis want us to leave, they’ll probably tell us.
However…. “latest example of apalling behavior by US interrogators”? From 2002? I really expected better from the contributors to this site.
Note that this wasn’t something the NYT dug up themselves; they simply chose to take an investigation the Army did and plaster it all over the place when it suited them (as it does now, in the wake of the most recent Newsweek bullshit). Note the pattern here, that all of the outrages the media spends so much time on are pretty much being wrapped up, and the guilty parties punished by the military justice system, by the time they are reported.
“clearly there are some serious institutional problems in sections of the US military that need to be stamped on pretty harshly.”
A couple of bad apples hardly makes a “serious institutional problem”, especially when the insittution in question has investigated the incident and will punish them, all without any impetus from outside to do so. Think of how many tens of thousands, if not more, prisoners we’ve handled so far in this war. This is the only incident on the part of the Army that I can recall from OEF or OIF involving a serious case of prisoner abuse (and no, I don’t really care about human pyramids and women’s drawers). The U.S. military, as an institution, has a history of treating EPW’s (enemy prisoners of war) and civilians very well.
Perry, sorry. Too much euro-think in your post.
US troops will remain until Afghan government tells us to leave. Dangerous Taliban flotsam and jetsam still remains which could destroy the fledgling Afghan government, if US forces were withdrawn prematurely.
Euro-think? Meaning what exactly? The US military in Afghanistan only makes sence if it is continuing to make Al Qaeda less effective. Yet much of the analysis I read suggests that it is already well past the point of diminishing returns. The focus is now in Pakistan and that is not an fight ther US can fight on its own terms (though it can of course help).
But the issue of staying and helping impose a strong centralised state is a fools errand and one which the US does not have a very good track record doing in the Third World. Iraq is a paragon of education and sophistication compared to Afghanistan and unlike Iraq, there has never been a strong central gocernment, so it is daft to think it is within the US’s power to change that in any meaningful way.
So my real point is that the US presence as the de facto rulers no longer makes sence and in fact is probably now counter productive. Annoying the narco-biz based ‘warlords’ is just bonkers if the objective is to work with the people who have the real power in that part of the world and who are by no means natural allies of the Islamo-nutters PROVIDED we do not piss them off (these are, after all, the same people who actually did the ground fighting under the US air power to actually overthrow the Taliban).
So claiming that the US presence is the only think preventing the Talibs from coming back does rather ignore the fact that the people who the US supported are far stronger now than when they fought the Taliban and provided the US does not push them into the arms of their former enemies by idiotically treating this as part of the absurd ‘war on drugs’, there is no reason to think Pax Americana means large numbers of US troops kicking down doors. Face it, the US has never been all that great at counter insurgency, so why not use other means, such as continuing the proxy technique which overthrew the Talibs in the first place? Throw a little money the warlords way if needed, get a rough with anyone who buddies up to the bad guys ( and that does not require the occupation of Afghanistan) and turn a blind eye to the whole drug thing and the problem takes care of itself.
Perry,
I suspect “Euro-think” may mean anything critical of the Pentagon’s big-iron solutions to all the world’s problems.
The EU opposes US military domination of the world because it sees itself as a rival power. The EU is critical of the Pentagon, therefore. You (and I) are critical of the Pentagon, for our divergent (and themselves differing) reasons. But if one is more peaceable than the Pentagon, or not happy with some aspect of current American imperial policy, then one may appear to be lining up with the EU.
I remember the Soviets saying something similar about staying until the government they’d installed told them to leave. In retrospect, it were better had we let them. (And at the time some of us were asking, “Why are we helping these mujahedin, who are so much more frightening than the Russians?”)
There’s very little MSM (or other) reporting from Afghanistan. Rather a long time ago I read somewhere that the only reporter there was there because he was looking for some military scandal, like those in Abu Ghraib prison.
The issue of 28th March of National Review (a US magazine, admittedly pro-Bush, pro-war on terror) makes the point that there is a “virtual news blackout” on Afghanistan. Two reporters, right wing of course, found a very positive attitude to the American presence. “Of course,” people may say, “they would, wouldn’t they?” All the same, the article is well worth reading, though I don’t remember seeing it on National Review On Line: actual real paper copies of the magazine – as with all such US publications – take ages to get here.
