Why is the Empire, that is us, in Central Asia?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well sometimes looking at a map can be instructive. Yes it is about oil, but it is much more than just oil. Take a look at the Silk Road...



And for those who believe that ocean transport has taken over, well it has not. Oceans are critical for the outlying ares of continents, but for in-continent transport...well the Silk Road is STILL in use. In many ways wars in central asia have been about this for centuries. It does not matter if this is the US today, the USSR when they took the hook laid by Brzezinski (no relations) and others...the UK during the Empire...or Alexander the Great.

This is not a classic resource war... it is about trade, control and who controls what.

Oh and take a good look at that map. Some of the supply routes to Kabul are there as well. They haven't changed...

Oh and an Empire will do what an Empire needs to do... and also look at the road... you see China is at a terminus for part of it, and so is India. Who are the two upcoming powers? You guessed it. The other is Russia, which is increasingly in play again.

Now this is why we are involved...and understanding one of the chief reasons for us being there does not mean I agree with this. Sheer insanity to be honest, but that is a whole different discussion.

[ret5hd]

1. First we need to figure out who put those crazy crop circles everywhere!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I liked that map

to be honest, classic antique style.

:-)

[didact]

6. LMAO

[Subdivisions]

3. I've been looking at this myself for awhile. I am most interested in seeing

how Baluchistan and the Port of Gwadar will end up playing into this as this war for resources continues to develop.

[librechik]

4. because the Rebel Alliance must be stopped, no matter the cost.

otherwise the Death Star will serve no purpose, and it will be revealed we use it only to stuff our pocketbooks.

Did I say that out loud?

---Darth Cheney

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. There is some truth to that too

as mucb as you are joking... but there is.

Conquest and supression of the other is in many ways what the Empire is all about... does not matter if this is the fictional Empire of Star Wars, or insert Empire here from history.

[XemaSab]

21. (Insert Empire Here)

Being Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, the Muslims, the British, the Soviets... and I am probably leaving out a few. :P

[mix]

5. The US is in Central Asia, because there is no Silk Road anymore.

If it did continue to exist, we would not have to use our military to acquire and secure resources on the other side of the world. We would simply trade for them. Political instability across central and western Asia has forced the US and its allies to seek alternative routes, mainly those that get resources to the sea where they can pass on to global markets.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Once again, it has been stable and UNSTABLE

over the centuries... it does not matter if this is Alexander the Great, or the Great Khans, or the Red Army or the US Army. It is there. It is geography, and trade is not better than outright control.

It is GEOGRAPHY...and the NORTHERN routes go through pretty politically stable, if cold, terrain. So that logic does not work.

[mix]

9. I would very much like to see evidence of this modern "Silk Road." nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Five seconds of the Google

The world's two most liquid economies are creating a new commercial bloc that is rebalancing the global economy. With much of the world teetering on the brink of recession, China and the Middle East continue to expand and converge at a brisk pace.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/137475

http://currents.ucsc.edu/06-07/10-09/china.asp

http://www.eu2009.cz/en/news-and-documents/press-releases/topolanek:-southern-corridor-to-become-a-modern-silk-road-21597/

There is more if you are truly curious.

[mix]

15. You are confusing an historical phenomenon with an historical metaphor.

The new "Silk Road" is simply a description of ongoing trade, all of which is maritime or electronic, between China and Europe. Journalists and academics use this metaphor, knowing that the Silk Road itself no longer exists as a continuous overland route from Asia to the Mediterranean.

Your use of the Silk Road metaphor romantically obscures the violence at the heart of US policy. And it's not historically accurate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Third article is a PHYSICAL LAND ROUTE

through the NORTHERN region through the Stans.... read it again.

Or never mind... why bother?

[FiveGoodMen]

10. "trade is not better than outright control"

I don't know about that.

Trade is a lot easier to maintain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Not for Empires

And we are dealing witn the logic of Empire, not the logic of an equal partner. We became one, officially, in 1945.

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Empires overextend themselves and collapse

The logic of empire is eventually killed off by the economics and logistics of empire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Of course but the ones who lead them

innevitably, believe they can defy history.

The US is on the way down. Read Gibon's rise and fall...it feels like modern headlines. We include now the use of Mercs...

And the Empires to come, both China and India, and on a lower scale perhaps Brazil, as a regional power.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Far as I can tell, we're not really disagreeing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. No, we are not, just adding to the points

:hi:

[XemaSab]

22. It seems from my cursory look at the history of the region

that empires in Central Asia are like the tide. Either it's in, or it's out. Either the British control the area, or the Russians do. And so forth. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. All the way back to Alexander, indeed.

[Odin2005]

26. It's interesting how geograghy affects history.

Especially how a seemingly desolate area in the middle of a huge continent can be so interesting historically.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. kick

[Odin2005]

20. The pattern on the map makes my eyes go loopy!

Great post.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I am sorry, I actually thought the map was cool

:hi:

[Odin2005]

25. LOL!

:hi: