Iraq was a completely different animal. Firstly, it is strong and large and wealthy enough as a country to stand up to its neighbors (Iran and Syria). Afghanistan will never be large and rich enough to stand up to meddling by Pakistan and Iran, even if Afghanistan became cohesive as a state.
Secondly, the “surge” and “Anbar awakening” were working, and the plan was to reintegrate some of the Anbar/Sunni tribal elements into the Iraqi military. In the 2010 elections, the party/candidates with the most votes favored national unity government. Unfortunately, Obama/Biden had decided to wash their hands of Iraq out of spite and at the same time entreat Iran as the prime policy objective in the region. Iran was effectively allowed to back a soft coup which put in place a pro-Iranian government in 2010 rather than the one the Iraqis had elected. This government and Iranian elements and militias then began to cleanse government and the military of Sunni elements and a campaign of murder and terror was launched against the previously cooperative Anbar tribal leaders. That the Sunnis stood aside as ISIS swept through surprised no one. The Iraqi government and military had become an Iranian/Shiite tool.
The discretionary and unnecessary trashing of what was a fairly stable and obviously strategically important project in Iraq by the Obama administration (who at the same time covered their shame by declaring irrelevant Afghanistan “the good war”), the resulting increase in Iranian hegemony and sectarian terror, and the downplaying of the inevitable fundamentalist/terrorist Sunni reaction (Daesh/ISIS), which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and 5 million refugees across the region plus a rise in populism in the EU (due to immigration pressures and policies), has been little covered. Perhaps with Biden’s Afghanistan/Taliban debacle in the news, the media will look again at Obama/Biden’s abrupt withdrawal from Iraq (and the Iranian takeover they allowed), which was much more consequential (and still is an ongoing issue).
Interesting how the US gets emotional over countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and knocks them over willy-nilly, but when China sends us a virus that kills over half a million, there's barely a peep and we are still waiting for them to make a move.
Agree about Afghanistan, but I think attacking Taiwan a bunch of soaking wet infantry is PR fluff for recruitment purposes. IMO there is simply no case for it from the Chinese perspective. If a threat is called for, a simple land based missile barrage would do. It has the benefits of being far cheaper, and available right now, and harder to defend, and more menacing.
Talk of a naval blockade (by either side) has no credibility whatsoever, IMO, because it leads directly to sudden cessation of trade. This would cause multi-year pain for corporate stakeholders. Unlike, say, a hundred million people dying, which would probably be forgotten in a quarter or two. Politicians clumsy enough to ding up the money making apparatus get their power taken away. We've seen that already.
IMO the actual Chinese plan appears to be to change very little, and continue to out-build both Taiwan and the US in every category. There is absolutely no need for them to do anything else. The only item of first-class importance left to secure are chips, which will take a number of years.
The actual US plan appears to be to reconfigure things to slow down the Belt-Road scheme. Make deals with countries like Philippines, for example. Maybe rile up the locals in Kyrgyzstan to stop a railroad being built. Basically buying time for a technological breakthrough of some kind, and hope the other guy makes a mistake somewhere.
Taiwan has technical skills, a population of 20 million, and would be defending an island. Already, Taiwanese have hollowed out the insides of quartz mountains and emplaced aircraft hangars, with double blast doors, etc.
On the other hand, "In 2019, Taiwan spent 1.7% of its gross domestic product on its military."
By way of comparison, in early years Israel spent up to 30% of GDP on military (some say more).
Should the US come to the defense of a nation that spends 1.7% of GDP on its military?
In any event, perhaps Taiwan, Australia, S Korea, Japan, Thailand, Philippines and maybe even India and Vietnam should form a defense pact, and build or buy many "silent" hunter-killer and ballistic submarines. I mean like several hundred total.
Commercial shippers tend to go to port or anchor immediately at the first sign of trouble. China would get choked pretty quickly, commercially speaking, if hostilities broke out.
China's surface naval fleet would be very vulnerable. Beijing could bomb Taiwan by missile or air, but risk getting bombed back.
Might be a good situation for the US to get uninvolved. The US might prove a paper tiger, and provide a false sense of security.
Admire your writing as always, great post.
