Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
bigtree
bigtree's Journal
bigtree's Journal
September 11, 2021
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust." -- T.S. Eliot
Is there anything more repugnant than hearing bin-Laden's taunting words so close to the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks? I don't mean the latest video he sent Bush to amp up the president's fear and smear campaign. I'm not thinking of the grainy shots of bin-Laden greeting his accomplices out in the open air of his mountain refuge.
Bush has been practicing his new protection scheme this past week with a series of speeches in which, as the explainer-in-chief, he's been methodical and zealous in his elevation of Osama bin-Laden; carefully reciting the most offensive and threatening of the terrorist's statements and dispatches.
Beginning in the second in his series of speeches, Bush chose the moment right after he had remarked on the "flood of painful memories" and the "horror of watching planes fly into the World Trade Center", to amplify bin-Laden's gloating remarks that the attack was "an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any in humankind."
On Sept.11 he'll travel to New York's 'Ground Zero' looking for a pile of rubble and a bullhorn to elevate himself and talk down to us from some lofty perch. Bush is desperate to revive and re-animate the demoted specter he had called his "prime suspect" in 2001.
"I want justice," Bush had said then. "There's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'
Six months after the attacks, however, he simply turned away from his 'hunt' and acted as if he didn't care anymore about catching him. Our forces had Bin-Laden cornered at Tora Bora, and then, he was allowed to escape into the mountains. "I don't know where he is," Bush replied when asked why the terrorist hadn't been caught. "I-I'll repeat what I said, Bush sputtered, "I am truly not that concerned about him."
It's five years from the date of the attacks, and Bush has finally found cause for concern. His party is poised to lose their majority in the House and, possibly, in the Senate. Voter opposition to Bush's occupation in Iraq has pulled his republicans down in the polls and threatens to take away the power that enabled him commit the troops to Iraq and keep them there. The specter of Osama bin-Laden is the only wedge Bush has to rally his dwindling base and convince voters that his party should be allowed to continue to lord over the authority they squandered in the five years since the attacks.
It's strange to hear Bush bring up bin-Laden. Bush has barely mentioned the terrorist since he claimed to be unconcerned about his whereabouts. In fact, the Senate went ahead and unanimously passed a Democratic amendment this week which restored the Pentagon's bin-Laden unit charged with finding the terrorist that Bush just up and closed without offering an alternative strategy or effort.
In Bush's updated, 'National Strategy for Combating Terrorism' that he references in his speeches, Osama bin-Laden is mentioned only once, in a reference to his 'privileged upbringing'. Dredging up all of the offensive rhetoric from bin-Laden now is designed to re-inflate those emotions that were so raw right after the horror unfolded; that uncertainty and anxiety which made Americans fold in the face of his consolidation of power.
Bush's own initial reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9-11 was a mix of paranoia and bluster as he cast the fight as a defense of 'freedom' that he said the attackers wanted to 'destroy'. "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other," he declared in an address to a joint session of Congress.
In his statement at the signing of the "anti-terrorism," Patriot Act, in October 2001, six weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush claimed that the measure would counter the threat of enemies that "recognize no barrier of morality and have no conscience." He sought to assure that the measure "upheld and respected the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution." He ends his statement with a pledge to enforce the law with "all of the urgency of a nation at war."
However, the President neglected to tell us which war he was referring to. The anti-terrorism measure was cobbled together in a few short months to take political advantage of the urge in Congress for a legislative response to the terrorist attacks, despite the president's claim that the bill was "carefully drafted and considered." It was a direct assault on the liberty, privacy, and free expression of all Americans.
From that document came a flood of legislative 'remedies' that would take advantage of the administration's blanket excuse of 'national security' that they and their minions in Congress draped over every stalled piece of legislation that could be remotely tied to their 'war on terror'. But, their transparent politicking with their new anti-terror tools had nothing at all to do with catching the perpetrators they said were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Their hunt became eclipsed by the violence their Iraq diversion had produced. Iraq became a terror magnet, just as Bush had planned. Instead of just "fighting them over there", our occupation had the effect of producing more individuals with a grudge who would do our troops, our interests, and our allies harm.