The enemies of the US perceive it has great physical power, but great psychological weakness. They think they can either ignore the physical power, because they don’t think it will be used (as Saddam found to his cost) or “sit out” the situation if it is used. Any talk of an “Exit Strategy” only encourages them.
The only way to counter this is for the US to stay put. It’s a long lesson for the US to teach this, because of its failures to teach it in the past, when the lesson could have been shorter. When the world gets the message that when the US goes somewhere to do a job and stays there until the job is finished, US threats (aka “diplomatic pressure”) will be believed and it won’t have to follow them up by force.
Oh I agree Findlay, which is why you do not hear me calling for US withdrawal from Iraq. However I rather suspect the job is pretty much finished in Afghanistan.
Euro-think? Meaning what exactly? The US military in Afghanistan only makes sence if it is continuing to make Al Qaeda less effective. Yet much of the analysis I read suggests that it is already well past the point of diminishing returns.
Mm. By that standard, the returns have been diminishing ever since the fighting in Tora Bora ended.
Is the analysis you’re reading related to the recent report about the taxi driver? If so, did the reports mention that the incident happened some years ago? I do not say this to minimize it’s seriousness- the punishment for torture resulting in death specified in the UCMJ is execution- but to remind you that the timing of these reports is probably not coincidence.
Afghanistan is a small matter on a strategic level, but on a political level, withdrawing the troops there would be considered giving up the hunt for Bin Laden, which may be justifiable on a cost/benefit level, but it would be politically unacceptable.
Politically unacceptable? The longer the US in there, the more things can go horribly wrong. Do the politics only become acceptable when something goes truly disasterously wrong and more and more Afghans are shooting at the US forces not because they support Al Qaeda but because they see the US as an occupying power whose original and very welcome justification is not gone?
The point of diminishing returns is the point at which the costs and risks outweigh the benefits and that point was probably reached a year ago. By all means still operate spec ops teams there but having the US and UK trying to fight a preposterous drugs war there shows how much the original objective has been lost sight of.
The point is that NO ONE (other than the editors of the Guardian) doubts what will happen if you really really piss of the USA now. How many pissant regimes in far off places does the US need to overthrow before people take US threats VERY seriously? Afghanistan and Iraq was quite enough to do that. Anyone still cling to the ‘psychological weakness’ theory of the US learned that even if it was true post-Vietnam, after 9/11 is was not true any more. And all the players in Afghanistan, the great majority of whom are not ideological Islamic nubjobs, know the cost of becoming the enemy of the USA. As a result, it is daft to think an occupation force is needed for people to get the picture what happens if you side with the Islamic terrorists.
Doesn’t seem to have done much for North Korea, though. Nor has it dampened Chinese enthusiasm for the incorporation of Taiwan.
EG
“Throw a little money the warlords way if needed, get a rough with anyone who buddies up to the bad guys ( and that does not require the occupation of Afghanistan) and turn a blind eye to the whole drug thing and the problem takes care of itself.”
That’s exactly right. Tha’t more or less what is being done.
I don’t think there is an “occupation” in Afghanistan. The US is not running daily affairs.
There are some bases, especially air-bases from which you could launch a fast air strike, and some spec-ops operations. Some police work in Kabul, by international units. These need to remain, so the warlords would not get funny ideas.
I don’t think the US or Karzai are trying at the moment to impose a strong central government. Seems Karzai is wise enough to respect natural power structures.
So – no problem (except drug erradication).
Are they still calling Karzi the Mayor of Kabul?
I don’t know about a news black out but there have been plenty of reports and a few TV documentaries, some by formerly exiled Afganhis suggesting the place is still in a real mess.
The place isn’t called the graveyard of Empire for nothing.
Currently annexing Taiwan back into the PRC would be bad for business. My worries start if Chineese capitalism has a hic-cup and suddenly business and trade isn’t quite what it used to be at home.
Why, exactly?
