Remove ads

The Jade Revolution - China 2001

Reader mode
[X] for Chi Haotian. He's slightly shocked you agree with his plan to join the Americans in Afghanistan but that barely slows him down, and with almost the entire cabinet unified against him, surely the President will relent?

We have just suffered the worst terrorist attack in human history at this point, we have to go to war. At the end of the day, what other option do we have that isn't political suicide?
 
Dirtnap said:
Sure the topography is challenging, but so is China's. Lots of mountains and jungles and everything else in the country. I have enough faith in the construction/engineer companies to be able to make roads through the mountains. Most of the population is also in the valleys so that won't be that difficult, to link them all up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, we can build infrastructure between population centers but if we want to beat the inevitable insurgency, we need to deal with the rural areas as well. The Hindu Kush is a pretty big obstacle when it comes to that.
Dirtnap said:
2. kind of ties into 1. Work on the corruption and graft, especially within their military. Once the people can be more assured that they aren't going to be randomly murdered by their own military/polic turning colors, the law and order will come. We will really have to push for economic assistance to the rural areas of Afghanistan, because they work the opium fields and we want them to not do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regarding the corruption: Easier said than done. I doubt we can do anything that's truly effective because it's rooted in the culture like you said. Genuine change has to come from within. I'm also aware of the explosion in opium production following the invasion. I specifically mentioned it earlier as a problem we'd need to address.
Dirtnap said:
3. all the high tech low drag shit didn't do diddly to actually take ground from AQ and the Taliban, stealth fighters to fight what air force? China has precision munitions and as part of the UN can probably get in on the JDAM project. We don't have to have the high tech air power to fight the Taliban. It takes boots on the ground to do that. MRAPs and Uparmored HumVees took a lot of time to trickle into the country, because they have to be driven in. Can't just offload them at a port which is far faster. Infrared gear will be useful in the mountains up on the goat paths tracking down hideouts. I'm not sure how what we're going to do is any different than what the US did. Plus, we have a lot more bodies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd be willing to bet that whatever problems HumVees had will be multiplied in their Chinese equivalent but I wasn't just talking about military tech. Medical tech will likely also mean that the Chinese army will face a lot more fatalities than the US army.
Dirtnap said:
Also it's not an appeal to authority if I have actual real world experience building shit in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You basically said "Trust me, I'm a soldier" which is text book appeal to authority. Whatever experience you have could be entirely anecdotal. I'm not saying that's the case but the fact that you built stuff in one part of Afghanistan doesn't necessarily make you qualified to comment on the feasibility of constructing modern infrastructure throughout the country.
 
Well firstly there are mountainous countries that have modern infrastructure, Spain and Switzerland are the first two that comes to mind.

Second the road that where meant to connect all of Afghanistans major population centers was the ring road and it wasn't completed. So we don't know if that would have been enough or not.
Vox has a good video on it youtube.com/watch?v=XKVDXbIpW9Q&ab_channel=Vox

Also building up good institutions is vital if the rebuilding of Afghanistan is going to work in the long term.
They need good and efficient tax collection, they will also need a independent and honest judiciary and so on.
Or the country simply won't work.

I don't think that would be impossible but it is going to be extremely hard.
But to be honest I don't really know what the US did in real life to try and create good institutions in Afghanistan so if anyone has some sources on that I would be interested.
 
Last edited:
[X] for the President. It's painful, but can China even afford a way? The government has a responsibility not to overreact, and going to war in Afghanistan, right on the border of your (sometimes) ally and trade partner may well lead to a united front between the two. India isn't the only one with outstanding territorial claims against the government, after all.

Pissing against the tide here, but it needs to be done. First, let us dispense with the emotional arguments. Yes, they hit us and there is a natural desire to want to hit back. However, instinctive reactions do not good policy make. In fact, a key terrorist strategy is inducing the target to overreact. Afghanistan has been a complete mess for the United States in real life. Almost seventeen years after the invasion the Taliban is again ascendant and is currently fighting for control of Afghanistan's seventh largest city.

The pro-war camp is too fast to dismiss the challenges we face. First, simply throwing money at infrastructure projects will not magically heal the nation. The United States has spent massive amounts of money on Afghanistan and look where we are today. For instance, according to a 2016 Washington Post article, I found the US spent $3 billion on roads but 85% were not properly maintained. Second, the entrenched culture of corruption has no easy fix. I don't know of any easy way for an invading foreign power to impose cultural change without excessive violence. Third, as long as the militants have bases in Pakistan we will never be able to truly defeat them. They will always have a place to recover, rearm and train new recruits. To those suggesting that we simply topple the government of Pakistan, I suggest you think of the implications of what you are suggesting. We would simply be creating a whole second insurgency against the puppet regime, assuming that the regime change operation was even successful. Furthermore, Afghanistan cannot replace Pakistan as an ally. Pakistan has a population of 193 million, Afganistan 35. Pakistan a GDP 283 billion, Afghanistan 19 (and that is only after heavy investment). Most importantly only Pakistan has the military and nuclear program to counterbalance India.