No amount of saber-rattling at Iran, showdowns with North Korea, or escalation of troops in Iraq to further prop up the crumbling Maliki regime can substitute for bringing bin-Laden to justice. Five years on the loose has made the terrorist into an inspiration for others who have been provoked by the mindless collateral killings by the U.S. in Bush's dual Mideast occupations. Yet, Bush has decided to elevate bin-Laden even more in his speeches and remembrances leading up to the 9-11 commemorations.
In Bush's radio address for Sunday, he speaks of a 'solemn occasion' and proceeds to muddy it up with more of bin-Laden's taunts. The president advances the terrorist's call for a Caliphate as he bids us to "hear the words" of the terrorist. "Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks, "A great step toward the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous Caliphate," Bush tells us. "Al Qaeda and its allies reject any possibility of coexistence with those they call "infidels."
Hear the words of Osama bin Laden," Bush says about his partner. In their respective protection schemes, both use the extreme violent reactions of the other to justify their self-appointed roles as saviors and protectors of their followers. Both are counting on their words to elicit fear among their minions and their foes alike, but, Bush is playing bin-Laden's surrogate in this latest promotion; elevating the terrorist to a political equal, looking to give bin-Laden's words a place in our commemorations; hoping Americans will focus on the barbarity and zeal of the attacker rather than his own inability to suppress and capture him.
So, Monday, in his 9-11 commemoration tour, Bush will return to Ground Zero, looking for rubble and a bull horn to elevate his made-up role as protector-in-chief. But, the residents there have gone on with their lives, removed the debris, and paved over the hallowed ground for politicians to come and preach, and for others, to pray.
All that is left in that city of the tragedy of September 11 are survivors and memories; and dust; the scattered remains from those pernicious, poisonous mountains of dust that exploded from the towers as they fell. The dust of the humanity of innocents and terrorists alike co-mingled with the debris, hovering for an eternity before it fell down upon the city; memories and the past inextricably mingled in the miasmic haze.
Bush can do nothing this September 11 except stir up settled dust from that hallowed ground; stirring up resentments and recriminations, deliberately soiling his immaculate cloak. He will not be there to unify our nation, as it had come together on its own right after the attacks. He's coming to Ground Zero with bin-Laden's specter on his sleeve, looking for a political lift out of his swaggering militarism. He will be looking to widen the divide that he's been nurturing since he ascended to power between those who have resisted his imperious grab for false authority in the wake of the violence, and those who still believe that he's protecting them with his blustering militarism and assaults on our own civil liberties.
However, there is no pile of rubble and humanity left in New York, or anywhere else, that Bush can stand on and bullhorn his way back into the nation's confidence. some of the disturbed dust has revealed a shameful, reckless indifference to catching bin-Laden, as those individuals in the top echelons of our government who were responsible for directing our nation's defenses ignored the myriad of reports coming from the agents in the field.
His 'War on Terrorism' has been nothing more than a scam unleashed against the liberties of blameless Americans, and his collateral military campaigns have had a unifying effect among those combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan who would resist his swaggering imperialism and consolidation of power.
Bush spoke of "vigilance" at the end of his radio address. "With vigilance, determination and courage, we will defeat the enemies of freedom," he says, "and we will leave behind a more peaceful world for our children and our grandchildren. That's an amazing contradiction to his own strident use of our nation's military to overthrow and occupy two sovereign nations in his term. It's a load of hubris from Bush, who has pledged to continue the occupation of Iraq "as long as he's president", and has bequeathed the disaster to "future presidents.'"
Abraham Lincoln spoke of our responsibility to vigilance at Edwardsville, Illinois in September 11, 1858:
We must resolve ourselves to vigilance against Bush's campaign to divide Americans into those who support his terror policies that he regards as patriots; and those who resist his imperious assaults on our civil liberties, diversion of forces and resources to Iraq, and his failure to catch the perpetrators defined in the very authorization that he claims gives him the power to ignore our nation's laws and our Constitution, that he portrays as traitors.
Come, November we must hasten the return of our democracy to our hands. No amount of fear-mongering from Bush and his murderous specter should be allowed to stand in the way. Bush should not be allowed to dictate our future to us, using the voice of this terrorist's violence.
