Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

WHY DID BIDEN WITHDRAW FROM AFGHANISTAN?

By Keith Preston
I lean toward the view that Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan has something to do with US-China relations. It appears that the US is ceding Afghanistan to the Chinese orbit. But the question is why? Joe Biden is a career-long operative for the banking establishment (he represented Delaware in Congress, where a lot of shady banking interests are headquartered) and he is also a career-long Kissinger acolyte. The banking establishment represents the upper level of the US power elite and is a primary component of the global power elite. Kissinger likewise represents the geopolitical interests of the highest levels of the US power elite, who have long been advocates of greater integration of China into the American-led international system. Kissinger was the US diplomat who forged the original post-1949 US-China alliance in the 1970s, and Kissinger is part of the same Rockefeller-connected interests that have always favored Chinese integration.
The US ruling class is internally stratified in the same way that the wider society is stratified, and there is also stratification among the global power elite. The “conservative media” (FOX and other similar outlets) are merely the mouthpiece of the right-wing of the ruling class, that cares only about merchant class interests and keeping the loot coming for the military-industrial complex. The “liberal media” (most mainstream media) represents the left-wing of the ruling class (the “Brahmins” identified in Thomas Picketty’s recent study of the social and economic sectors that dominate Western political parties): newer and more high tech industries, the “newly rich” from outside the traditional elite, the “bourgeois bohemians” identified by David Brooks, etc. The “professional-managerial class” (what Joel Kotkin identifies as the “new clerisy” that functions as the arbiters of cultural and moral values) includes most journalists and media personalities, and this sector is the primary constituency from the Brahmin elites.
A lot of “conservative” merchant class/military elites are only concerned about keeping the grift coming when it comes to Afghanistan. And some of them are actually stupid enough to believe “what have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” And a lot of professional-managerial class/”new clerisy” types are stupid enough to believe the Afghan war is really about the “rights of women and girls.” But since Biden has been in office, it seems the civilian diplomatic corps has been making an effort to assert the upper hand over the military in terms of foreign policy decision-making, which is likely a manifestation of the wider conflict between the Brahmin sectors and the merchant/military sectors. While right-wing Sinophobes are fond of referring to Biden as “Beijing Biden” so far his administration has continued the comparatively hawkish approach of the Trump administration when it comes to trade with China, which is indicative of a wider ruling class consensus that China is getting “too big for its britches” when it comes to trade, and they’re worried about China pulling out the rug from underneath the US in terms of global trade relations. China is now a bigger trading partner for a greater number of countries than the US (All of this is relative of course, as US-China trade relations still thrive big picture-wise).
At the same time, Kissinger has been calling for more conciliatory US-China relations. It seems that ceding Afghanistan to China is a conciliatory move, but what does the US expect in return? A reduction in Chinese cyber theft from US companies? A Chinese trade pullback in regions of Africa, Latin America, or Southeast Asia? Opening Chinese domestic markets to greater imports from the US? China’s laying off of Xinjiang, Taiwan, or Hong Kong? Cooperation against Russia, or building US-Turkish-Chinese relations in opposition to Russia? The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Kissinger-connected “national security” think tank, has argued in favor of trying to drive a greater wedge between Russia and China in order to weaken the BRICS. Something is obviously up, even if it is not immediately clear what it is.
Maybe the rationale for the withdrawal was simply, “What are we going to do with Afghanistan? Let’s just stick the Chinese with them!” It may also be that ceding Afghanistan to the Chinese orbit is intended as a slap in the face to Russia, which famously has its own interest in Afghanistan, perhaps as a means of weakening the BRICS.  And the US will probably still get a cut of whatever China does in Afghanistan as well. Big Pharma will still have its hands in the opium trade, for instance. US capitalists will still make money off of Afghanistan, only indirectly through their holdings in China.

4 replies »

    • The grift was going quite well which is why the military-industrial complex wing of the ruling class didn’t want to end it. Some bigger geopolitical consideration is obviously involved. The overlords of the empire may be hoping that China will be able to keep the Taliban under control using the same methods they’re using in Xianjiang.

  1. Wall Street vs. the Pentagon over the “Artificial Intelligence Arms Race.”

    Wall Street wants to integrate China into the global system, the Pentagon wants to keep its military advantage. With the coming robot wars, AI is going to be key.

    https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/08/reports/the-real-reason-why-blackstone-is-courting-the-pentagon/

    > It seems that ceding Afghanistan to China is a conciliatory move, but what does the US expect in return?

    China changed its Constitution recently to allow foreign ownership of financial companies, and Larry Fink’s BlackRock, who under Covid has taken on functions once reserved for the Federal Reserve, is moving into China in a big way.

