Read on Twitter
Disturbing report from Axios that China has offered to pay for attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Obviously, important that the administration get to the bottom of this and keep our forces as safe as possible in a war zone.
1/ https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1344413597351485441
1/ https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1344413597351485441
2/ But it is important to note that the Axios piece admits that the intelligence is uncorroborated and the reporter has not seen it. So commentators like me who haven't seen the intelligence should be careful about getting over their skis when discussing it.
2b/ "Axios was not able to visually inspect any reports detailing the intelligence. A summary was described by phone by the officials." I really hate leakers, and it is reprehensible and illegal if someone (regardless of position) leaked classified info. STOP IT!
3/ Even assuming this turns out to be "good gouge" (as we say in the Navy), does it really impact how we should approach Afghanistan?
4/ Almost certainly not. We ought to leave or stay because our national interests demand it. Hard to imagine this program, absent evidence that it has substantially increased costs to the US in blood or treasure, would be that key, even on margins, given all other variables.
5/ Also important to know when, if reporting is accurate, the program started. Because Axios notes source says "happened some time after late February when the U.S. struck its deal with the Taliban. He also noted there had not been an American combat death in Afghanistan since."
6/ This would mean that the alleged offers haven't been taken up by locals or haven't paid any returns if goal is to bleed US for other ends or as end in itself.
7/ Now would such a program be surprising in general? Of course not. As John Mearsheimer lays out in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, "bloodletting" is a common strategy states can use to gain relative power. He even notes we did this to the Soviets during the CW - in AFG!
8/ But I'm still skeptical that in this case, potential benefits > potential costs for Chinese unless it is really just trying to cut Gulliver cheaply while he's still tied down overseas.
9/ But returning to question of withdrawal since that's on everyone's mind. Pursuit of the expanded war aims in Afghanistan haven't been worth the costs since well-before this program was hatched. This is why Trump pursued the withdrawal deal and has been drawing down troops.
10/ And if story turns out to be true, it simply means we should continue to withdraw since it doesn't create new strategic reasons to stay longer and has only shown that staying makes our troops targets in same strategic vacuum where there is no compelling justification for....
11/ ...further sacrifices, at hands of TB and other non-state actors in Afghanistan with or without incentives provided by foreign actors (Russian or Chinese).