Stirring Up The Dust At Ground Zero
...an essay/article I wrote on September 10, 2006. I wanted to write something new for the remembrance , but, this seems to cover my thoughts every year."I will show you fear in a handful of dust." -- T.S. Eliot
Is there anything more repugnant than hearing bin-Laden's taunting words so close to the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks? I don't mean the latest video he sent Bush to amp up the president's fear and smear campaign. I'm not thinking of the grainy shots of bin-Laden greeting his accomplices out in the open air of his mountain refuge.
Bush has been practicing his new protection scheme this past week with a series of speeches in which, as the explainer-in-chief, he's been methodical and zealous in his elevation of Osama bin-Laden; carefully reciting the most offensive and threatening of the terrorist's statements and dispatches.
Beginning in the second in his series of speeches, Bush chose the moment right after he had remarked on the "flood of painful memories" and the "horror of watching planes fly into the World Trade Center", to amplify bin-Laden's gloating remarks that the attack was "an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any in humankind."
On Sept.11 he'll travel to New York's 'Ground Zero' looking for a pile of rubble and a bullhorn to elevate himself and talk down to us from some lofty perch. Bush is desperate to revive and re-animate the demoted specter he had called his "prime suspect" in 2001.
"I want justice," Bush had said then. "There's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'
Six months after the attacks, however, he simply turned away from his 'hunt' and acted as if he didn't care anymore about catching him. Our forces had Bin-Laden cornered at Tora Bora, and then, he was allowed to escape into the mountains. "I don't know where he is," Bush replied when asked why the terrorist hadn't been caught. "I-I'll repeat what I said, Bush sputtered, "I am truly not that concerned about him."
It's five years from the date of the attacks, and Bush has finally found cause for concern. His party is poised to lose their majority in the House and, possibly, in the Senate. Voter opposition to Bush's occupation in Iraq has pulled his republicans down in the polls and threatens to take away the power that enabled him commit the troops to Iraq and keep them there. The specter of Osama bin-Laden is the only wedge Bush has to rally his dwindling base and convince voters that his party should be allowed to continue to lord over the authority they squandered in the five years since the attacks.
It's strange to hear Bush bring up bin-Laden. Bush has barely mentioned the terrorist since he claimed to be unconcerned about his whereabouts. In fact, the Senate went ahead and unanimously passed a Democratic amendment this week which restored the Pentagon's bin-Laden unit charged with finding the terrorist that Bush just up and closed without offering an alternative strategy or effort.
In Bush's updated, 'National Strategy for Combating Terrorism' that he references in his speeches, Osama bin-Laden is mentioned only once, in a reference to his 'privileged upbringing'. Dredging up all of the offensive rhetoric from bin-Laden now is designed to re-inflate those emotions that were so raw right after the horror unfolded; that uncertainty and anxiety which made Americans fold in the face of his consolidation of power.
Bush's own initial reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9-11 was a mix of paranoia and bluster as he cast the fight as a defense of 'freedom' that he said the attackers wanted to 'destroy'. "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other," he declared in an address to a joint session of Congress.
In his statement at the signing of the "anti-terrorism," Patriot Act, in October 2001, six weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush claimed that the measure would counter the threat of enemies that "recognize no barrier of morality and have no conscience." He sought to assure that the measure "upheld and respected the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution." He ends his statement with a pledge to enforce the law with "all of the urgency of a nation at war."
However, the President neglected to tell us which war he was referring to. The anti-terrorism measure was cobbled together in a few short months to take political advantage of the urge in Congress for a legislative response to the terrorist attacks, despite the president's claim that the bill was "carefully drafted and considered." It was a direct assault on the liberty, privacy, and free expression of all Americans.
From that document came a flood of legislative 'remedies' that would take advantage of the administration's blanket excuse of 'national security' that they and their minions in Congress draped over every stalled piece of legislation that could be remotely tied to their 'war on terror'. But, their transparent politicking with their new anti-terror tools had nothing at all to do with catching the perpetrators they said were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Their hunt became eclipsed by the violence their Iraq diversion had produced. Iraq became a terror magnet, just as Bush had planned. Instead of just "fighting them over there", our occupation had the effect of producing more individuals with a grudge who would do our troops, our interests, and our allies harm.