    > The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Kissinger-connected “national security” think tank, has argued in favor of trying to drive a greater wedge between Russia and China in order to weaken the BRICS.

    That would be the smart move, but the elites are too divided to make it work. The Democratic party hate Russia with a passion, because their Jewish elites have always hated the Slavic peasants they once ruled over. It is pure racial animosity, you can see it from Trotsky and even Sacha Baron Cohen’s – “Borat’s” – racial hate films.

    The Democrats did “Russiagate” to prevent Trump from dialing back the hostility to Russia, in the same way the Republicans did the “Secret Muslim Birth Certificate” thing to Obama to prevent Obama from dialing down hostilities with Iran and the Muslim world generally.

    I’d disagree with your analysis of FOX and the rest of the media splitting along “right-wing” and “left-wing” lines. Those are merely meant to obscure the racial realities at play. FOX is a white channel, which is why they hire all the pretty blonde haired blule eyed babes, so white boomers will watch.

    The rest of the media is for The Diversity – which includes plenty of white people – the “New Americans” replacing the real Americans, the actual founding population.

    One look at the history of FOX shows quite clearly it is meant to push Zionist – and Jewish – interests to whites. When Glenn Beck turned against the neo-cons wars and started promoting Cleon Skousen Bircher narratives, he was accused of – what else? – “anti-semitic conspiracy theories” so his show, FOX’s top rated day time at the time, was canceled.

    What is interesting is that Tucker Carlson was able to take multiple open shots at the ADL and survived, which to me shows a serious and growing rift among elites and Jewish elites specifically.

    Also, Joel Kotkin is unbelievable disingenuous, he’s just another neo-con Straussian. The entire Claremont Institute is just rebranded neo-conservatism.

    > And a lot of professional-managerial class/”new clerisy” types are stupid enough to believe the Afghan war is really about the “rights of women and girls.”

    I don’t think so. Wikileaks has a CIA paper from 2010 saying they were going to use “women and girls” to justify another decade in Afghanistan – that is where all of the rhetoric come from. No one “really believes” it, except for maybe Marie Harf – but did she even really believe it?

    There really seems to be a taboo about assuming bad faith on the part of individuals. Think Patrick Bateman in American Psycho talking about women’s rights and feeding the poor. Did he “mean it?” No, of course not, he was a sociopath mouthing platitudes because that was what was expected of him. Our system selects for sociopathy, and even non sociopaths will mouth the platitudes they are expected to without really meaning it.

    Right-wing con artists like Joel Kotkin and the Claremont Institute are always pushing this “soft-hearted liberals at State vs. manly hard-headed military men at the Pentagon.” They do this because they are just Straussian neo-cons and are desperately trying to keep the white population from going “America First” again, like the did before World War I, and even more famously, before World War II with Charles Lindberg. If Americans won’t support imperialist wars, these days entirely for Israel, that is “fascism” and “Nazism.” Just read the hate screeds these people write, like Philip Roth’s Attack On America. They absolutely believe that the “goyim” – Americans – are all secretly fascist nazi hitlers .

    All analyses suffer if they avoids taboo subjects. There is no taboo in discussing the “Military Industrial Complex.” There is no taboo in criticizing “Woke Silicon Valley Cancel Culture.” There is no taboo to discussing “the liberal media.” There is no taboo in a critique of the “professional managerial class.”

    The strongest taboos in contemporary America: first, anything to do with biology, specifically, racial and sexual reality. Second, anything to do with Jewish power. On the left, you can criticize Likudnik Israel, a bit – just ask Cornel West what happens when you do that too much at an elite college run by Jews – but you cannot ever, ever, point to massive Jewish overrepresentation in various power centers, and their off-the-charts ethnocentrism and nepotism.

    And especially you can never mention their extreme racist hostility to “the goyim,” expressed in various ways. The hatred by the Left of “deplorables” and “fly over country” is rooted in Jewish hostility – the same fanatica racist hatred Jews felt to the Slavic peasants they ruled over in Easter Europe.

    One hundred years ago, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite surely thought of themselves as superior to the working class, but they did not hate them with the heat of a thousand suns. They instead acted paternally and had a sense of noblesse oblige.

    Only when Jews came to replace that WASP ruling class did we see the genocidal hatred for the white working class and an openly expressed desire to genocide them if they can’t replace them fast enough. The hatred is openly expressed by Jews throughout academia, media, Wall Street, government, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and everywhere else. The non-Jews mimic this hatred for the same reason any class mimics the beliefs they are supposed to have. Hence, any time a “class first leftist” doesn’t hate the white working class enough, they are “red brown alliance, thus, fascism creeping.”

    It’s openly expressed – but everyone is terrified to ever point it out, precisely because they have power.

Leave a Reply