The British actually got their war goals despite losing most of the time. That's why the Pashtun are divided by a line the British made. The Soviets managed to create a state that outlasted them, stopping the equivalent mujahideen attack in its tracks[0]. That state only fell when the USSR itself fell. The US failure is exceptional in the amount of resources cost, the quickness of collapse, and in failure to reach objectives.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%9...

> Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics.

I recommend checking out this thread, as the whole Afghanistan = Graveyard of empires meme only applies to quite recent history.

https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166...

Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose?

(I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)

Because of this:

"Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say."

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh...

The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.

> freedom and democracy

Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?

Not about that one but I heard one that I found relevant: How can the US promote Democracy abroad if it can’t even protect it at Home?

I don't think there were designs on Afghanistan, but these strategies usually work like chess, where having an opposing piece in one place constrains actions in another. Afghanistan is next to Xinjiang, where some subversive actions were demonstrated, so China ended up having to pay a lot of attention to the western front and therefore had less strategic flexibility in the near Pacific where her main interests lie.

Having said that, it didn't work at all. China patiently used those 20 years to develop its economy and infrastructure, locked down Xinjiang against subversion, set up Belt and Road, and gained strategic tempo in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait while the US got much too carried away in Central Asia.

Potentially with the belt and road initiative, which may now even expand into Afghanistan with the US redrawal.

China would be happy if US stayed and maintained stability in the region, so US didn't lose, they created a problem for China. The military industry made a lot of money, Afghanistan has been the training ground for terrorists attack in Pakistan (recently a bus bomb against Chinese), and Xinjiang. Let's see how Taliban manage the country. If Afghanistan become stable, then US might not be very happy about it.

Here is a quick review of the geopolitics: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afgha...

Unchallenged access to the west

> Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose?

To humiliate America

Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.

> multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?

That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years?

Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.

Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering.

On the other hand, it seems a lot of Afghan soldiers deserted to the other side. They see no upside to the new Afghan regime.

Americans love to say this:

"China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering."

But, really, China is pretty peaceful compared to US thuggery. I prefer China. At least they are rational.

>>That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years?

Yeah it's one of those unspoken "national interests" that underlies how the US plays The Great Game, but rarely states explicitly.

>>>Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.

If we are lucky, that will be the outcome. If the Chinese find a way to balance transit routes and natural resource extraction without somehow pissing a conservative Muslim population (while they are simultaneously oppressing Muslims in their home territory)....that could turn into a problem. If they build out links to Iran, it will not only throw a lifeline to that economically-struggling adversary, it will help China pivot away from reliance on maritime lines of communication. That maritime reliance is key to the US's strategy of threatening economic strangulation of Chinese coastal industry in the event of a conflict.

>>>Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

Via their shared border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord...

Via China's ally Pakistan, the same routes most of US military logistics took into Afghanistan for the first decade?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afgha...

China won't fight a war in Afghanistan, but it'll be a lot easier for them to get there than the US.

The media narrative is only the cover story for the plebs and democracy/terrorism have been great ones over the years. US military actions around the world, especially decades long ones, tend to be strategic in nature. Although as some point out above, even that might be a cover story for Congress, and the real motive is private profit.

Your blurb further clarifies not just our deep incompetence but also our extraordinary arrogance. Even though there is a history of nations failing in Afghanistan we somehow thought we will succeed. This is nothing but a power and money grab by our politicians and defense contractors.

Certainly, Afghanistan was for the containment of China/Russia and Iraq was for the containment of Iran/Russia. Still, were those really successes?

>>>Still, were those really successes?

Probably not. There's definitely something we are doing wrong. Personally I look at the Russian intervention in Syria as a model for "hybrid warfare done -r-i-g-h-t- well enough". I think they manage to prop up client states, accomplish strategic objectives, and do it all without completely breaking the bank.