# Why the Drawdown in Afghanistan might make sense



## 54/102 CEF (4 Sep 2010)

See http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2009/08/power-china-world-japan-poland

I`ve come to similar conclusions long before I read this - eg USA is
where it is because of what it captured - a string of military
outposts around the world that have been transformed into bases to
influence economic integration

Canadians supported USA and UK and  the NATO era pre 1989 but physically went home in 1945 or deployed from a 1945 base (early Bosnia) We`re now back to the 1945 long way to go

Harper`s ideas of develope the North make a lot of sense - if you
don`t - someone else will sooner or later

And that also tends to explain (capturing land and bases) why Harper and Obama can say
farewell Afghanistan because there are bigger players than us already
there.


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Sep 2010)

Canada had thousands of soldiers posted to Germany until not that long ago, unless we get a guarantee that we won't be deploying anywhere else in large numbers I can't see us being stationed anywhere else permanently because it's everything we can do to man our tasking bricks now.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Sep 2010)

Bit of a strange article, and I am failing to see the linkages to today's Afghan drawdown.

So, according to the article, US policy is to make sure that the world is destablilized to prevent a challenger?  The US didn't go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq to do that.

His assertion that the "invisible hand" of economics is based on Macheavelli is curious.

What is even stranger to me is the author's belief that US policy makers follow these geopolitical imperatives that the author has identified without being concious of them.

Now, Britian did pursue a policy of preventing a European hegemon emerging.  This was an open policy, and I have not seen any similar policy behaviour in the US today in its world view.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2010)

Friedman seems, to me, to be locked into the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) 'world view' which *did* advocate preventing the rise of any 'challengers.' It appears to me that both Kristol and Kagan, who co-founded PNAC, have 'evolved' but some, like Friedman, have not.

I have no difficulty in restraining my enthusiasm for Friedman's analyses.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Sep 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Friedman seems, to me, to be locked into the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) 'world view' which *did* advocate preventing the rise of any 'challengers.' It appears to me that both Kristol and Kagan, who co-founded PNAC, have 'evolved' but some, like Friedman, have not.
> 
> I have no difficulty in restraining my enthusiasm for Friedman's analyses.



I guess we are in the same camp!

While I am not terribly concerned about China suddenly taking over the world, I did find it odd that he builds a case for it being a landlocked island, which for him means that it is proteced but isolated with external access only by the sea.  What the heck is a landlocked island?  In any case, the USA is reliant on the sea for outside access.  So is/was Britain when she was a imperial power.  Both seem to have been able to project their power.  I think that China is isolated/constrained culturally - not geographically.  That may change over time, but that very change may curtail what they have based their power on (cheap labour).

I think that he is too wrapped up in "geopolitics" as a "game."  While it is fun to refer to "the Great Game", and states do indeed have policy imperatives, I don't think that the rules are quite as fixed as he thinks they are.


----------

