The "Great Game," as Kipling described it, was intended to keep the Russians from getting a warm water port to the south, say, the Indian Ocean. What Great Britain wanted was to protect India, the grand prize of the British Empire.
American activities in the Middle East are directed towards preserving our access to oil, which we unfortunately have allowed ourselves to become dependent on. Your assertion that we wish to "redraw the map" is interesting, because it is contrary to my understanding. We do not have, as far as I can tell, any desire to have an empire in Asia. If we do, it's pretty damn secret - I don't claim to have access to secrets, but I know a lot about politics. Further, I doubt very much that we are collaborating with, or furthering the goals of the British here - they seem to have given up on Empire completely.
The British found that that they could not conquer the Afghanistani. We decided to turn quality that to our advantage and armed them against the Russians. Another example of the doctrine of unintended consequences.
If there is any unexpressed US policy goal in the Middle East, I suspect that many Christians want to keep Jerusalem and the rest of their Holy Land out of the control of Islam. If push ever comes to shove between our support for Israel and our need for oil, I have no idea how that would play out. As far as I am concerned, I have no sentimental or spiritual attachment to rocks or dirt. Ideas are in the mind.
>>China is actually not very afraid, and in fact democratic, more so than the US and Russia, about the ownership of nuclear bombs know-how, because it knows a more democratically balanced world is a safer world.<<
I wonder whether you are joking or serious? Doesn't matter, I suppose. It's not about democracy, really, is it? If Islamic Jihad blows up the US, we won't be around to buy all those things stamped "Made in China," but we won't be around to interfere, either.
Well and good. We know where we stand. So don't complain about the Serbian embassy, ok?;^) |