EG
Euan, China is a communist dictatorship, albeit with a few market tendencies. Taiwan is a representative democracy with a market economy. Being a dictatorship – of right or left – today is so 20th century.
Will the US permit China to forceably take Taiwan? Not a chance.
Despite China’s television sets, nick nacks, and purchase of US bonds.
At the current time the PRC don’t need to do it. They are enjoying growth in all key markets without the need to control any of the ROC companies and resources. In fact, in certain sectors the PRC looks like it could cripple certain leading ROC ODMs purely through beating them in the open market – easier and less likely to result in a military event.
I’ll not wager that this will be a long term thing as current market and business conditions could change so that the net benefits reverse and the political options would suddenly out weigh the business benefits.
Just, at the moment, IMO, I don’t think there’s an immediate risk.
Re: China, the US, and Taiwan
As long as the US makes it perfectly clear to China (PRC) that it will use force to prevent an invasion of Taiwan (whether it declares Independance or not) things will be OK. Any suggestion that it might not could be fatal.
The Korean War happened because the US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, said that South Korea wasn’t in the US orbit of concern (or some such jargon). Almost at once North Korea invaded South Korea. Then the US changed its mind.
Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait partly, at least, because the US Ambassador, April Glaspel, gave him the impression that the US wouldn’t mind. See Pollack’s “The Threatening Storm” – or my review of it, where I’ve called her Susan (I don’t know why). April was wrong – though I seem to remember that all (or nearly all) the Democrats in Congress were against US intervention.
I’m afraid America’s most deadly enemies are home-grown, and include much of the MSM. And its external enemies are well aware of this and are prepared to wait. Or am I being paranoid? But America is not a monolith.
I have my doubts that Newsweek figures highly on the reading lists in Kabul. The Koranic toilet doucing is not a) anew story b ) was not the cause of the Afghan riots / deaths etc.,
The Hizb-i-islami Afghanistan, a Taliban movement led by Maulvi Younus Khalis, as well as Gulbadin Hikmatyar’s Hezb -e- Islami were the most active segments within the Pashtun-dominated cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, Khost, Asadabad and Kandahar, that were asking for a massive mobilisation against the US presence in Afghanistan last week, flag burning etc.
Diplomatic sources in Kabul Sources in Kabul see a strong spring offensive that the Taliban fighters have launched, with a much wider and popular movement against the US.
UK / NATO military observers were seen in the region last week considering a call from the White House (Condi / Rummy et. al. as the ordure hits the aircon)to plunge UK troops into this bloody cauldron.
Watch this space for an announcement about troop movements from the Scotsman John Reid AKA Minister of Defence… augmenting NATO forces (now approx 500) …beefing up the response…sharing the burden…spreading the load … part of a widening response in the War on Terror… blah blah … pulling US chestnuts out of the fire – re-run history reel .. Terrorist aided by US bites the hand that feeds … Osama ? Hekmatyar ?
Get yer placards out.
Meanwhile ….. in Iraq (curiously and coincidentally /) Muqtada al-Sadr’s influence continues to grow in Iraq as his supporters bop off the Sunni clerics.
He stands outside the conformist Iraqi political structure. U.S. and Iraqi forces hold 13 supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr after a swoop on a Shiite mosque in Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad. Iraqi troops confiscated weapons from the mosque .
As a result Sadr called for massive demonstrations against the American occupation and the painting of the Israeli Flag and the Stars & Stripes at the entrances of Mosques. His supporters made their mark …..
–Politically unacceptable? The longer the US in there, the more things can go horribly wrong.–
You got me there, Perry, we’re still in Europe and Sork.
China doesn’t (yet) have the conventional military capacity to invade and conquer Taiwan. They wouldn’t try, anyway. It’s bad for business, Euan, because you’d find foreigners and foreign companies getting the hell out of China just as quickly as they scampered in. Consequently, China would regress several years economically if it invaded Taiwan. Business hates that kind of instability. Any substantial conomic decline would probably mean the demise of the Communists. Beijing will almost certainly play a waiting game with Taiwan (whilst blustering bombastically about its renegade province), mainly because it doesn’t have too many other options.