Iraq was a completely different animal. Firstly, it is strong and large and wealthy enough as a country to stand up to its neighbors (Iran and Syria). Afghanistan will never be large and rich enough to stand up to meddling by Pakistan and Iran, even if Afghanistan became cohesive as a state.
Secondly, the “surge” and “Anbar awakening” were working, and the plan was to reintegrate some of the Anbar/Sunni tribal elements into the Iraqi military. In the 2010 elections, the party/candidates with the most votes favored national unity government. Unfortunately, Obama/Biden had decided to wash their hands of Iraq out of spite and at the same time entreat Iran as the prime policy objective in the region. Iran was effectively allowed to back a soft coup which put in place a pro-Iranian government in 2010 rather than the one the Iraqis had elected. This government and Iranian elements and militias then began to cleanse government and the military of Sunni elements and a campaign of murder and terror was launched against the previously cooperative Anbar tribal leaders. That the Sunnis stood aside as ISIS swept through surprised no one. The Iraqi government and military had become an Iranian/Shiite tool.
The discretionary and unnecessary trashing of what was a fairly stable and obviously strategically important project in Iraq by the Obama administration (who at the same time covered their shame by declaring irrelevant Afghanistan “the good war”), the resulting increase in Iranian hegemony and sectarian terror, and the downplaying of the inevitable fundamentalist/terrorist Sunni reaction (Daesh/ISIS), which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and 5 million refugees across the region plus a rise in populism in the EU (due to immigration pressures and policies), has been little covered. Perhaps with Biden’s Afghanistan/Taliban debacle in the news, the media will look again at Obama/Biden’s abrupt withdrawal from Iraq (and the Iranian takeover they allowed), which was much more consequential (and still is an ongoing issue).
Interesting how the US gets emotional over countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and knocks them over willy-nilly, but when China sends us a virus that kills over half a million, there's barely a peep and we are still waiting for them to make a move.
Agree about Afghanistan, but I think attacking Taiwan a bunch of soaking wet infantry is PR fluff for recruitment purposes. IMO there is simply no case for it from the Chinese perspective. If a threat is called for, a simple land based missile barrage would do. It has the benefits of being far cheaper, and available right now, and harder to defend, and more menacing.
Talk of a naval blockade (by either side) has no credibility whatsoever, IMO, because it leads directly to sudden cessation of trade. This would cause multi-year pain for corporate stakeholders. Unlike, say, a hundred million people dying, which would probably be forgotten in a quarter or two. Politicians clumsy enough to ding up the money making apparatus get their power taken away. We've seen that already.
IMO the actual Chinese plan appears to be to change very little, and continue to out-build both Taiwan and the US in every category. There is absolutely no need for them to do anything else. The only item of first-class importance left to secure are chips, which will take a number of years.
The actual US plan appears to be to reconfigure things to slow down the Belt-Road scheme. Make deals with countries like Philippines, for example. Maybe rile up the locals in Kyrgyzstan to stop a railroad being built. Basically buying time for a technological breakthrough of some kind, and hope the other guy makes a mistake somewhere.
Good post, thanks!
Did these clowns never read The Afghanistan Papers?
Taiwan has technical skills, a population of 20 million, and would be defending an island. Already, Taiwanese have hollowed out the insides of quartz mountains and emplaced aircraft hangars, with double blast doors, etc.
On the other hand, "In 2019, Taiwan spent 1.7% of its gross domestic product on its military."
By way of comparison, in early years Israel spent up to 30% of GDP on military (some say more).
Should the US come to the defense of a nation that spends 1.7% of GDP on its military?
In any event, perhaps Taiwan, Australia, S Korea, Japan, Thailand, Philippines and maybe even India and Vietnam should form a defense pact, and build or buy many "silent" hunter-killer and ballistic submarines. I mean like several hundred total.
Commercial shippers tend to go to port or anchor immediately at the first sign of trouble. China would get choked pretty quickly, commercially speaking, if hostilities broke out.
China's surface naval fleet would be very vulnerable. Beijing could bomb Taiwan by missile or air, but risk getting bombed back.
Might be a good situation for the US to get uninvolved. The US might prove a paper tiger, and provide a false sense of security.