At the end of the day, most of the regional players want ISIS
defeated, the Taliban pacified and the US out of the region before a new
Central Asian War is fomented. The US strategy has largely failed. Too many
years have gone by and the situation on the ground has changed. There are more
players and different stakes.
After nearly forty years of near continuous warfare the
Afghan people have had enough. The US has never been all that serious about
defeating the Taliban or doing what it would take to pacify and transform the
country. The Afghans like the Vietnamese and even the Russians win by attrition
and yet they pay a terrible price.
There are other considerations that have not been mentioned
here. The Opium Trade is significant and once again there is the question of
pipelines. The US does not want the Chinese to succeed as they already have in
Pakistan. If Afghanistan is opened to them, it will give them a serious edge in
Central Asia as they will now have a means of transport for resources. The US
has continued to work toward forging closer ties with Kazakhstan which might
afford an outlet via the Caspian, Azerbaijan and Georgia or Turkey. In the end
it might be that the US isn't the only power making trouble in the region.
Moscow is not idle especially in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Beijing will tread
carefully when it comes to antagonising Washington but if India starts to
trespass on their interests, then look out. Beijing might end up funding a new
Maoist insurgency or something else. They already support Naxalite/Maoist paramilitaries
in India. The campaign can always be escalated, generating new chapters of
grief for New Delhi.
As far as opium is concerned, well that depends on how you
understand its role in geopolitics since the end of World War II. The trade was
in the hands of the mujahideen and what later became the US-allied Northern
Alliance. The trail makes it way to Turkey, the Balkans and from there into
Italy and Central Europe. America's allies (and business partners) lost control
of this during the Taliban interlude. Since then it has been a source of contention.
What will a US withdrawal mean? It's hard to say but you can be sure this is
another angle that is being considered. Hamid Karzai's brother was clearly
involved. Was he a rogue actor or effectively an agent of the United States?
How you answer these questions and interpret these past events will help you
reckon with the thinking and necessary strategies of those in power.
If the Afghan source is closed or lost, then look for another
theatre to open up. Most of the Afghan opium ends up somewhere in Eurasia, much
of it in Europe. The US is mostly supplied from Latin America where cultivation
has expanded in recent years. The thing is, even if the US is forced out of
Afghanistan there's little to suggest the trade would dry up, it's just the
money would flow elsewhere. My guess would be a war would erupt in the
underground among the various mafias, smugglers and dealers. Of course with
trouble brewing in Burma, the Golden Triangle is always another possibility.
When the US pulled out of Vietnam they lost stock in a lot of the trade and yet
they have continued to exert some influence through allies such as Thailand. An
instable situation could be quickly exploited and obviously Burma/Myanmar is
being targeted by the Western Establishment. It hasn't received a lot of notice
but in addition to the humanitarian case for war, there has been a growing
chorus of voices pointing to Myanmar and identifying it as a source for heroin
production.
It all bears watching. The vultures circle and devour one
another, innocents die while coffers are filled and those that experience
secondary benefits from these operations look the other way.
It won't happen but Afghanistan could be handed over to a UN
created body and a road-map could be established for partition. It could be carved
up into at least two or three countries. It could solve the problem and yet
admittedly the autonomous parcels would come under influence of neighbouring
powers. If it backfired it could open up a new chapter of warfare. But it could
also bring peace, but a peace that would grant victory to none. Washington
would probably prove the biggest loser, at the very least in terms of face.
They might establish a proxy regime in the centre of Afghanistan, based in
Kabul and yet without the south and the east it would all be for nought.
It's possible that if granted autonomy such new and fairly
weak states would be eager and willing to do business. American money could
flow in but not the troops. It's an interesting speculation but it's hard to
imagine it coming to pass.