I’m wondering why we don’t pretend to take the NORKs at their word on nukes, and regretfully inform the world that, since the NORKS have nukes, we will have to make sure that our allies in the region can deter the NORKs with nukes of their own.
Give Taiwan a double fistful of nukes of their own (or only pretend to), and the chances of China invading go to absolute zero.
Plus, maybe it gets China off its ass and into the business of getting rid of Kim Jong Il.
I can see lots of good reasons, strategy-wise, to keep a US presence in Afghanistan – keeps the proto-Talibanis under wraps, keeps a threat on Iran’s border. We should get out of the business of giving a crap what Afghanis grow in their fields, though. If we left them alone domestically, I doubt they would care much about a few bases and patrols.
Perry: while your arguments in favor of the US /UK pulling out of Afghanistan are pretty cogent (FWIW, I tend to agree with you) – I just don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon. The plusses of the US maintaining some sort of permanent (or semi-permanent) base or bases are many: they are strategically sited; they can keep an eye on a troubled and troubling spot in the world; and can act as a backup for the security of the central Government (however weak or strong) – since a chaotic Afghanistan is really in no one’s best interest. As long as the troops don’t make too much of a nuisance of themselves, there is little downside. Of course, this does mean that the US will have to maintain the security of its presence in Afghanistan by tolerating the rule of various warlords who make their living by the drug trade: but Americans, in general, only care about druglords who speak Spanish, so there is little interest.
Oh, and pace your commenters above going on and on about the iniquitous “MSM” and its belated coverage of the awful abuses at Bagram airbase: the incidents may have happened two years and more ago, and been investigated by the Army since: but of the 27 servicemen investigated, only 7 have actually been charged with anything: and that only a few months ago.
Guy H. and Perry,
More on your “euro-think”. War strategy plans against Islamofascism and against its associated terrorism by the members of the euro community appears to be: retreat is priority 1.
In North America (sans Canada) that strategy is rejected out of hand.
The US learned – sadly – in 1975 that tyranny is not conquered by capitulation. Vietnam is – still in the 21st century – a communist dictatorship with a miserable standard of living for its serfs.
To the American MSM, that is just fine. However, to the American people, individual liberty and freedom for the Vietnamese people will occur; the only unanswered is “when?”.
I don’t think so. When a country is economically powerful and growing, it doesn’t seem to matter all that much. Business prefers profit to taking a moral position, after all.
Compare with the enormous economic power wielded by Britain in the 19th century. Britain depended on free business and free trade, and lots of it. However, that did not stop Britain’s various foreign adventures, wars, occupations and conquests. Business didn’t suffer. Equally, American business doesn’t seem to have suffered unduly from the US occupation of Iraq, nor did it in the past when America decided to be assertive around the world.
One example where economic pressure forced an end to a military adventure (or at least having a role in the ending) was Suez, but that came about not through business but through the American state creating a run on Sterling to make a political point. America is economically too dependent on China to do the same thing in the event of an invasion of Taiwan.
So, no, it would not be bad for business. Provided the economic environment remains stable and business remains as profitable as it is now, business is not going to leave. Why would it?
EG
China doesn’t (yet) have the conventional military capacity to invade and conquer Taiwan. They wouldn’t try, anyway. It’s bad for business,[…]
Relying on the business acumen of self-described communists strikes me as an unwise strategy. The former reason given seems much more reassuring, but it appears the China is in the process of developing a conventional military capacity to do so.
What will happen when they have it?
Euan –
The trouble is, if China invaded Taiwan, it would utterly ruin America’s relationship with China. America would almost certainly slap on sanctions, and quite possibly engage China militarily. The threat of war with America would be enough to set many a company scuttling out of China. This would mean economic contraction, which would result in further unemployment – which is already causing widespread popular unrest, further strain on the insolvent banks, more (please allow me to mix my metaphors here) straws to bring the house of cards that is the PRC crashing down. Widespread social chaos, a collapse of the present day institutions and any semblance of the rule of law. Sound like a good business environment?
