Walt, no correction of your slander of the NYTimes and WaPo? You accused them of not covering the Gaza march, but clearly they both had at the time you made your first post on it. The WaPo had published multiple stories on it, the first of which being three days before you accused them of not covering it at all.

As usual, great post!! This blog has been a wonderful contribution for me this year. Thanks! Wish you and your family a happy new year.

One additional important 'reason' al-Qaeda had for its terror is the 10+ years of sanctions which the US (and Britain) imposed on Iraq, sanctions which affected not its dictator but its civilian populace–being the cause for between half to one million children dying (let alone the adult victims) because of vital resources and medicines being withheld as documented by the UN and other agencies. Madeleine Albright's infamous statement on CNN, "yes it was worth" all those innocent lives, made that issue very clear.

This story, on it's face, seems to confirm Walt's view that we should leave Afghanistan, as not only are we wasting money on the war, but now China is taking over the biggest copper mine there (I guess Walt's view is that we should just take the copper and not let the Afghans control their own natural resources? No more war for copper!!). If you do a modicum of research on copper, however, this a complete non-story.

The article states that the Chinese will mine 11 million tonnes of copper in the next 25 years from the mine. 11 million tons sounds a big number unless you do a little research and learn the Chile mines 5 million tons in a single year.
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Chile-copper-production-soars-by-98-23455-3-1.html

This is like someone discovery 200 million barrels of oil in Texas. It sounds like a lot of oil, but that amount will last the US 10 days. In other words, the amount of copper in the mine is minuscule compared to the amount of copper produced world wide.

Now you might say it gives China control over an important resource and, therefore, a leg up on the US in controlling a scarce natural resource. That is, until you do a little more research that the US is the third largest copper producer in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_mining_in_the_United_States

The US should be more worried Obama's policy of "benign neglect" in Latin America. http://www.tnr.com/article/world/adios-monroe-doctrine?page=0,2.

Neglect which is enabling China to fill the power vacuum and begin to take over copper mining in Peru, second largest copper producer in the world.
http://www.chinamining.org/News/2009-03-30/1238391394d23067.html

I am glad you raised this issue. Actually, I wonder if we might be able to find broader implications of China’s methods if we look deeper.

I just sent a message to Antonio Giustozzi about one of his recent articles. Since I am too lazy to redo another message, I hope that Dr. Giutozzi does not mind that I copy and paste it here.

My point is that whether or not anyone cares about building the Afghan Military, that project might be a worthwhile case study.

*******

I read your “The Afghan National Army: Unwarranted Hope?” http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4B28EE82D7814/
Reading it prompted me to think about a few issues.

First, I wonder if organizing an Army does not deal with the same issues as organizing any other large national institution.

Second, do the Taliban and their allies have the same problems?

While comparing both side’s approaches to organizing an army, would we conclude that a more appropriate model would be to replicate many aspects of China’s Army and even in many ways the Pakistani army?

After reading your article, and pondering the issues that you describe, here is what I am thinking. Since my way of thinking about Afghanistan most often fits with your approaches in your articles, I wonder what you think about my thoughts.

With Afghanistan’s political culture of factional patronage political organization, the core task of national and regional leaders is to control the hubs or centers of personal patronage networks. For example, the Taliban and their allies control the patronage centers of the drug trade which produces a majority of the economy. The other major source of economic wealth is the portion of American military aid that goes to warlords. Both of those sources of patronage building wealth are outside the government’s control and both create substantial support to patronage networks out of any government control. Thus, the central government is left with very few resources that enable them to control centers of patronage networks and the personal loyalties that develop over time within those patronage networks.

Without control of the patronage and other qawm networks, the government will implode and lose the conflict.

Thus, I wonder if the dysfunctional army is a symptom of a major problem and not a core problem.

In contrast, China has organized their military as a quasi feudal system with regional commanders not only commanding their army, but also owning and controlling all of the manufacturing and other sources of commerce. Thus, if anyone wants to make a living, they had better be loyal to the regional commander.