No amount of saber-rattling at Iran, showdowns with North Korea, or escalation of troops in Iraq to further prop up the crumbling Maliki regime can substitute for bringing bin-Laden to justice. Five years on the loose has made the terrorist into an inspiration for others who have been provoked by the mindless collateral killings by the U.S. in Bush's dual Mideast occupations. Yet, Bush has decided to elevate bin-Laden even more in his speeches and remembrances leading up to the 9-11 commemorations.
In Bush's radio address for Sunday, he speaks of a 'solemn occasion' and proceeds to muddy it up with more of bin-Laden's taunts. The president advances the terrorist's call for a Caliphate as he bids us to "hear the words" of the terrorist. "Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks, "A great step toward the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous Caliphate," Bush tells us. "Al Qaeda and its allies reject any possibility of coexistence with those they call "infidels."
Hear the words of Osama bin Laden," Bush says about his partner. In their respective protection schemes, both use the extreme violent reactions of the other to justify their self-appointed roles as saviors and protectors of their followers. Both are counting on their words to elicit fear among their minions and their foes alike, but, Bush is playing bin-Laden's surrogate in this latest promotion; elevating the terrorist to a political equal, looking to give bin-Laden's words a place in our commemorations; hoping Americans will focus on the barbarity and zeal of the attacker rather than his own inability to suppress and capture him.
So, Monday, in his 9-11 commemoration tour, Bush will return to Ground Zero, looking for rubble and a bull horn to elevate his made-up role as protector-in-chief. But, the residents there have gone on with their lives, removed the debris, and paved over the hallowed ground for politicians to come and preach, and for others, to pray.
All that is left in that city of the tragedy of September 11 are survivors and memories; and dust; the scattered remains from those pernicious, poisonous mountains of dust that exploded from the towers as they fell. The dust of the humanity of innocents and terrorists alike co-mingled with the debris, hovering for an eternity before it fell down upon the city; memories and the past inextricably mingled in the miasmic haze.
Bush can do nothing this September 11 except stir up settled dust from that hallowed ground; stirring up resentments and recriminations, deliberately soiling his immaculate cloak. He will not be there to unify our nation, as it had come together on its own right after the attacks. He's coming to Ground Zero with bin-Laden's specter on his sleeve, looking for a political lift out of his swaggering militarism. He will be looking to widen the divide that he's been nurturing since he ascended to power between those who have resisted his imperious grab for false authority in the wake of the violence, and those who still believe that he's protecting them with his blustering militarism and assaults on our own civil liberties.
However, there is no pile of rubble and humanity left in New York, or anywhere else, that Bush can stand on and bullhorn his way back into the nation's confidence. some of the disturbed dust has revealed a shameful, reckless indifference to catching bin-Laden, as those individuals in the top echelons of our government who were responsible for directing our nation's defenses ignored the myriad of reports coming from the agents in the field.
His 'War on Terrorism' has been nothing more than a scam unleashed against the liberties of blameless Americans, and his collateral military campaigns have had a unifying effect among those combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan who would resist his swaggering imperialism and consolidation of power.
Bush spoke of "vigilance" at the end of his radio address. "With vigilance, determination and courage, we will defeat the enemies of freedom," he says, "and we will leave behind a more peaceful world for our children and our grandchildren. That's an amazing contradiction to his own strident use of our nation's military to overthrow and occupy two sovereign nations in his term. It's a load of hubris from Bush, who has pledged to continue the occupation of Iraq "as long as he's president", and has bequeathed the disaster to "future presidents.'"
Abraham Lincoln spoke of our responsibility to vigilance at Edwardsville, Illinois in September 11, 1858:
"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises."
We must resolve ourselves to vigilance against Bush's campaign to divide Americans into those who support his terror policies that he regards as patriots; and those who resist his imperious assaults on our civil liberties, diversion of forces and resources to Iraq, and his failure to catch the perpetrators defined in the very authorization that he claims gives him the power to ignore our nation's laws and our Constitution, that he portrays as traitors.
Come, November we must hasten the return of our democracy to our hands. No amount of fear-mongering from Bush and his murderous specter should be allowed to stand in the way. Bush should not be allowed to dictate our future to us, using the voice of this terrorist's violence.