Edit: I would prefer we abstain due to the political issues involved, but that is predicated on the assumption that if we abstain there will be no war.
 
Whumbly said:
Not entirely, we know where some of their camps in Pakistan are, we know there's likely sympathisers in the government and we know they'll run there because of it. So instead of doing as the US did in Iraq, we do as the US did in Panama in 1941, replace the leader to someone who will join the 'War on Terror' and allow access to Coalition Forces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which might not work well, if this goes per OTL, for obvious reasons.
 
Honestly even with China joining in there is a big risk that this could go absolutely horribly.
Especially if the US invades Iraq, that would draw away US attention resources and talent from Afghanistan
 
PlatypusofFail said:
[X] for the President. It's painful, but can China even afford a way? The government has a responsibility not to overreact, and going to war in Afghanistan, right on the border of your (sometimes) ally and trade partner may well lead to a united front between the two. India isn't the only one with outstanding territorial claims against the government, after all.

Pissing against the tide here, but it needs to be done. First, let us dispense with the emotional arguments. Yes, they hit us and there is a natural desire to want to hit back. However, instinctive reactions do not good policy make. In fact, a key terrorist strategy is inducing the target to overreact. Afghanistan has been a complete mess for the United States in real life. Almost seventeen years after the invasion the Taliban is again ascendant and is currently fighting for control of Afghanistan's seventh largest city.

The pro-war camp is too fast to dismiss the challenges we face. First, simply throwing money at infrastructure projects will not magically heal the nation. The United States has spent massive amounts of money on Afghanistan and look where we are today. For instance, according to a 2016 Washington Post article, I found the US spent $3 billion on roads but 85% were not properly maintained. Second, the entrenched culture of corruption has no easy fix. I don't know of any easy way for an invading foreign power to impose cultural change without excessive violence. Third, as long as the militants have bases in Pakistan we will never be able to truly defeat them. They will always have a place to recover, rearm and train new recruits. To those suggesting that we simply topple the government of Pakistan, I suggest you think of the implications of what you are suggesting. We would simply be creating a whole second insurgency against the puppet regime, assuming that the regime change operation was even successful. Furthermore, Afghanistan cannot replace Pakistan as an ally. Pakistan has a population of 193 million, Afganistan 35. Pakistan a GDP 283 billion, Afghanistan 19 (and that is only after heavy investment). Most importantly only Pakistan has the military and nuclear program to counterbalance India.

Edit: I would prefer we abstain due to the political issues involved, but that is predicated on the assumption that if we abstain there will be no war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Those are all very good points, and there's only one reason why I'd disagree with you there (being the emotional component). There's a reason beyond merely putting down the terrorists. We have an in right now with the United States that cannot be bought. And the US is to Pakistan what Pakistan is to Afghanistan. I think the choice comes down to realpolitik more than anything else. We in MOFCOM will almost certainly be better off if we've made stronger ties with the United States, and honestly the vast majority of the peoples of China will be as well.

However, I do think I'd come over to the President's side if we could guarantee some way to show true solidarity with the United States. The easiest way to accomplish this is the vote we're having right now, but if we knew for a fact that we could provide logistical assistance to the US through Western China into Afghanistan, then I would go with that. But at the end of the day, we're MOFCOM, and that may not be in our hands.
 
[X] for Chi Haotian. He's slightly shocked you agree with his plan to join the Americans in Afghanistan but that barely slows him down, and with almost the entire cabinet unified against him, surely the President will relent?
 
Artemis said:
Those are all very good points, and there's only one reason why I'd disagree with you there (being the emotional component). There's a reason beyond merely putting down the terrorists. We have an in right now with the United States that cannot be bought. And the US is to Pakistan what Pakistan is to Afghanistan. I think the choice comes down to realpolitik more than anything else. We in MOFCOM will almost certainly be better off if we've made stronger ties with the United States, and honestly the vast majority of the peoples of China will be as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Currying favor with the US is generally a good idea. However, this argument has two flaws. First is a simple cost/benefit issue. A war in Afghanistan is going to be extraordinarily expensive both financial and inevitably politically when it drags on. According to a year old article the US has spent $1.07 trillion on Afghanistan. We cannot afford that kind of financial drain during this critical growth period. Moreover, neither the government nor our party is particularly entrenched and the political backlash could really screw us over down the road. I don't believe that currying favor with the US is worth all of the costs. Thus, I must question your assertion that an invasion would make "the vast majority of the peoples of China" better off.

Secondly, I am not convinced that cooperating on an invasion will actually lead to better relations with the US, especially in the long run. Remember, all of NATO joined the US in Afghanistan. That hasn't stopped the rise of anti-NATO rhetoric in the US. There will probably an immediate surge of positive feelings, but that won't last. As the war drags on that will fade and we will be left with only the mounting costs.

I think we should take a page out of real-life China's playbook. Free-ride on US security commitments to invest in resource extraction operations. We can even sell it as "contributing to nation building via economic development".
 