See also:
I wanted to leave a comment about your post on ecclesiastical famine:
ReplyDeleteReading this, it sounds like I'm enjoying a sumptuous feast in comparison to your situation! But it's hardly an ideal, or desirable, situation. I am with a PCA congregation, and left due to a number of issues in regards to form, teaching, and leadership structure and style. But we had to go back, and I tell people it's the best worst option. There's nothing remotely decent in comparison.
We tried a local LCMS for a bit, but it was odd and backwards. In a lot of ways, LCMS is like a Protestant version of Rome. It is super vicious about protecting its confessional standards, it views itself as the elect remnant among Protestant sectarians, and its clerical circles function as the true-Christian class. And yet, the people are generally ignorant. I remember attending a lecture, it being the 500th anniversary of Luther's 95 theses, and there church members (presumably in good standing) totally ignorant of justification by faith. They didn't even understand the caricatures! And it doesn't help that the pastor is a real reformer, basically trying to make the LCMS into a 1970s Evangelical church. It was like being in a time warp, or something.
And the saddest part, which you don't mention due it being only sorrow on top of sorrow, is that many churches have a comatose notion of community. People hardly know each other in any substantial way. Despite all the problems, there's at least a sense that the church is a place where you are some kind of family to each other. In many places, it's like a defunct social club. Church discipline is worse than useless when no one actually knows anyone. Hence why many Confessionalists depend upon throwing by-laws at people, and many Evangelicals, or any non-denom, depends upon charisma, social pressures, and sometimes unseemly means. Confessionalists like to point this out, but its the difference between subduing people with the threat of law-suits or the threat of getting socked in the jaw. Either way, it's hardly what one sees in Scripture. The sad state of things is that St. Paul's injunctions about the incestuous adulterer makes almost no sense. What's stopping him from just going down the street? To think turning him out would possibly get him to return repentant seems almost laughable. It's all so bad, and yet most commentors drone on about reviving Magisterial Protestantism. As if the state churches of Europe aren't proof of what that road looks like!
They are morons, in the most literal and pejorative sense of the term.
I fully agree with your statements here. I feel the same way about the PCA and the LCMS.
ReplyDeleteCommunity? Good night, we're just trying to find something we can attend and make it through the service without some kind of fiasco taking place. I'm certain these people don't realise it and don't mean to but in many cases their conduct is sacrilegious and sometimes worse. You won't get that (usually) in a PCA and certainly not in an OPC. The LCMS won't do it either and yet unless you're willing to become a Missouri-Synod Lutheran you're cut off. You can never take communion. So for us it wasn't really an option.
If you have an even half-decent tolerable church situation count yourself blessed. We would at this point probably 'go back' to a PCA that isn't too far away.... and yet, there again unless we become 'members' which involves an extra-Biblical paradigm which I can tolerate, but includes a ritual I will not participate in and oaths I will not take.... we are cut off.
Additionally I'll say this... they don't want me there. Even if I attend and just keep my mouth shut and not get involved and never question anything happening, and avoid doctrinal discussion... nice community experience... over time, usually 3-6 months the bitterness begins to develop. They begin to get irritated because you won't go along with things. My kids are older now so it's not an issue anymore but wow, if you don't send your kids to VBS or participate in the Christmas programme, if you don't send them to Sunday School to colour pictures of Jesus etc... over time they start to get frustrated with you and a process begins that will eventually make you just want to leave. I'd probably give it another go and yet I had a run in with them years ago. Presbyterian leaders are almost overwhelmingly a deceitful lot. They're more bureaucrats than anything else. I don't apologise for making these statements. My last experience with them was so negative I pretty much determined to have nothing to do with them. In some ways I regret it, and in some ways I don't.
Not to make you feel worse, but your situation does remind me that, whatever else I may find frustrating about the conservative evangelical church in the UK, we're pretty blessed by comparison. It's not hard to find a Reformed Baptist-type church that'll offer a half-decent sermon preached from the Bible at the very least, and even sympathetic ears in conversation about the concerns that drive us in terms of pilgrim theology an so on.
ReplyDelete