September 8, 2021
Biden says he is sure China will try to work out arrangement with Taliban http://reut.rs/2YrUXQK
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1435401270563590145
___________________________________________________
Pres. Biden's acknowledgment of China's role in Afghanistan, however oblique, brought to mind my obscure 2009 essay on China assuming more responsibility for future and livelihoods of Afghans, given they share economic and security concerns and opportunities, mostly benefiting China today.
It was a longshot appeal then, maybe not so much now the U.S. military has relinquished control. It may prove prescient....
ON his recent trip to China, President Obama publicly stressed cooperation between our nations and spoke at length of values and challenges that he said we share, while relegating serious criticisms of China's human rights record and economic concerns to private talks with the leaders there. Quite predictably, discussions of the economic concerns were reportedly muted by the fact of the record and rising U.S. debt that China finances such a great percentage of.
It's also reasonable to assume that the president's discussions of human rights abuses by China were similarly corrupted by the fact of America's spotty and sometimes negligent attention to the often destructive and devastating effects of our militarism waged across the sovereign borders of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan - the collateral effect of our 'shock and awe' bombings of civilian areas, the overthrow, replacement, and deliberate meddling in the affairs of sovereign governments; and the arbitrary, indefinite, and anti-democratic detentions of the citizenry, often without charges, trial, or counsel.
That spirit and focus from this new American administration on publicly stifling the negative about China and accentuating the positive isn't restricted to just economics or their abysmal lack of respect for their citizens' rights and freedom. The administration has yet to publicly challenge or solicit China to step up to their responsibility to the security of their border nation, Afghanistan.
In a period where China is experiencing unprecedented levels of growth and development - contrasted with America's faltering economy - little has been demanded of Afghanistan's neighbor in both the campaign against terrorism (a concern which China insists they share with the U.S.) and in the financing of the development of Afghanistan's security, an effort which the U.S. has opportunistically dominated.
At first blush, it would make sense that our government would be wary of allowing China - our longtime economic and military rival - to influence and advantage themselves of the Afghan regime our country folk are fighting and dying to preserve in power. It would even stand to reason that, given the posture our State Dept. and military take against what they see as potential threats from China's growing military, to China's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. in voting for U.N. sanctions against Iran, that our government and military would be loath to allow China to advantage themselves of the Afghan land or resources.
Yet, not only is our government acquiescing to China in their economic expansion into the new Afghanistan, our military has been directly protecting China's interests behind the sacrifice of our own nation's defenders.
In 2007, China's bid for copper rights in Afghanistan was accepted by the Karzai regime in a process in which many observers said the ethically-challenged government unfairly favored their influential neighbor. The deal included rights to the construction of a coal-fired electrical power plant and the contract to build Afghanistan's first freight railway. Earlier this year, it was reported that American troops there just happened to set up bases in Afghanistan's Jalrez Valley that they claimed were checkpoints against Taliban activity in the area, but effectively provides protection for China's copper mine.
While it's true, as American officials insist, that protecting China's mining enterprise in Afghanistan is also a defense of the country's most lucrative asset (a presumed benefit for the country's redevelopment), the glaring question is why hasn't the U.S. insisted that China assume the cost and function of that security?
China should be doing more in Afghanistan.
There is a glaring shortage of sustainable industry for Afghans who desperately need work. I'm not a fan of mining, but China's interest there should be leveraged to demand more from them in support of the infrastructure and development of the area for Afghans. I'm not supportive of a long-term U.S. role in defending that infrastructure. That job would seem to better fit folks in the region who should directly benefit from the Chinese projects and others, rather than some potential benefit to America.
The answer to all of that may well be within our nation's obvious rivalry with China and a lingering fear and secret loathing of the emerging giant. It can't be unnoticed by China that every decision our government makes to escalate and deepen our military involvement in the region is indirectly increasing our the debt to them that we've accrued as our military budget is inflated beyond our many other priorities and ability to pay. It may well be that there is a natural reluctance from the administration to demand an Afghanistan tribute from the creditors to that debt.
It would likely pain our defensive government and military establishment to allow China to move troops in and set up defensive bases in Afghanistan's neighboring provinces (like Uzbekistan) to 'fight terror'. But if there is any sincerity at all about preserving and defending the government we've helped install into power and authority, we should acknowledge that regional countries like Pakistan, Russia, China, and even Iran are going develop closer and more meaningful economic and security arrangements with the new regime than the West. It makes sense that we demand they assume responsibility for preserving the state they benefit from.