In addition, their foreign relations are often extensions of their quasi private military/industrial/business patronage feudal style organizations. They have operated that way for decades with Hong Kong and Taiwan business patrons. Now, they are probably doing the same thing with Pakistani military officers that own about 22 billion dollars of business in Pakistan. China is starting the same sort of thing in Afghanistan. Their ability to take control of the copper mines is likely an example of their methods. Moreover, they are probably following the same approach throughout Central Asia where they are busily consolidating their influence.

In addition, China’s ability to suppress and control insurgency attempts near their border with Afghanistan and Pakistan is probably a result of using a strong patronage system in that region to develop loyalties and to gain participation by local groups. Brantly Womack at UVA explains in his 1987 paper in World Politics (vol. 39; 479-507) how China maintains a “quasi-democratic system” that is authoritarian system that is constrained by the need to be responsive to popular interests and demands. All of that has built nationalistic loyalties that overwhelmed the insurgents and isolated them to the extent that China quickly identifies their enemies and defeat them.

Dr. Dr. Martin I. Wayne talks about this very issue in an Asian Times article. He suggests that we take a good look at how China’s brutality failed to suppress their insurgency, but recruiting more and better participation enabled them to become more effective and actually build national loyalties. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IB27Ad01.html

Thanks---Bob Spencer

While US is appreciating Chinese investments in Afghanistan, US is uneasy about far bigger Indian investments in same Afghanistan.

As General McChrystal reported in his August, 2009 assessment to the President:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

But American governmental as well as news media apologists for Pakistani governments excuse Pakistan for sheltering, supporting and protecting these Afghan Taliban groups on the ground that poor Pakistani governments have been and are doing so to counterbalance so-called increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan!

So for these American governmental and news media apologists of Pakistan’s democratic as well as military governments, death of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan at the hands of Pakistan-supported Afghan Taliban groups is understandable even if painful!

The most ironic and sheer hypocritical part of this continuing US tragedy in Afghanistan at the hands of Pakistan-supported Afghan Taliban groups is that these same American governmental and news media officials continuously point to dangers of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists if Pakistan-supported Afghan Taliban groups win their terror campaign!

No wonder Obama’s billions are going to go down the drain same way that Bush’s billions did in that ‘terror center of the world’ called Pakistan.

While I liked the post I think the title should have had a question mark.

Making the world safe for (Chinese) investment?

The text seems to be asking the question ‘Is/has the US foreign policy default setting of sending in the troops to make them do it our way’ made the world safer for the Chinese, or anyone else. There seems to be scant evidence it is safer for Americans, either at home or abroad. In the countries that have been blessed by US help Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and Pakistan are they all now safer for US companies and tourists? After bombing the known AQ bases in Afghanistan post 9/11 had the money spent on our military intervention been used for virtually any other purpose would we be safer or worse off? Personally I think if we had built a school and burnt the cash in a boiler to keep the kids warm in winter the world would be a safer place than it is now. A destabilised Afghanistan is one thing but a destabilised Pakistan is a problem of an entirely different order, and one of our own making. We are wandering the globe converting populations from those that did not like us very much into ones that hate us with gay abandon and seem to be oblivious to the fact we are breeding terrorist much faster than we are killing them.

ARVAY I agree we are beyond a two state solution. The Israelis are never going to give up enough good agricultural land and water voluntarily. They might negotiate if the US stopped arming them, subsiding them and giving them political cover when the go on a killing spree but that also seems highly unlikely. One secular state with a truth and reconciliation commission along the SA post apartheid model but while Israel is being protected there can be no change.

These issues may be the case but it seems as if everyone who writes about the terrorists leaves out the most important aspect. Bin Laden himself stated that was declaring a holy war against the United States and anyone who does not worship their god. People tend to always leave that out and ignore what he himself said. casino online