Hence, bad for business. There is a China bubble afoot. Irrational exuberence abounds, despite the facts: the big four government owned banks that carry 70% of the country’s deposits are insolvent with around 50% – maybe more, nobody really knows for sure, but it’s a lot more than the 25% that the government claim – of the loans on their books non-performing. The public industrial sector employs 41% of the industrial workforce (with 51% of China’s plant machinery which makes 28% of total industrial output – the sector is the recipient of all the bad loans) is made up mostly of zombie companies. If one of these two factors goes markedly downhill, the other will too because they’re so intertwined. The Chinese population is a tinderbox just waiting to explode. Think about it – hundreds of millions of people who have just lost their jobs and/or savings all across China. What do you think they’ll do? Take to the streets, that’s what. Expect thousands of Tiananmen Squares at the same time. And these won’t be pro-democracy students that the average man in the street doesn’t have the time of day for. The riots will be made up of average men in the street. There will be no end of popular sympathy for them. Then the bubble will burst big time.
And it’s highly likely at the end of it all the PRC model will be out on its ear.
Rosignol –
For the communists, it’s less about business and more about social stability. They rely on the former to support the latter.
“And it’s highly likely at the end of it all the PRC model will be out on its ear. ”
That will happen sooner or later, anyway.
Sure, a Taiwan adventure could precipitate it, that’s why the cautious old communist leader will avoid it.
I’m predicting sooner. And it won’t be a Gorbachev-style dismantling, either. The communists in China won’t hand over power, it’ll be taken off them.
ISFMA,
Is it wise to blithely assume the US would apply sanctions? Doing so would cause the US a great deal of economic pain, in return for what? They MIGHT apply sanctions, but I would not say it is certain and I don’t think they would actually last that long or be particularly hard – America has too much to lose and nothing to gain from such a course.
I think the prospect of US direct military action against China is vanishingly small. I see no advantage whatever in the US taking on a large nuclear armed power over a local territorial dispute and cannot think of any compelling reason why they would do so. If they won’t do it against North Korea – a much easier and universally loathed target – what chance against China?
EG
It’s wise to assume that the Americans will do something. They have great financial interests in Taiwan, too. And great political capital tied up in its defence. Also, there’s a strong Taiwan lobby in Washington.
In ’96 the Americans moved carrier fleets into the straits when China got belligerant. Do you really think that, had China made a move against Taiwan, the fleets would have stood back and done nothing? I think not. If China moved on Taiwan, I think sanctions of some kind are likely. Despite that, I guarantee many foreigners would run like hell from China if it ever got really offside with the Americans – war or sanctions wouldn’t even need to be declared.
If Taiwan doesn’t do something silly like openly declare independence, Beijing won’t be forced to do anything except bluster nationalistically.
As for American economic pain – they (and the rest of the world, too) are going to feel it sooner or later. We all backed the wrong horse, China, with its hopelessly lost banking system and its powderkeg society.
“I think the prospect of US direct military action against China is vanishingly small”
So you think US declarations aren’t worth anything ? The US’s declared policy is that an invasion of Taiwan will not be tolerated.
Jacob –
On the proviso that Taiwan doesn’t declare independence.
One must distinguish between rhetoric and action. What would America gain? What would it lose? Consider these things in the light of an America already hurting from strategic overstretch and failing to do anything concrete about a rather more dangerous nuclear (or nearly so) power not far away from Taiwan.
EG
In 2005 China is rather wealthier and a lot more confident. America is somewhat less powerful militarily than it was a decade ago (although still very strong) and has other preoccupations. Things change.
Perfectly correct. I’m not saying China is about to invade, merely that if it did do so it would not face that much MEANINGFUL external opposition. And of course the Chinese are pragmatic & take the long view.
Unless it all goes down the crapper soon – which is unlikely but not impossible – the “wrong horse” is probably the next major world power, and is certainly going to be the dominant strategic player in the Pacific.
EG
The notion that the US would just blow its credibility when it guarantees the security of a state (Taiwan) by doing nothing if it was attacked shows why Euan is just contrarian for the sake of it and really has nothing much to say that is really worth discussing. The man just likes the look of his own pixels are is really just a troll at this point. And the best policy is “do not feed the trolls.”