[X] for the President. It's painful, but can China even afford a way? The government has a responsibility not to overreact, and going to war in Afghanistan, right on the border of your (sometimes) ally and trade partner may well lead to a united front between the two. India isn't the only one with outstanding territorial claims against the government, after all.

Once this turns into a clusterfuck, atleast we can point out that we opposed it.
 
PlatypusofFail said:
Currying favor with the US is generally a good idea. However, this argument has two flaws. First is a simple cost/benefit issue. A war in Afghanistan is going to be extraordinarily expensive both financial and inevitably politically when it drags on. According to a year old article the US has spent $1.07 trillion on Afghanistan. We cannot afford that kind of financial drain during this critical growth period. Moreover, neither the government nor our party is particularly entrenched and the political backlash could really screw us over down the road. I don't believe that currying favor with the US is worth all of the costs. Thus, I must question your assertion that an invasion would make "the vast majority of the peoples of China" better off.

Secondly, I am not convinced that cooperating on an invasion will actually lead to better relations with the US, especially in the long run. Remember, all of NATO joined the US in Afghanistan. That hasn't stopped the rise of anti-NATO rhetoric in the US. There will probably an immediate surge of positive feelings, but that won't last. As the war drags on that will fade and we will be left with only the mounting costs.

I think we should take a page out of real-life China's playbook. Free-ride on US security commitments to invest in resource extraction operations. We can even sell it as "contributing to nation building via economic development".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And I suppose that convinces me. I still believe that there is much to be gained here, but perhaps this really is more in line with the best approach. If we have to choose between going all in and staying out, then:

[X] for the President. It's painful, but can China even afford a way? The government has a responsibility not to overreact, and going to war in Afghanistan, right on the border of your (sometimes) ally and trade partner may well lead to a united front between the two. India isn't the only one with outstanding territorial claims against the government, after all.

My earlier vote has been removed so there aren't duplicates.

Now, having agreed, I still think we use whatever room we have in the next turns to push on assisting the US in other capacities. Hopefully the opportunity comes up.
 
Last edited:
[x] for Chi Haotian. He's slightly shocked you agree with his plan to join the Americans in Afghanistan but that barely slows him down, and with almost the entire cabinet unified against him, surely the President will relent?

I think that joining in the voices asking for war will help us gain more support among the population and it will also give us more influence, or at least more people willing to listen, in how we handle the invasion of Afghanistan and the whole rebuilding the country from the get go.

Edit: Also, I am really enjoying this. I remember reading a bit of it when you first started and it was all quite fascinating. I would probably have joined earlier if it wasn't for my distaste of CK2 type quest. :V
 
Last edited:
[X] for the President. It's painful, but can China even afford a way? The government has a responsibility not to overreact, and going to war in Afghanistan, right on the border of your (sometimes) ally and trade partner may well lead to a united front between the two. India isn't the only one with outstanding territorial claims against the government, after all.
 
I mean, a lot of you are assuming that the broader population are going to know about the arguments within the cabinet, which while not impossible, isn't necessarily likely. Your big boost in popularity came from taking credit for the negotiations, and from the sweeping anti-corruption campaign you attached yourself to. If someone else had won out in the negotiations, or even in cabinet meetings, then they'd be taking credit, not you.
 
[X] for Chi Haotian. He's slightly shocked you agree with his plan to join the Americans in Afghanistan but that barely slows him down, and with almost the entire cabinet unified against him, surely the President will relent?
 
[x] for Chi Haotian. He's slightly shocked you agree with his plan to join the Americans in Afghanistan but that barely slows him down, and with almost the entire cabinet unified against him, surely the President will relent?
Adhoc vote count started by Shebe Zuu on Aug 15, 2018 at 4:32 AM, finished with 52 posts and 24 votes.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by Shebe Zuu on Aug 15, 2018 at 6:40 PM, finished with 53 posts and 25 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] for the President. It's painful, but can China even afford a way? The government has a responsibility not to overreact, and going to war in Afghanistan, right on the border of your (sometimes) ally and trade partner may well lead to a united front between the two. India isn't the only one with outstanding territorial claims against the government, after all.

Mostly because it's too early to go to war. Instead, let us wait for America to court us into joining them. Instead of simply improving relations, let's try and extract some tangible benefits from the whole affair. I cannot imagine them investing in our military tech... but if we pushed hard enough and offered lots of boots on the ground?

We can always excuse any delay by saying we need to first ensure the security of our western province. It's a good excuse because it's true.
 
Last edited:
Okay, vote is closed. I'll see how the response goes, and then the real fun will begin!

Welcome to the War on Terror.
 
14+20 (Hardline Support) + 10 (Moderate Support) + 5 (Some Liberal Support) vs. 12 + 15 (Presidential Support) + 5 (Some Liberal support).

The President relents, and the PLA is mobilised for war with Afghanistan.
 
Man, neither side did a very good job there, but it looks like our faction's support more or less made the difference.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if over half the people reading this don't even know where Winnipeg Manitoba is.

Edit: And I don't just mean "point at it on a map". I mean "name what Country it is part of".
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top