China should be allowed to do more in Afghanistan.
In March, the Obama administration accepted an invitation to attend a Russian-hosted conference on Afghanistan at which Iran also participated. The State Department sent a senior diplomat to a special conference of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization being held in Moscow to discuss Afghanistan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan as members. Along with Iran, India, Mongolia and Pakistan are observers.
I'm convinced that China, Russia, and their trading partner, Iran, are indispensable to a 'stable' Afghanistan in the future. It was interesting to see the U.S. attend this conference because the SCO is usually acting outside of American interests. I can only conclude from the willingness to engage at this meeting that the U.S. also views these nations as indispensable to Afghanistan's future. That wasn't the case with the last White House which focused on its antipathy toward Iran in distancing themselves from the group. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioned Iran's involvement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, saying that he thought it 'strange' that the SCO had included Iran because of what he said were their 'links to terrorists'.
If this administration is serious about looking for an 'exit' out of Afghanistan, while staying true to their stated concerns for 'stability' and defense of the Afghan government, they will need a regional organization like the SCO to organize Afghanistan's neighbors to provide the finance and the manpower for a cause which will (and should) arguably benefit those nations above and beyond America's own grudging campaign against the remnants and ghosts of the fugitive 9-11 terror suspects.
In that initiative, China should be asked and allowed to assume a more responsible and dominant role in Afghanistan befitting the enormous stake and benefit they will undoubtedly enjoy from the protection our own military forces presume to provide at this point in our eight-year-plus occupation.
Allowing China a Dominant Role in Afghanistan's Future
Reuters @Reuters 6mBiden says he is sure China will try to work out arrangement with Taliban http://reut.rs/2YrUXQK
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1435401270563590145
WASHINGTON, Sept 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden said on Tuesday he was certain China would try to work out an arrangement with the Taliban after the Islamic insurgents seized power in Afghanistan on Aug. 15.
"Asked if he was worried that China would fund the group, which is sanctioned under U.S. law, Biden told reporters, "China has a real problem with the Taliban. So they're going to try to work out some arrangement with the Taliban, I'm sure. As does Pakistan, as does Russia, as does Iran. They're all trying to figure out what do they do now."
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/biden-says-he-is-sure-china-will-try-work-out-arrangement-with-taliban-2021-09-07/
___________________________________________________
Pres. Biden's acknowledgment of China's role in Afghanistan, however oblique, brought to mind my obscure 2009 essay on China assuming more responsibility for future and livelihoods of Afghans, given they share economic and security concerns and opportunities, mostly benefiting China today.
It was a longshot appeal then, maybe not so much now the U.S. military has relinquished control. It may prove prescient....
"Power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another. And that is why the United States insists we do not seek to contain China's rise. On the contrary, we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations." --President Obama, speaking at town hall meeting in Shanghai, China Nov. 16
ON his recent trip to China, President Obama publicly stressed cooperation between our nations and spoke at length of values and challenges that he said we share, while relegating serious criticisms of China's human rights record and economic concerns to private talks with the leaders there. Quite predictably, discussions of the economic concerns were reportedly muted by the fact of the record and rising U.S. debt that China finances such a great percentage of.
It's also reasonable to assume that the president's discussions of human rights abuses by China were similarly corrupted by the fact of America's spotty and sometimes negligent attention to the often destructive and devastating effects of our militarism waged across the sovereign borders of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan - the collateral effect of our 'shock and awe' bombings of civilian areas, the overthrow, replacement, and deliberate meddling in the affairs of sovereign governments; and the arbitrary, indefinite, and anti-democratic detentions of the citizenry, often without charges, trial, or counsel.
That spirit and focus from this new American administration on publicly stifling the negative about China and accentuating the positive isn't restricted to just economics or their abysmal lack of respect for their citizens' rights and freedom. The administration has yet to publicly challenge or solicit China to step up to their responsibility to the security of their border nation, Afghanistan.
In a period where China is experiencing unprecedented levels of growth and development - contrasted with America's faltering economy - little has been demanded of Afghanistan's neighbor in both the campaign against terrorism (a concern which China insists they share with the U.S.) and in the financing of the development of Afghanistan's security, an effort which the U.S. has opportunistically dominated.