But that is not an alternative! Fighting guerilla wars against a whole new bunch of people who have nothing to do with either Al Qaeda or the Ba’athists and either who only want their country back or are shooting at our soldiers because we don’t like how they make their money (i.e. selling drugs) is NOT why the US and UK went into Afghanistan or Iraq. Mission creep is the road to endless war not only without end but without any meaningful posibility of success.
Euan – Ostensibly China is in rude health, however the People’s Republic is barely holding together. I have recently written a paper on this very topic, actually. As I said before, China’s stability is a leaking dyke that Beijing is forced to plug with increasing frequency. And these are the good times! However the strains of their peculiar variety of mixed economy – “socialism with Chinese characteristics” – are showing. Soon, there will be too many leaks to plug and the dyke will collapse. I strongly urge you to read a book called “The Coming Collapse of China” by Gordon Chang. Chinese take to the streets when an illegal deposit taker goes under in Chongqing. Imagine what would happen if the major banks were swept away? This is hardly an unlikely event – these banks are already insolvent. A moderate but widespread run on the banks would completely finish them off. What would provoke a run? Maybe…attacking Taiwan, due to uncertainty over the consequences of such an action?
China is a mess. It’s powering along now because there’s a bubble and everyone is throwing money its way. Like the dot-coms, this irrational exuberance won’t last forever. I suspect that the PRC will collapse within the next 10 years, very possibly 5.
There is a possibility that, if China invaded Taiwan, America would do nothing much. I think that possibility rather remote, however, for the reasons I detailed in a post above. I strongly doubt the US would engage in a messy and expensive land battle with China, however I am sure they would send a couple of carrier fleets into the Taiwan straits, as they did in 1996, (when China was just as relevant to US interests) and make the formation of Chinese supply lines impossible. This would make any invasion a non-starter. And it could be done relatively cheaply and with minimal casualties, considering the overwhelming American naval dominance over Chinese forces.
Snide – I think that’s a little unfair. Euan is being consistent; he says he’s a pragmatist, and it could be argued that letting China have its way as much as possible is important because of the American money invested in the place. This is a pragmatic argument, although not a particularly convincing one. The thing is, an American security guarantee is also worth something. The Americans have spent billions upon billions of dollars making it mean more than just words to the rest of the world. Abandon one security guarantee – especially one as trumped up as Taiwan’s – and the USA suddenly becomes markedly less relevant to foreigners. America will keep its word over Taiwan for that reason alone. Now there’s a pragmatic reason why America would defend Taiwan.
Damn, just looking at Perry’s post…this thread is about Afghanistan! What the hell, same continent.
I’d rather have a permanent U.S. presence in Afghanistan than in Germany.
From a selfish standpoint, I doubt whether our soldiers would, however, and I can’t say I blame them.
Dunno, Kim. In the greater scheme of history, Germany has caused a hell of a lot more trouble in the last century than Afghanistan has in the last millenium.
I have yet to see you post a single comment that makes any constructive contribution to any debate on Samizdata. In such circumstances, forgive me if I fail to take your repeated insults and glib remarks particularly seriously.
I instinctively mistrust any book which has “The Coming” in its title. Whiffs of ideologically inspired prophecy.
However, it is quite true that China is not guaranteed to succeed. I think, though, that dodgy banks and a creaking financial system are insufficient in themselves to form the foundation of any firm prediction. Considering things like the South Sea Bubble in Britain and the widespread corruption and insolvency in the American banking and financial system in the 19th century, it would seem that growing nations can easily enough get over these things. Basically, it CAN bring down the whole thing, but it doesn’t HAVE to. Another factor to consider is just how much the US economy depends on Chinese imports and markets. A Chinese economic collapse would be seriously painful for America, so we have a potential American desire to maintain stability in China to consider.
Factors which are arguably more important are, inter alia, a large supply of cheap labour, an educated citizenry, a pro-business state, a cultural willingness to take risks and the existence of many local and overseas markets eager to buy. China has all these things. So, for that matter, do India and to a lesser extent Russia. If China does fail, one of these two will succeed (more likely India).
If China does run into serious economic problems (and I agree, the collapse of state bank guarantees is a likely cause), then this only makes an invasion of Taiwan more likely.
If it does, one should also bear in mind that America’s relative military and economic strength will be lower then than now, just as it is lower now than 10 years ago. If anything, this makes invasion more plausible and less risky because China would need an external diversion and would face weaker opposition.
Yes, but you have to understand why it does this. It is nothing to do with some noble attachment to a democratic ideal, but rather the active defence of US strategic interests. The US supported Taiwan initially as a counter to communist China, which was of course a strategic threat. The threat was that the US might have to face a war against communist expansion in both east and west at the same time. This threat has now largely vanished, and thus US forces are scaled back and America no longer has the capability to fight two such simultaneous wars. Further military cutbacks are envisaged as the global threat recedes at the same time as America hits strategic overstretch and its own political-economic limitations. This happens to every major power, as a cursory glance at history reveals. America is no exception, and one day it will happen to China too.
In passing, one might note that Taiwan is hardly a long-standing bastion of liberal capitalist democracy. It hasn’t been democratic at all for very long, and nor was its economy aggressively capitalist during the KMT diktat.
The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan noted that US foreign policy was impossible to decipher until one considered energy supply, when it suddenly became clear. Afghanistan and the Middle East are very important in this respect, but east Asia is not. Hence, it can be deduced, aggressive military action in Iraq, strong words and threats towards Iran, and nothing meaningful whatever towards North Korea. Nor, for that matter, has America done anything much about Chinese probing of Japanese defences or Chinese assertions of sovereignty over places like the Spratly Islands. There’s nothing to gain from doing it. If this analysis is correct, and I see little reason to suppose it is not, one would not expect the US to take concrete steps against China over Taiwan. The words will remain, but there is no imperative for action.
Equally, there is no imperative for China to invade. As long as this situation prevails, everyone is happy. If it breaks down the things will depend on the relative economic and military preparedness of China and the US. If it happens now, America wins. If it happens in a decade, China is more likely to prevail. If it happens 20-30 years in the future and in the meantime China continues to grow, then there will be nothing much anyone can do about it & it’s a walkover for China.
It is, therefore, in our interests to ensure stability in China in the short to medium term. This includes making sure the Taiwanese don’t do anything silly to provoke China, such as declaring independence. In the long term, China will either fail (and we will need to deal with similar issues in another rising power) or it will succeed and be able to act more or less unchallenged, at least in the Pacific.
EG
I recommend it, regardless. If you read it you may not be so – to borrow a word you used earlier – blithe in dismissing what I said about China coming unstuck.
I don’t think China really has the capacity to invade now. And in 10 years, America will still be more than a match for five Chinas. How many carrier fleets do they have? And another one’s coming on line in a year or so. How many does China have? Anyway, if China’s economy collapsed catastrophically, there would almost certainly be no PRC, hence no PLA.
Straw man time! Did I ever suggest America was ever motivated by anything other than its own self interest? It’s interesting to note that someone as knowledgable as yourself still expects the USA to treat all its foes in the same way. Your British ambassador sounds about as ideologically flawed as you consider my text to be. There aren’t many other explanations for his half-witted comment, short of outright stupidity. There are a number of reasons why the USA hasn’t taken on North Korea on the battlefield. One that springs to mind is that the maniacs in Pyongyang have the capacity to flatten Seoul in a couple of hours with the amount of artillery they have lining the border. And then there are all the other geopolitical reasons. As I said in an earlier thread, it’s foreign policy nuance. Every state practices this. If China made a move against Taiwan, it would be relatively easy to rebuff them using the USA’s existing naval capacity. Hell, Taiwan can do it themselves at present, and probably still will be able to for the rest of this decade. It would take China a long, long time – decades – to build up the kind of naval force required to counter American dominance on the high seas.