At first blush, it would make sense that our government would be wary of allowing China - our longtime economic and military rival - to influence and advantage themselves of the Afghan regime our country folk are fighting and dying to preserve in power. It would even stand to reason that, given the posture our State Dept. and military take against what they see as potential threats from China's growing military, to China's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. in voting for U.N. sanctions against Iran, that our government and military would be loath to allow China to advantage themselves of the Afghan land or resources.
Yet, not only is our government acquiescing to China in their economic expansion into the new Afghanistan, our military has been directly protecting China's interests behind the sacrifice of our own nation's defenders.
In 2007, China's bid for copper rights in Afghanistan was accepted by the Karzai regime in a process in which many observers said the ethically-challenged government unfairly favored their influential neighbor. The deal included rights to the construction of a coal-fired electrical power plant and the contract to build Afghanistan's first freight railway. Earlier this year, it was reported that American troops there just happened to set up bases in Afghanistan's Jalrez Valley that they claimed were checkpoints against Taliban activity in the area, but effectively provides protection for China's copper mine.
While it's true, as American officials insist, that protecting China's mining enterprise in Afghanistan is also a defense of the country's most lucrative asset (a presumed benefit for the country's redevelopment), the glaring question is why hasn't the U.S. insisted that China assume the cost and function of that security?
China should be doing more in Afghanistan.
There is a glaring shortage of sustainable industry for Afghans who desperately need work. I'm not a fan of mining, but China's interest there should be leveraged to demand more from them in support of the infrastructure and development of the area for Afghans. I'm not supportive of a long-term U.S. role in defending that infrastructure. That job would seem to better fit folks in the region who should directly benefit from the Chinese projects and others, rather than some potential benefit to America.
The answer to all of that may well be within our nation's obvious rivalry with China and a lingering fear and secret loathing of the emerging giant. It can't be unnoticed by China that every decision our government makes to escalate and deepen our military involvement in the region is indirectly increasing our the debt to them that we've accrued as our military budget is inflated beyond our many other priorities and ability to pay. It may well be that there is a natural reluctance from the administration to demand an Afghanistan tribute from the creditors to that debt.
It would likely pain our defensive government and military establishment to allow China to move troops in and set up defensive bases in Afghanistan's neighboring provinces (like Uzbekistan) to 'fight terror'. But if there is any sincerity at all about preserving and defending the government we've helped install into power and authority, we should acknowledge that regional countries like Pakistan, Russia, China, and even Iran are going develop closer and more meaningful economic and security arrangements with the new regime than the West. It makes sense that we demand they assume responsibility for preserving the state they benefit from.
China should be allowed to do more in Afghanistan.
In March, the Obama administration accepted an invitation to attend a Russian-hosted conference on Afghanistan at which Iran also participated. The State Department sent a senior diplomat to a special conference of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization being held in Moscow to discuss Afghanistan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan as members. Along with Iran, India, Mongolia and Pakistan are observers.
I'm convinced that China, Russia, and their trading partner, Iran, are indispensable to a 'stable' Afghanistan in the future. It was interesting to see the U.S. attend this conference because the SCO is usually acting outside of American interests. I can only conclude from the willingness to engage at this meeting that the U.S. also views these nations as indispensable to Afghanistan's future. That wasn't the case with the last White House which focused on its antipathy toward Iran in distancing themselves from the group. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioned Iran's involvement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, saying that he thought it 'strange' that the SCO had included Iran because of what he said were their 'links to terrorists'.
If this administration is serious about looking for an 'exit' out of Afghanistan, while staying true to their stated concerns for 'stability' and defense of the Afghan government, they will need a regional organization like the SCO to organize Afghanistan's neighbors to provide the finance and the manpower for a cause which will (and should) arguably benefit those nations above and beyond America's own grudging campaign against the remnants and ghosts of the fugitive 9-11 terror suspects.
In that initiative, China should be asked and allowed to assume a more responsible and dominant role in Afghanistan befitting the enormous stake and benefit they will undoubtedly enjoy from the protection our own military forces presume to provide at this point in our eight-year-plus occupation.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Maryland
Member since: Sun Aug 17, 2003, 11:39 PM
Number of posts: 85,986