America has rightly kept its nose out of the Spratly dispute. Things have not got heated enough to require its intervention. As for the Chinese probing Japan’s defences, well the Japanese proved they were more than capable of seeing off the Chinese when they forced that Chinese sub to surface. Why would the Americans get involved, especially since they want the Japanese to start standing on their own two feet a little more in terms of defence? Talk about sending mixed messages if the Yanks did intervene on Japan’s behalf. The Japanese managed just fine without the USA. Hell, they even extracted an apology from China. That whole mess was a PR disaster for Beijing. It stank of hamfisted Soviet-style manoeuvring.
Incidentally, and this is something I’ve been saying for a long time, I’m more than happy to see the Indians rise to become a pre-eminent power, and I think they’re a far better long term bet than the Chinese.
Any country can come unstuck. In the case of China there are a couple of good obvious reasons why this could happen. My point is not that it will not happen, but that it is not inevitable.
Indeed, but overall American military and particularly naval capability is reducing somewhat as strategic threats recede and the bills pile up. The number of carrier battle groups is expected to reduce over the next 10-15 years. China has been rumoured for some time to be planning carrier construction, but so far doesn’t seem to have done so. Certainly, the Chinese navy has expanded substantially in the past decade, and although less advanced than the US navy it is still a credible and growing force.
It’s nothing to do with straw men. I’m not saying you are wrong, I am merely saying that this is WHY America does these things. Where there is no imperative for action, and where other priorities compete, action is less likely.
I don’t. America will treat different enemies in different ways depending on competing priorities and on the costs and benefits involved. America right now is very interested in strategic alternatives for its energy supply, and does not have the military might to enforce its wishes in this respect and at the same time engage in a major effort for no particular advantage thousands of miles away.
I don’t really go for ideology, as I’m sure you know. However, it is tolerably obvious that the areas where the US is most active and assertive are those areas which have oil and gas reserves or which control the route of pipelines. Iraq (reserves), Iran (reserves), ex-USSR republics (reserves, pipelines) and Afghanistan (pinch point in what used to be Soviet Central Asia, close to pipelines) all attract considerable attention. This is not to say that Iraq was a simplistic “war for oil” because it wasn’t. However, it WAS a war to ensure diversity in oil supply.
Despite being an unpredictable state and developing nuclear weapons, North Korea doesn’t. Doubtless part of the assessment may be that North Korea’s government may not last too long. However, whatever happens in Korea doesn’t really affect American energy supply and does not pose a significant strategic threat to the US. Given this, and given that China is the dominant and growing regional power, the need for and desirability of an American entanglement in Korea is unclear.
Why would Taiwan be any different?
EG
The more I examine China, the more I consider its economic boom transient. There are so many good reasons why the PRC will probably collapse in a few years.
I believe at one stage they were looking at buying a Soviet carrier. I don’t see any evidence of America reducing the potency of its navy – on the contrary the US is bolstering its armed services at the moment. Perhaps in the medium term you could be right. Although I believe the United States will maintain a decisive naval advantage over countries like China for at least a few decades.
I agree with some of what you said in this paragraph. The ME gets a lot of the world’s attention because it’s strategically important, and it’s strategically important because of its oil reserves. However, Afghanistan does not fit this picture. The country would hardly have been invaded because the potential for a pipeline, or its proximity to other pipelines! The most logical reasons for the Taliban’s removal were the most obvious. Any speculation about oil pipelines is a bit far fetched. I don’t see the US’s policy towards Iran as being markedly different to its policy towards N Korea. Also, no one sees Venezuela, another oil rich nation with a recalcitrant dictator in charge which is in the USA’s backyard, to boot – as an American target for conquest. To state, as your ambassador did, that American foreign policy doesn’t make sense unless viewed through an ‘energy supply’ lens is silly. IMO American foreign policy makes about as much sense as any other nation’s I can think of.
Because defending Taiwan would be relatively cheap, clean and easy as far as military manouvres go. I believe the USA would stand by its guarantee to stop a Chinese invasion. As I argued earlier, an American security guarantee is only worth something because it will be adhered to. And the other reasons I asserted earlier.
Well, actually, it did. You said
Which was not up for discussion at all. I was not disputing America’s motivation for sticking by its security guarantees, I didn’t mention it at all. Thus you were creating a straw man by refuting a point I din’t make.